Write My Essay Utilitarianism Text

So it's likely that some material in here no longer reflects my current opinions. Utilitarianism, for all the unfortunate connotations of the word which conjures up images of factories, high rise buildings and all things ugly but functional , is an ethical system of great elegance and beauty. It is also a system of great importance: i would guess that the large majority of people in our society are more or less utilitarians, and that they are such without having given the matter a moment's thought. Most proponents of utilitarianism would probably say that it's not only right, but obviously right that those who are not utilitarians are living in the dark ages.

Write My Essay for Me Reviews

Most proponents of utilitarianism would probably say that it's not only right, but obviously right that those who are not utilitarians are living in the dark ages. Many of its opponents consider it a thoroughly evil thing, tending to lead to the erosion of vital moral principles. The issue is a particularly interesting one for the christian: utilitarianism has much in common, in practice, with christian ethics, but little or nothing in common with christian philosophy. This essay will attempt to analyse the idea of utilitarianism which is more complicated, and richer, than it may seem at first glance , and to explain what i think is wrong with it and what i think is right with it.

This essay will attempt to analyse the idea of utilitarianism which is more complicated, and richer, than it may seem at first glance , and to explain what i think is wrong with it and what i think is right with it. At the end, there are some rather disorganised comments about what a really adequate system of ethics would have to look like. Or is it? in any real situation, there are many people involved they will all be affected in different ways there is no reason why the greatest number should receive the greatest good. What is usually meant in practice by that slogan is something like the following procedure for choosing between two or more actions. Look in particular at the level of happiness of each person in the various situations. The thing to notice about this is that it actually involves a lot of quite separate principles.

The thing to notice about this is that it actually involves a lot of quite separate principles. I think it is fair to say that they are all part of the idea of utilitarianism a system of ethics is utilitarian in so far as it accepts some or more of these principles. Someone who accepts some of them but not others may reasonably be called a utilitarian, even if the procedure above would be seen by them as a coarse caricature. In fact, the only aspect of the state of the world which has any direct moral significance is the happiness or misery of people. The only relevance of the state of a family or a society is the effect it has on its individual members. It is possible to measure happiness, in the required sense, on some sort of linear scale. It is possible to add up different people's degrees of happiness, producing a meaningful total happiness.

It is possible to add up different people's degrees of happiness, producing a meaningful total happiness. There is at least one important issue which we haven't addressed so far: we have to consider the entire future of the universe in order to make our decision. I shall consider the practical difficulties of this later there is also a theoretical issue: we are presumably required to compute the total amount of happiness in a person's entire lifetime. I shall refer to different versions of utilitarianism as stronger or weaker according as they accept more or fewer of the principles above.

I shall refer to different versions of utilitarianism as stronger or weaker according as they accept more or fewer of the principles above. Strong utilitarianism , simpliciter, will mean the complete system above in all its glory. Utilitarianism has the awkward property of seeming entirely obvious to its proponents, and clearly wrong to its opponents. If it already seems obvious to you that utilitarianism is right, by all means skip this section. On the other hand, there is a striking level of agreement about what is actually right and wrong, in concrete cases. Of course, there are disagreements anthropologists have turned up some pretty surprising ones. But there is something pretty close to a consensus that in most cases murder, lying, rape and theft are bad, and that in most cases generosity, healing, truthfulness and loyalty are good. One obvious thing that these things have in common is that most of the things near universally agreed to be good are things which make people happy, and most of the things near universally agreed to be bad are things which make people miserable.

One obvious thing that these things have in common is that most of the things near universally agreed to be good are things which make people happy, and most of the things near universally agreed to be bad are things which make people miserable. And in most exceptional cases, there is a clear recognition that they are exceptional cases: excuses are made. Furthermore, the actions usually reckoned to be the worst are often the ones which cause the most suffering. Rape, for instance, which causes lasting psychological trauma as well as involving physical injury, is generally reckoned to be morally much worse than theft. There is also a theoretical justification for at least something rather like utilitarianism. It seems clear to me that, all else being equal, something which makes me happy is better than something which doesn't. After all, that's one way in which i make decisions though, to be sure, i wouldn't in such cases call them moral decisions.

Write My Paper Whimsy

After all, that's one way in which i make decisions though, to be sure, i wouldn't in such cases call them moral decisions. Since it seems plausible that all people are ethically equal, this means that anything which makes anyone happy is all else being equal better than something which does not. I am not writing exclusively for christians, so i'm going to avoid, where possible, arguments that just say christianity says x utilitarianism implies not x so utilitarianism is wrong. However, what i've called strong utilitarianism has a terrible problem: it is grossly inconsistent with ethical intution or, at least, with my ethical intuition in certain cases. For instance, suppose that never mind how all that matters is that it should be conceivable i could, by subjecting my aged grandmother to the most appalling tortures which i shall leave to your imagination, should you happen to have that sort of imagination , relieve a sufficiently large number of people from one minute's toothache. No matter how small the amount of suffering from which each person is thus delivered, and no matter how great the amount i cause to my grandmother, if the number of people is large enough then the total amount of suffering in the world will be decreased by this transaction. For instance, we could model happiness and misery with a modified number system, containing values incommensurable in the sense that no integer multiple of one was as big as the other for mathematicians: in other words, we could work with a non archimedean valuation.

For instance, we could model happiness and misery with a modified number system, containing values incommensurable in the sense that no integer multiple of one was as big as the other for mathematicians: in other words, we could work with a non archimedean valuation. Or we could replace the idea of adding up utilities with some other operation: take the single biggest happiness or misery, and just look at that, or something. Actually, either this second option actually reduces to the first, or else it doesn't work. Alas, there are others, though i wouldn't claim any of them as an actual refutation of weak utilitarianism. I shall take the utilitarian principles i enumerated above, and describe some objections to them. If i kill someone, isn't there something intrinsically bad about that, even if as might be the case the killing turns out to be right in terms of maximising utility? i think most people would agree that a killing of this sort would be at best a necessary evil. Suppose i tell a defamatory lie about you to an acquaintance of mine, who has never had and never will have any sort of interaction with you, and swear him to secrecy.