Utilitarianism holds that what’s ethical (or moral) is whatever maximizes total happiness while minimizing total pain. Then I read a (rather long) article about “Rethinking the ‘Just War’ ” and discovered that it had absolutely nothing to do with saying whether or not a war can be justified, only on how a war should be justified and how this fits in with the individual combatants of the war. For example, I’m pretty sure that everyone who is reading this can agree that genocide is bad thing. Although different varieties of utilitarianism admit different characterizations, the basic idea behind all of them is to in some sense maximize utility, which is often defined in terms of well-being or related concepts. We must not only measure the effect to human beings but also to those non-human beings involve like trees, animals, habitat, and others. I can’t provide a definitive answer to any of these questions, and I challenge anyone reading this to do so. To that, philosopher Peter Singer says, "nonsense." I know your post is on utilitarianism, but I would love to see another post on the ethics of war from another angle. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Finally, when writing about utilitarianism, you must discuss how one would be able to weigh the means against the ends. What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? In the article entitled “ Does the End Justify the Means?” there was this issue about placing a new built dam which can benefit a lot of people in the city but in exchange of that indigenous people living in that area will lose their homes because of the massive destruction cause by making the dam. It isn’t too difficult to say that the sacrifices the Soviet people had to make were not worth simple gains in the economy, however it isn’t that simple. This can have some unsettling implications, which is likely where the opponents of utilitarianism find their reasons for believing that the ends do not justify the means. 2013. Here’s what I find rather ironic. There are many such examples of “ends justify the means” arguments. “It is impossible to measure and compare the pleasure and pain of one culture to another culture”. In other words, actions that might ordinarily be considered wrong are justified when they are done in order to achieve some goal of greater moral importance. I based it from the article I have read entitled “Does the End Justify the Means?”. C)not everyone is committed to doing the right thing. Pingback: What It All Comes Down To « Philosophy 12 - December 10, 2012, Pingback: Looking back on #Philosophy12 | Adventures in a Gifted Classroom - February 10, 2013, Pingback: Looking back on Philosophy 12 | Philosophy 12 - February 22, 2013. “Predict the effect to everyone involve now and future to human and non human beings.”. ( Log Out / Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. So there’s one problem. However, one question that seemed to come up a lot in the article, was “do the ends justify the means”. While reading the article there are 5 things that I came to remember. B)constant change. Teleological ethics (Greek: telos, 'end, purpose' + logos, 'science') is a broader class of views in moral philosophy which consequentialism falls under. The word total is important here: if you act ethically according to utilitarianism, you’re not maximizing yourhappiness, but the total happiness of the whole human race. The following are the strengths of utilitarianism; 1. But we all know that the end does not justify the means. Change ), You are commenting using your Google account. The end justifies the means: an excellent excuse to justify the use of amoral and violent methods in favor of a good and noble goal. Decisions must be based on how we can maximize the pleasure until the future and minimize the pain in the future because there are certain things that we cannot predict especially the future so we must weigh things not just for what we see today. Utilitarianism is the belief that the sole standard of morality is determined by its usefulness or utility. Let us start our introduction to utilitarianism with an example that shows how utilitarians answer the following question, “Can the ends justify the means?” Imagine that Peter is an unemployed poor man in New York. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? [2] Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology, in which rules and … When Do The Ends Justify The Means? The problem with utilitarianism is A)it is a gray area. Utilitarianism can thus be described as a quantitative and red… Although it is difficult to quantify exactly how good or bad something is, it can be generally assumed that stealing a lollipop is not as bad as beating up someone for no reason. I couldn’t agree more in this. I like what you’re getting at, but I think more examples would be beneficial to your post. I and most other people grew up being … And popular arguments against utilitarianism often … Are we really sure that an honest conclusion legitimizes every road taken to reach it, including those that presuppose a great deal of evil? It would really be very impossible to measure and compare the pleasure and pain of two cultures because the happiness they feel is far different from each other. If you were Stalin and had to choose, would you pick how history turned out? This is because it would bring good things for the individual while potentially causing ill to others (but this would be discounted because the individual performing the act may not care). ( Log Out / Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The phrase "the ends justify the means" is commonplace in society today, but it's not always obvious just what it means in terms of moral decision making. Social Class and Utilitarian Moral Judgment." I’m not sure what I would do, neither option is pleasant, but I believe that I would likely let the genocide take place, and then feel terrible about it. A utilitarian would take these (albeit, estimated) quantifications of an act, add up all the benefits of the “end”, subtract all the bad parts of the “means” and if they end up with a positive number, then they would indeed deem the act morally justified. This media resource is available only to members of Institutions that have licensed it. So, in short, yes, the ends do justify the means if the moral gains of the ends are greater than the moral losses by the means. It is a phrase that can encompass two beliefs: (1) that morally wrong actions are sometimes necessary to achieve morally right outcomes, and (2) that actions can only be considered morally right or wrong by virtue of the morality of the outcome. Utilitarianism An action is the right thing to do in certain circumstances if, of all the actions available in those circumstances, it would produce the highest net pleasure. Things are not just right of wrong. Educational Blogs, PrincessEiffel's Blogs, #Reflectionpaper, #REVIEw, Utilitarianism. Or could you do more graduated examples, with the earlier scenarios easier to decide upon. More from: Robb Willer. In general, proponents of teleological ethics argue that the moral value of any act consists in its tendency to produce things of intrinsic value, meaning that an act is right if and only if it, or the rule under which it falls, produces, will probably produce, or is intended to produce, a greater balance of good over evil than any alternative act. So there went half an hour of research. consequentialism alone does not. Millions of Soviets died of simple starvation, and thousands more were persecuted or sent to gulags during the Great Purge that went along with the five year plans. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. This suggests that the means (actions) are not important if the outcome produces the greatest good for the greatest number. 104:490-503. – C.Dior, Note: I have written 5 things that I really wanted to talk about this Topic. Utilitarianism states that “good” or “moral” acts are those that yield the greatest amount of happiness and least amount of suffering for the greatest amount of people. What It All Comes Down To « Philosophy 12, Looking back on #Philosophy12 | Adventures in a Gifted Classroom, Looking back on Philosophy 12 | Philosophy 12. “We should always choose the course of action that will produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain, taking into consideration both the quality and the quantity of the pleasure and pain Involve.”. Farms were collectivized and great gains were made in Soviet production of a variety of goods (steel, oil, etc…), but it came at a terrible price. In regards to the “ethics of war”, I would be interested in such a post too, but there are just so many angles to it, that I think it would take a very long post (or several). What if you could stop the initial genocide, but knew what would happen later on. But hopefully I’ve inspired you to at least think about this issue, so that you may move close to your own answer. From 1928 to 1941, the Soviet Union instituted a series of five year plans designed to boost the soviet economy. Utilitarianism (pronounced yoo-TILL-ih-TARE-ee-en-ism) is one of the main schools of thought in modern ethics (also known as moral philosophy). I was originally going to do a post on war, and whether or not it can be justified. Well, simply put, if, under some circumstances, an immoral action was required to achieve, or attempt to achieve a state of greater overall morality, would this action be justified, or morally ‘right’? Judging our actions in accordance with its consequences is far better than just looking at the benefits that it can bring. If you believe your Institution has licensed this video, please login to view. Because to be honest, I’m not exactly sure myself. Utilitarian theories, on the other hand, must answer the charge that ends do not justify the means. What exactly do you think it is that I’m getting at Jen? It is a moral philosophy which holds that the moral worth of actions is to be judged in terms of the consequences of those … Perhaps you have heard someone justify their actions because it was for the greater good.In this article, we are going to talk about the philosophy behind such actions. How about a historical example. This concept is exemplified by the … Judaism definitely does not subscribe to the absolutist position of Deontologists such as Kant that the ends never justify the means. What if this genocide never happened, and, 10 years later, ethnic tensions burst out into a small civil war, claiming 50,000 lives in the process? When we are asked to make a moral choice, many of us imagine it involves listening to our hearts. Protected resource. The first issue with this way of thinking is that, when coupled with the idea of moral relativism can lead to people justifying what would normally be seen as a “bad” act as “good”. This phrase can be true sometimes but not every time because utilitarianism also suggest a total balance of pleasure and pain. If a goal can be justified, then so can any method of achieving it. It’s almost impossible to avoid feeling that pleasure is good and pain is bad: that’s what the words mean. Finally, I found it interesting that your two main examples were not of doing “bad” things that result in a “good” thing, but rather doing bad things that prevent a “worse” thing from happening. Utilitarianism relies on the idea that we must do the greatest good for the most people. “You judge action in accordance with its consequences. This perception can lead to the notion that we should always to try maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Life in city and life in rural places are not the same. Unfortunately I have failed miserably at providing an answer to the question I first stated. I will let Calvin and Hobbes explain to you why this is not a good thing. In this video, professor Thorsby gives a summary of Utilitarian Theory. encapsulated in the saying, "the end justifies the means",[1] meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable. Change ), You are commenting using your Twitter account. We must not just Judge things on the way how humans will be affected but how it can affect to everyone involving non humans because they are still live a part of the society. Sometimes, I tend to stick on what I believe in but always end up failing because I was mesmerized by the benefits I can get instead of thinking of the consequences that may arise. We all know that there are philosophers who taught us to stick with our own principles because it’ll make us successful in the near future but I have to agree with Utilitarianism that we must try to understand things in order to know what would be the best decision to make. According to Bentham, actions should always deliver the “greatest good for the greatest number” of creatures. Here, we'll review the ethical theory of utilitarianism, from which the phrase "the ends justify the means" is derived.
How To Stay In The Disneyland Dream Suite, Neve Tzedek Real Estate, 1998 Chevy Silverado 2500 Parts, Skipper Meme Asustado, Shes An Angel Chords, Blackberry Porsche Design P 9983 Price In Bangladesh, Retail Live 2020, Bu Muydu Günahım,
