In: Business and Management

Submitted By yaprakim
Words 369
Pages 2
Act Utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism defines moral right and wrong in terms of specific acts. To determine the right action for a particular situation, we must consider our possible choices of action and determine which choice would produce the greatest overall utility in its outcome. In assessing an act’s effects or outcome, we must consider both the utility and disutility as these relate to the scope, which includes all those directly or indirectly affected by the act, the duration or length of time of each effect, the intensity or strength of each resulting experience and the probability of each effect Act Utilitarianism has several advantages. It is objective, giving a single answer to moral problems without creating more problems and offering a kind of scientific approach to ethics. It is also impartial in that it does not distinguish between individuals. It allows for flexibility based on circumstances, and it has important implications for the moral treatments of animals. Act Utilitarianism, however, encounters several objections. These include the calculation problem, meaning it is difficult to accurately predict and evaluate all possible consequences in terms of scope, intensity, duration, and probability. The moral saints problem, which places heavy moral demands upon us. Everything becomes a matter of moral importance, including our choice of clothing. The moral permissiveness objection, as it can approve any sort of action, breaking promises, assassinations, torture, etc. and finally the justice/human rights objection, as it can obligate us to violate a person’s rights or commit serious injustices. Of all these objections, the calculation problem may be easily solved, perhaps by employing rules of thumb to guide many actions. The justice/rights objection is probably the most serious as many people are concerned with the…...

Similar Documents


...in a pot of egg whites, and when the burns healed it appeared as if the whites had also scarred over the sores on her heart. The only external trace that the tragedy left was the bandage of black gauze that she put on her burned hand and that she wore until her death. Arcadio gave a rare display of generosity by decreeing official mourning for Pietro Crespi. Úrsula interpreted it as the return of the strayed lamb. But she was mistaken. She had lost Arcadio, not when he had put on his military uniform, but from the beginning. She thought she had raised him as a son, as she had raised Rebeca, with no privileges or discrimination. Nevertheless, Arcadio was a solitary and frightened child during the insomnia plague, in the midst of Úrsula’s utilitari-an fervor, during the delirium of José Arcadio Buendía, the hermetism of Aureliano, and the mortal rivalry between Amaranta and Rebeca. Aureliano had taught him to read and write, thinking about other things, as he would have done with a stranger. He gave him his clothing so that Visitación could take it in when it was ready to be thrown away. Arcadio suffered from shoes that were too large, from his patched pants, from his female buttocks. He never succeeded in communicating with anyone better than he did with Visitación and Cataure in their language. Melquíades was the only one who really was concerned with him as he made him listen to his incomprehensible texts and gave him lessons in the art of daguerreotype. No one imagined how......

Words: 145907 - Pages: 584


...benchmark of logical rigor toward which the other schools of natural law thinking would do well to aim. The second contribution is that they have brought the invio lability and nonsubstitutability of certain basic goods to the center of discussion.20 We may quarrel over some of these goods—I for one do not believe that what Grisez and Finnis call “the good of play” is inviolable and nonsubstitutable—but surely some goods are, for example, innocent human life. Deliberately blowing up a school bus full of children is wrong no matter what might be gained by it, and it is no good to ask a grieving mother, “Couldn’t you just have another?” Emphasizing such facts has made it much easier than it used to be to explain just why theories like utilitari anism are so wrong. The only point I would press here is that focusing on deep conscience does not really avoid entanglement with the idea of the inbuilt purposes of things, as the Grisez-Finnis theory supposes that it does. The idea of inbuilt purposes is implicit, for unless deep conscience has been designed to impart moral knowl edge, there is no particular reason to think that it does impart moral knowledge: it is just a piece of driftwood, cast up on the shore of the human intellect by the eddies of natural selection— something like the way dogs scratch their ears with their hind legs. This, I think, is why those who sneer at the Grisez-Finnis theory also sneer for exactly the same reasons at other theories of......

Words: 89540 - Pages: 359