Utilitarianism

By Group 4
 Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical system that judges the

rightness of an act in terms of an external goal or purpose. It comes
from the Latin term "utilis" which means "useful“. It states that what
is useful is good, and that the moral value of actions are determined
by the utility of its consequences. Utilitarian ethics argues that the
right course of action is one that maximizes overall happiness. It is
basically hedonistic as it identifies happiness with pleasure.
 Act vs Rule of Utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism: the principle of utility is applied directly to

every alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is
then defined as the one which brings about the best results or at
least amount of bad results. It focuses on what to do.
Rule Utilitarianism: is the principle of utility that is used to decide
the validity of rules of conduct. It focuses on how to do certain
things.
 Origin and Nature of Theory:

It was founded by Jeremy Bentham but systematized and

modified by John Stewart Mill.
 Origin and Nature of Theory

Bentham’s Utilitarianism: Principle of Utility

people act in their own interest
nothing else but pleasure is intrinsically good
gives no importance to the quality of pleasures
 Mill's Utilitarianism

Mill's First Point

Mill delineates how to differentiate between higher- and lower-
quality pleasures: A pleasure is of higher quality if people would
choose it over a different pleasure even if it is accompanied by
discomfort, and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of
the other pleasure.
 Mill's Utilitarianism

Mill's First Point

Higher Pleasures means intellectual and Includes artistic, political
and even spiritual pleasures. Basically means intellectual, which
includes artistic, political, and even spiritual pleasures. These more
desirable and more valuable pleasures are exclusive to humans. He
said this "it is better to be human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
 Mill's Utilitarianism

Mill's First Point

Lower pleasures are those which animals, too, can experience,
such as those from food, drink and sex. (Physical Pleasures)
 Mill's Utilitarianism

Mill's Secondary Principle

According to Mill, secondary principles are principles that can be
derived directly from first principles, but that are not themselves
fundamental. In the realm of ethics, this means rules that people
should follow to fulfill the first ethical principle of maximizing utility
or promoting the general happiness.
 An Analysis of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism appears to be a direct negative reaction against

Kantian ethics. Kant focuses on motive while Bentham and Mill
focuses on consequences.
Utilitarianism appears to be attractive. Pleasure and pain; Cause
and effect reasoning- it proves an action to be right or wrong
by pointing to the observable evidences.; Perceptible effect- it
promotes actions that empirically improve life.
 An Analysis of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism also allows for exceptions to the rule if justified by

the consequences. Take the case of lying to protect another
from sure danger. For Kant this is wrong while for Utilitarianism it
is right.
 An Analysis of utilitarianism

Negative Criticisms
It is not easy to foresee with certainty the consequences of
actions.
- based on the idea that the results or consequences of decisions,
laws, policies, etc. determine whether they are good or bad, right or
wrong, utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism. In general,
whatever is being considered, we should pick the option that will
result in the best overall outcomes.
 An Analysis of utilitarianism

Negative Criticisms
Utilitarianism provides a rather simple way for determining the
morally appropriate path of conduct in any specific circumstance we
may encounter. We first assess the potential courses of action before
deciding what we should do in any given circumstance. Second, we
identify all of the likely advantages and disadvantages of any course
of action for each person who might be impacted by it.
 An Analysis of utilitarianism

Mill’s Introduction to Secondary Principles

By giving moral importance exclusively to the consequences of
actions, utilitarianism may also bring about complications. A student
may be led to cheat in his exams. "Does the end always justify the
means?" Utilitarianism indicates that an act is right even if it is due
from an evil motive as long as it brings about advantageous effects.
 Business's Fascination with Utilitarianism

The greatest good for the greatest numbers of persons.

 Business's Fascination with Utilitarianism

Types of Business Utilitarianism

Act -An action is right if and only it produces the greatest
balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number. Rule -An
action is right if and only it conforms to a set of rules the general
acceptance of which would produce the greatest balance of
pleasure over pain for the greatest number.
 Business's Fascination with Utilitarianism

Types of Business Utilitarianism

Rule -An action is right if and only it conforms to a set of rules
the general acceptance of which would produce the greatest
balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number.
 justice as fairness

Political not Metaphysical" is an essay by John Rawls, published in

1985. In it he describes his conception of justice. It comprises two
main principles of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into
fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.
 justice as fairness

Political not Metaphysical" is an essay by John Rawls, published in

1985. In it he describes his conception of justice. It comprises two
main principles of liberty and equality; the second is subdivided into
fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle.
 justice as fairness

First Principle: The Liberty Principle

The first and most important principle states that every individual
has an equal right to basic liberties, Rawls claiming "that certain rights
and freedoms are more important or 'basic' than others" Rawls
believes that "personal property" – personal belongings, a home –
constitutes a basic liberty, but an absolute right to unlimited private
property is not]
 justice as fairness

First Principle: The Liberty Principle

As basic liberties, these rights are inalienable: no government can
amend, infringe or remove such rights from individuals.
"each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of
equal basic rights and liberties".
 justice as fairness

Second Principle: The Equality Principle

The Equality Principle The Equality Principle is the component of
Justice as Fairness establishing distributive justice. Rawls awards the
Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle lexical priority over the
Difference Principle
 justice as fairness

Second Principle: The Equality Principle

Fair Equality of Opportunity- This principle maintains that "offices
and positions" should be open to any individual, regardless of his
or her social background, ethnicity or sex. It is stronger than
'Formal Equality of Opportunity' in that Rawls argues that an
individual should not only have the right to opportunities, but
should have an effective equal chance as another of similar
natural ability.
 justice as fairness

Second Principle: The Equality Principle

Difference Principle - It regulates inequalities: it only permits
inequalities that work to the advantage of the worst-off. This is
often misinterpreted as trickle-down economics; Rawls'
argument is more accurately expressed as a system where
wealth "diffuses up". By guaranteeing the worst-off in society a
fair deal, Rawls compensates for naturally occurring inequalities
(talents that one is born with, such as a capacity for sport).
 justice as fairness

Second Principle: The Equality Principle

Difference Principle - Rawls justifies the Difference Principle on
the basis that, since Fair Equality of Opportunity has lexical
priority, the Just choice from Pareto optimal scenarios which
could occur would be that benefiting the worst-off rather than
the best-off.
 justice as fairness

Original position
A key component of Rawls' argument is his claim that his
Principles of Justice would be chosen by parties in the original
position. This is a thought experiment in which the parties select
principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they
will live in.
 justice as fairness

Original position
This choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance, which would
deprive participants of information about their particular
characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially,
their conception of The Good. This forces participants to select
principles impartially and rationally