Is Utilitarianism morally right?

Question: Is Utilitarianism morally right!?

"The greatest good for the greatest number" - and forget about the rest!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

One problem with this question is that you have to know whether you are adopting a utilitarian stance to interpret the word 'right'
If you are, you will read it as 'best of available options', since utilitarians do not believe in duties per se!. If you are a duty theorist you may read it as 'that which (maybe on balance) you have a duty to do'!.
And so on with other ethical theoriesWww@QuestionHome@Com

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons!. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome—the ends justify the means!. Utility — the good to be maximized — has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus sadness or pain), though preference utilitarians like Peter Singer define it as the satisfaction of preferences!. It may be described as a life stance with happiness or pleasure as ultimate importance!.

It can be described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number", though the 'greatest number' part gives rise to the problematic mere addition paradox!. Utilitarianism can thus be characterized as a quantitative and reductionistic approach to ethics!.

Utilitarianism can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which disregards the consequences of performing an act, when determining its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character), as well as with other varieties of consequentialism!. Adherents of these opposing views have extensively criticized the utilitarian view, though utilitarians have been similarly critical of other schools of ethical thought!.

In general use the term utilitarian often refers to a somewhat narrow economic or pragmatic viewpoint!. However, philosophical utilitarianism is much broader than this, for example some approaches to utilitarianism consider non-human animals in addition to people!.

Wikipedia!.!.!.

Short answer : Wholly dependant upon individual circumstance!. If the question has arisen, then assuredly the matter is circumspect!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

No!. Issues include, among many others:

* Higher and lower pleasures!.
* Justice!.
* Duty and the results of promising!.
* Virtue!.
* Whether "greatest" should be interpreted as mean, median or mode!.
* Rights, for example to life!. Utilitarianism justifies random painless killing without the victim's knowledge!.
* The utility monster - an individual who is able to derive greater pleasure than others!.
* Duties towards unconscious organisms such as trees, and to inanimate objects such as mountains on lifeless planets!.

It's a deeply flawed and discredited system and virtue ethics works a lot better, as does contractarianism, and so forth!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

You're not QUITE correct in your take on utilitarianism!. It can work both ways!. And this is precisely because utilitarianism tends to use a kind of 'ethical calculus': as long as the total amount of happiness/preference/pain-avoidance is maximized, it doesn't matter in that system HOW many people benefit!.

So if you can take 10% of the population from completely misery to total bliss at the expense of a very small drop in happiness in the other 90%, this may be the best thing to do!. This is actually very issue that the problem of the 'utility monster' is supposed to pick at - a small minority can completely dominate the majority in utilitarianism in the right circumstances (link 1)!.

A true democracy, of course, goes another way!. Whatever the majority agrees with goes!. You'll note that this isn't necessarily what will make the majority happy!.!.!. just what they agree with!. It's an important distinction in that some majorities might agree to the same situation above and nobly make a small sacrifice to greatly serve a very small part of their community!. Examples abound, but handicapped parking spaces might be a good one for starters!.

As to whether utilitarianism is 'right' or not!.!.!. that is a meta-ethical question!. Obviously, if we could all agree on a single ethical framework we might have a lot less disputes about things!. What some consider to be fatal flaws in utilitarianism are considered by others to be mere fripperies!. The best I can tell you is to familiarize yourself with many ethical systems and then at least you will understand the many different takes people have on the same problem even if you don't find one that you yourself consider to be the 'correct' solution!.

Peace!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If the situation if right!. Many extremist theologies can be beneficial when the situation calls for it!. For example; when a country is at the brink of economic and political collapse, a dictatorship could be beneficial as it would allow the governing body to seize the country, and rebuild it!. The key is moving on from a dictatorship when it is no longer needed!. The problem is people try to adhere to one specific theology even when the situation is incompatible!. One solution will not solve everything, but diversity cures most!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I find it fascinating, so much of it is anthropology based - in that it goes with our innate instinct to protect the majority of our breed, it's a very interesting philosophical paradigm!. I wouldn't say it's morally right though, morals are more than relative and by no means universally absolute!.

Given a situation outside of theory though it'd probably be the essence Id base my decision on, say if in five minutes I could either save a newborn from being burnt alive or a room full of varied people, I'd go for the people!. It's bizarre how many people argue against it, yet when it is brought into play in everyday life people are vilified and branded selfish for choosing the lesser!. It brings out so many contradictions in people, I love it!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

no!. would you kill your child if it made the rest of society happy!?

no because it would be unethical therefore utilitarianism doesn't fly!.!.!. if you are writing a paper google "kant vs utilitarianism" or something to that effect!.!.!. most papers on utilitarianism have to discuss kant too!.

all the best xWww@QuestionHome@Com

I love G E M Anscombe, who really beat that question to death!. I think she dealt with it under the head of 'consequentialism'!.

Morality deals with something outside us, something non-negotiable, to which we comply or refuse compliance!. But utilitarianism doesn't even know what good is until it totes up the score!. A heinous thing really!.

By the way, U!. does not do away with good!. It can't!. It just switches it over to the strongest party!. Their idea of good is used in making the calculations!. Like the case of workers in Communist Russia sent to the gulags because they were violating the workers paradise!. Can you imagine !!Www@QuestionHome@Com

It depends what point of view you take!. I think you can act immorally if you follow the logic of Utilitarianism, you can reason out murder and such!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Answer it for yourself!. Is U!. an approach to right action that you would will for all people to have with respect to all other people!? Morality boils down to what works best socially, so ask yourself what I just now suggested that you ask, and there you go!. none of this stuff is very difficult!.Www@QuestionHome@Com