In conclusion, utilitarianism is the most democratic of moral theories. Even if Raskolnikov could prove to the old woman that her death is the morally right decision according to utilitarianism, I doubt that she would go along with the plan.
She would not be so hasty to overlook her personal pain, although it is outweighed by the positive consequences of her murder. If Mill is going to obey his own theory he would say that only killing one person would be less harmful than killing all four of the people.
If having one person die in contrast to having all five die a utilitarian would chose to kill one person and save four people. To Utilitarianism term papers non-utilitarian a human life holds a tremendous amount of value, a value that cannot be quantified into simplistic factors and then dismissed.
So while utilitarian would describe his formula as "the greatest good for the greatest number", a non-utilitarian would characterize it as "the happiness of many overshadowing the happiness of the individual".
In measuring the level of pleasure and pain associated with each outcome, a utilitarian must base his evaluation on the probabilities of all likely consequences. Unfortunately, Mill does not make allowances for competent judges, so any practitioner of utilitarianism must come up with his own scale to measure pleasure and pain and in turn morality.
However, his reasoning is not applicable towards a utilitarian definition of "morally right". But, what standard do I use to gauge the consequences in order to choose the best alternative?
He might prove to be ineffective in helping society. On the other hand, I might experience some pain due to boredom, frustration, etc. Pamela has reason to believe he will keep his promise. Raskolnikov demonstrates the mathematical objectivity of utilitarianism, although he miscalculates Utilitarianism term papers in his justification of murder.
On the other hand, a non-utilitarian would reject even the notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a mathematical manner. Raskolnikov might be caught in the act.
If Raskolnikov could prove that an act of murder was morally acceptable through a utilitarian equation, then anyone could calculate such heinous actions.
Raskolnikov seems to be employing utilitarianism when he justifies the murder of his landlady. However, this amount of pain would be outweighed by the pleasure of receiving an A on it, thus in turn raising my GPA, making my parents happy, graduating with honors, securing a six-figure salary job, marrying the perfect man, and having 2.
A utilitarian would argue that Raskolnikov has not shown the murder to be morally justifiable because Raskolnikov abstracts the situation, does not develop key variables of utilitarianism, and thus has not accurately solved the problem.
Mill clearly states, "that all desirable things are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.
Utilitarianism is a concept that holds an action to be held right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people. He could, for example, steal the money which would inflict less pain on the old woman. As we see in the Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is not a competent judge. For example, upon receiving the assignment for this paper, I could have chosen to ignore the assignment and spend my time on something more enjoyable, or I could have worked diligently on my paper, actually turning it in.
These two principles work together and serve as criteria for whether or not a utilitarian can deem an action morally right. The theory of value bases itself on the premise that pleasure is the only thing valuable in itself and as an end. A non-utilitarian would argue that one cannot simply dismiss the factor of pain, even if overshadowed by a greater amount of pleasure.
A non-utilitarian would not look at moral dilemmas with the calculated objectivity that one uses when looking at a mathematical equation. Pleasure is an example of something considered good and pain is an example of something that would be considered evil. This is because the theory of value cannot measure the value of an intangible quality such as life.
Raskolnikov appears to employ the fundamentals of utilitarianism by pitting the negative consequences of murdering his old landlady against the positive benefits that her money would bestow onto society.
Just because one is not in the majority group does not mean they do not have rights either.
Therefore, Raskolnikov may cause a high degree of pain with no resulting pleasure to show for it. However, in accordance to the greatest good for the greatest number philosophy of utilitarianism, the decision that is morally right produces the greatest amount of net pleasure for everyone involved.
A non-utilitarian would argue that moral absolutes provide a standard by which people can gauge the morality of their decisions. Whereas the theory of right action deems an act morally right if it is the best choice out of all available options, Raskolnikov simplifies the situation and ignores other available options.
However, unlike our democratic government, which employs a system of checks and balances to regulate itself, utilitarianism has no set standards to deem certain acts wrong.
A utilitarian would argue that Raskolnikov has not reached an acceptable solution because he has not accurately solved the problem. Utilitarianism defines the morally right actions as those actions that maximize some good or happiness and minimize some evil. To sum it up, utilitarianism focuses on ends rather than actions.
Pamela is walking through a forest and happens to come across a man who is about to kill five people.This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant’s theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Immanuel Kant’s deonotological ethical theory assesses if actions are moral based on the person’s will or intention of acting. Philosophy/Raskolnikov and Utilitarianism term paper Philosophy term papers Disclaimer: Free essays on Philosophy posted on this site were donated by anonymous users and are provided for informational use only.
Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is the ethical theory proposed by John Stuart Mill that says all actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is a concept that holds an action to be held right if it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people/5(1).
Disclaimer: mint-body.com - custom writing service that provides online custom written papers, such as term papers, research papers, thesis papers, essays, dissertations and other custom writing services inclusive of research material, for.
Term paper on utilitarianism. Geral. I feel like balling today, but i got to write this five page essay. teacher essays how to write a legal essay writing essays immigration in the usa essay on abuse of welfare research paper on art quiz ul b long term heat aging evaluation essay my dream house essay youtube.
Definition of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is an ethical theory developed in the modern period by Jeremy Bentham () and John Stuart Mill () to promote fairness in British legislation during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the interests of the upper classes tended to prevail and the sufferings of the lower classes /5(20).Download