Utilitiarianism

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2020

There have been several notions about the Kantian perspective and the utilitarian theory from all walks of life in the academic space. Kant spoke widely on morality, rights and justice for all persons whereas Bentham and Mill spoke of an action being right if they are useful for the benefit of the majority. Kant admonished people to act as they would want all other people to act towards them. This paper, therefore, takes the step to critically compare the Kantian principle of moral theory to the Utilitarian theory as an important aspect in general philosophy and the social science philosophy in particular. This critical paper adopts a systematic review approach whereby scholarly articles from different authors and sources were drawn which served as secondary sources of literature for the discussion. This paper argues that the Categorical Imperative' is a moral guideline devised to aid an individual in choosing to make the right decision and perform the right duties whereas the Utilitarian approach is an ethical system that proposes that the greatest useful goodness for the greatest number of people should be our guiding principle when making ethical decisions. This paper makes a case by imploring how the categorical imperative of Kantianism and the Utilitarian theory are applied in Social Science Research(SSR). It is therefore recommended that all life matters and persons should not be used as a means for one's satisfaction and what is right in society must be enforced and what is beneficial to the larger society must also be encouraged.

The Journal of Value Inquiry, 2005

This article is an attempt to take an overview of the current position of utilitarian theory. It begins by providing a definition of utilitarianism as it is found in the works of Bentham, Mill and Sidgwick. These authors are all interpreted as intuitionists. It is claimed that the main rivals to utilitarianism are egoism on the one hand, and reflective non-egoistic pluralism, as found in the work of Ross, on the other. The significance of disagreement between proponents of these views is explained, and modern attempts to ground utilitarianism are found lacking. The article ends with a plea for history.

2003

This title might be interpreted by some as either a contradiction-in-terms or just a plain error. After all, the distinction between Immanuel Kant's ethics and utilitarian ethics, such as that proposed by John Stuart Mill, is one between conservatism-basing moral decisions on duty, and consequentialism-basing moral decisions on consequences, respectively. To hold to either one of these methods as opposed to the other may be a decisive factor in one's ethical considerations. However, I plan on justifying the claim that the title impliesthat one has a duty to be mindful of consequences. I'll contend that it's morally wrong, as a rule, to follow Kant's suggested practice of considering consequences as not morally relevant at all. My intention, however, is not to discredit Kant's theory. Rather, my intention is to show that the differences between the two schools of thought aren't as incompatible with one another as supposed-that is, upon reconsideration of what is good-in-itself. I should mention here, too, that neither Kant nor Mill would have agreed on any type of compromise between their respective views. The compromise I'll be proposing is directed, rather, to the acceptance of the majority of humankind who are neither strictly Kantian nor Utilitarian. As such, I suggest that the compromise I offer should be judged as such. Ultimately, I hope to demonstrate that a Kantian framework is more complete when it's understood in terms of utilitarian principles.

There has been consistently encouraging tradition in the history of Philosophy that centres on the somewhat 'periodic' reappraisal of the highly revered philosophical postulation and ideas of great minds and philosophers. This practice testifies to the fact that the discipline of philosophy is an 'endless mental enterprise' that seeks to solve problems confronting humanity in the world in the light of changing situations and new circumstances that are punctuated human life in the physical empirical world. Like many other philosophical systems before it, utilitarianism arose as part of the same human endeavour to unravel the ceaseless mysteries and perplexing aspects of every day occurring problems that await man's necessary attention. Hence, in this work, the researcher primarily intends to make a reflective exposition of the concept of utilitarianism as well as examining different forms of utilitarianism as to have more information in understanding the concept. Then after, juxtaposition of the concept with other schools of thought will be made in order to have more clues about the theory of utilitarianism. As a way of achieving the goal of the work, the researcher, therefore, employs the methodological approach of expository analysis to identify what the concept is all about.

2008

In his metaethics and philosophy of language, Jeremy Bentham was strongly influenced by John Locke's empiricist framework. In his works on logic and mind (but also in his ethical writings), John Stuart Mill displayed a blend of empiricism and common sense philosophy, which he inherited from his father James. In addition to this, both Bentham and Mill viewed ethics and politics as empirical disciplines, based on human experience, and modeled after empirical, inexact disciplines, such as medicine. Despite his intuitionist leanings, even Henry Sidgwick presented his moral epistemology as a correction of an originally empiricist framework. Moreover, in Sidgwick's argument for utilitarianism, a lot of room is left to the power that a utilitarian ethical theory has in accounting for our common moral experience, embodied in our common sense moral judgements. Even through the twentieth century, utilitarianism has kept its connection with human experience, if only because of its frequent and numerous incursions in detailed applicative problems. Possibly, utilitarian ethical thinkers were the first to realize a turn to applied ethical theory. Paradoxically, the often repeated and most well-known objection to utilitarianism, namely its alleged counter-intuitiveness, concerns the relationship between utilitarian ethics and experience. This aspect of utilitarian moral theories was placed at the center of the three-day Conference "Utilitarianism: An Ethic of Experience?" (held at the University of Rome, June 12-14, 2007), where the papers published here were originally presented and discussed. From the many presentations, discussions, and informal talks that happened in those three days in Rome, it turned out that the question mark at the end of the conference title, originally indicating the ironic, yet provocative and wary spirit the organizers had toward the subject, could be removed safely. Experience is at the centre of utilitarianism, both in its historical and contemporary versions. Experience, however, is only a common point of departure, and it is not able to settle the various puzzles that scholars interested in utilitarianism must face. It is also for this reason that the title of the present collection was changed to a more neutral one, aiming to show the two directions assumed by the contemporary scholarship: an increasing penetration into the historical texts of eighteenth and nineteenth century utilitarians and a more detailed refinement of utilitarian ethical theories to respond classical and new objections and problems.

John Rawls' theory of "justice as fairness" aimed at presenting a superior alternative to utilitarianism. To do so, he argued that, from behind the veil of ignorance, the representatives in the original position would choose the principles of justice as fairness and would reject utilitarianism. Rawls' criticism was targeted to the classical version of utilitarianism, which places utility at the level of the individual and as some measure of happiness or wellbeing. In this paper, I attempt to introduce David Hume's concept of justice as a utilitarian theory that, first, is fundamentally different to the classical version, and two, escapes the criticism of Rawls, at least in terms of the latter's rejection of utilitarianism. I will do this by first showing that Hume's concept of utility, as opposed to Bentham's, is a means and not an end, and a means to the public interest. Then, I will argue that the public interest is for Hume an emergent property of the social order that results from the interactions of human beings, just like some properties of complex biological and physical systems arise from the interactions of its members. Next, I will show that Hume's theory is utilitarian because it rests on an argument including a contingent claim based on the consequences of human decisions: a social order can exist only if individuals cooperate under the strict observance of the three fundamental laws of justice. Finally, I will show that Rawls' criticism does not apply to Hume's theory.

VITA: A Journal of Philosophy and Arts, 2021

This paper explores the moral issue of radical utilitarianism in the present age. This is due to the reason that utilitatianism becomes widespread thinking in the age of modernization. The person is often perceived as an object of use for the sake of one's advantages and self-serving motives. Hence, this paper attempts to criticize this thinking through the aid of the Humanity Formula of Kant and the teaching on commiserating mind that can be found in every human person of Meng Zi. This paper confronts the question: How can Kant's Humanity Formula and Meng Zz's notion of Human Nature offer a solution to this problem at the present age?