Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
This, according to Aristotle, may well militate against reason, and Aristotle would therefore find fault with the utilitarian's conclusion.
Aristotle also insists on excellence of character and being of great soul (magnanimous), which is the level deserving of highest praise. A person also has to be just (Bostock, 2000). Utilitarianism can come into difficulties in that it may, paradoxically, be harmful when it focuses on the influence of pleasure or pain to the greatest amount of people sacrificing the pleasure of the minority in the process. History accords us many instances in which the pleasure of a few has been sacrificed in order to accommodate the happiness of a majority. This, to Aristotle may not have been just. In conclusion, even though Aristotle agreed that humans seek happiness and that happiness is our greatest good, it seems to me that utilitarians and Aristotle differ in their disparate ways of defining happiness and, consequently, in their different prescriptions of achieving this happiness. To utilitarians, the prescription lies in helping the greatest amount of people achieve the greatest amount of happiness. Happiness is not specified, but it seems to mean physical happiness. Aristotle acknowledges that different levels of happiness are available to the human, but he sees the most intense and highest level of happiness as consisting in that called 'eudemonia' i.e. A sort of bliss or contentment where the highest kind can be achieved via contemplation.
For utilitarians, therefore, their ideal lies on a social scale and is a prescription for disseminating social goods on a wide scale, helping us distinguish in tricky political situations who should be serviced...
To Aristotle, however, his ideas refer to the human alone and refer to excellence of character rather than social welfare or benefits. Nonetheless, despite this great difference, Aristotle sees the human as one distinguished by reason rather than carnal pleasure and even though acknowledging that carnal pleasure exists and must be satisfied, his optimal human society, it seems to me, would be one that centers around reason, namely contemplation and acts of magnanimity and justice. Towards that end, if practicing utilitarianism in its basic sense he might incorporate it with reason in the manner of two-level utilitarianism that states the one should normally use 'intuitive' thinking since this usually maximizes happiness, but one should occasionally ascend to the higher level of reason in order to act as correctly as possible (Hare, 1981).
Nonetheless, utilitarianism essentially contradicts deontological ethics (which does not regard the consequences of an act as a determinant of its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focus on character, and it seems to me that Aristotle was a proponent of both.
References
Bostock, D. (2000). Aristotle's Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hare, R.M. (1981). Moral thinking: Its levels, method, and point, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Modern Library classics. Ethics: the essential writings, New York: Modern Library, 2010.
Rosen, F. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. USA: Routledge, 2003.
Like Aristotle's virtue-based ethics, utilitarians believe that happiness is the ultimate goal of human life and therefore of any ethical system that can be devised. Also like Aristotle, they perceived that to be virtuous required society; being virtuous when completely alone is impossible, as there is no one to be un-virtuous towards. This also means that individual happiness cannot be the only consideration in utilitarian ethics, but that the
Utilitarianism: Weighing the Balance The common good is often spoken of as a principle for social justice: that which benefits the whole should be promoted. Or, that which is universally good should have the highest support. It could be said that this is a utilitarian concept -- yet in modern terms of justice where egalitarianism can appear to be at odds with the "common good," the role of minority voices and
According to utilitarian ethical theory, a lie would be very moral indeed if it increased someone's happiness without creating detriment to anyone -- telling a child that their unintelligible crayon markings is a great picture of a house, for instance, boosts their self-esteem and helps them to feel loved, and no one in the art world suffers for this white lie. Utilitarianism also provides a solution to conflicting duties that
Moral Philosophy Can desires and feelings be in accordance with or contrary to reason? Are they under the control of, or guided by, reason? Compare, contrast, and critically evaluate the answers of Aristotle and Hume to these questions and their arguments in support of those answers. David Hume is one of the most significant philosophers of the 18th Century. Hume is skeptical about moral truths, and he ascertains that ethics comes from
" This could not even be termed a desire to do good, as then it would be fulfilling someone's desire to do a good deed, and would therefore have a selfish motive. Kant is one of the very few that attempted to divorce happiness from morality; even though lying to the mass murderer would save many lives, Kant believed that lying was wrong, and therefore one could not lie even
and, fundamentally, More's choice was the right one, not because he ascribed to any of these moral beliefs, but because he attempted to remain true to himself. Although utilitarianism may provide us with the tools to actually make choices in most situations, these choices would not satisfy the moral demands of most individuals. Meanwhile, attempting to live life by a finite set of rules can often leave individuals in