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.
Nor is the fact that a murderer becomes a "model prisoner" after the fact an appropriate consideration looking back on what his punishment should have been without the benefit of omniscient hindsight. If a criminal commits a morally heinous crime, imposing the death penalty might be justified under Act Utilitarianism as a form of collective self-defense, based on the same rationale for recognizing self-defense killing by individuals. That might be the case where society must choose between allocating the only available funds to child welfare or to the costs of providing lifelong custodial care to some types of offenders. At the time of the crime, Act Utilitarianism could have justified the death penalty based on the seriousness of the crime if allocating funds to housing offenders sentenced to life in prison came at the expense of other (innocent) members of society. All of the interests it would serve support...
It permits morally absurd results such as the "moral duty" to return escaped slaves to their masters in 1860 or the duty to provide truthful information to a Nazi government agent searching homes for Jewish families. Rule Utilitarianism would require complying with duly-passed laws about disclosing the whereabouts of escaped slaves and of the intended civilian victims of any murderous society that also exploited human beings as slaves. By contrast, Act Utilitarianism is flexible enough to recognize objective justifications by circumstance and more complex factual relationships than the one-dimensional all-or-none application of rules that benefit society overall, despite producing morally absurd results on occasion.
Should this man have been subjected to capital punishment? Why or why not?
Possibly. First, as a general proposition, it is not helpful to look backwards with 20/20 factual hindsight. The perpetrator of a violent attempted homicide is not vindicated of his guilt if his intended victim later kills 20 people at work. Nor is the fact that a murderer becomes a "model prisoner" after the fact an appropriate consideration looking back on what his punishment should have been without the benefit of omniscient hindsight. If a criminal commits a morally heinous crime, imposing the death penalty might be justified under Act Utilitarianism as a form of collective self-defense, based on the same rationale for recognizing self-defense killing by individuals. That might be the case where society must choose between allocating the only available funds to child welfare or to the costs of providing lifelong custodial care to some types of offenders. At the time of the crime, Act Utilitarianism could have justified the death penalty based on the seriousness of the crime if allocating funds to housing offenders sentenced to life in prison came at the expense of other (innocent) members of society. All of the interests it would serve support the greater good of society, such as by deterring crime, protecting the general public, and valuing the benefit to deserving recipients of public funds over those who forfeit those rights because of their prior conduct.
In my view, Rule Utilitarianism is not a justifiable approach to responding to volitional choices and behavior. It permits morally absurd results such as the "moral duty" to return escaped slaves to their masters in 1860 or the duty to provide truthful information to a Nazi government agent searching homes for Jewish families. Rule Utilitarianism would require complying with duly-passed laws about disclosing the whereabouts of escaped slaves and of the intended civilian victims of any murderous society that also exploited human beings as slaves. By contrast, Act Utilitarianism is flexible enough to recognize objective justifications by circumstance and more complex factual relationships than the one-dimensional all-or-none application of rules that benefit society overall, despite producing morally absurd results on occasion.
Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperatives A Comparison of the Theories of Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperatives The principles of Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperatives contradict each other on many fronts. Both provide a rational for making moral decisions, both have benefits and flaws. A compelling argument can be made for each. From my perspective the principal's of Kant exemplify a more ethical way to conduct life. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism as a specific school of thought is generally credited
Today's laws consider human life the highest of all rights. Hence also the ethical difficulty relating to abortion. Although abortion might be the utilitarian course of action; the mother does not have the finances to support a baby: there is no husband; the baby will not have access to his or her basic rights as a person, the ethical viewpoint of many fundamentalists is that it simply cannot be
Lastly, it runs counter to the view that morality is essentially related to the concept of justice. Many critics of this theory argue that, "morality is not based on consequences of actions. Instead, it is based on the fundamental concept of justice" (Lee). In the final analysis, the dilemma in utilitarianism is that it unable to deal with a wide range of moral issue and actins and, as such, tends
Utilitarianism: A Closer Look Utilitarianism is an old political theory. It has been put forth in one form or another by many political philosophers over the years as the basis for a good political system. Epicurus was one of the early proponents of utilitarianism, though he did not call it by that name. However, he did promote the idea that happiness or pleasure was a good indicator of moral decisions. Jeremy
Utilitarianism as it Relates to Sports There are many philosophies that make up the social and political structures of nations around the world. Many of these philosophies can also be applied to sports and sports related activities. The purpose of this discussion is to explore the concept of Utilitarianism. We will begin by defining the philosophy and addressing the beliefs of Utilitarians. We will then discuss how Utilitarian beliefs relate to sports. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism
The satisfaction derived from that is by reason of good will towards the common man and not some universal pleasure felt by all men. But what about pain? Is Mills seems to be stating that happiness is the absence of pain. But is not some pain beneficial? Our reaction to spoiled milk that prevents us from drinking it for example. Wait, perhaps there are levels of pain that need to