100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Eerder door jou gezocht
Eerder door jou gezocht
logo
Critically assess the view that Utilitarianism provides a helpful way to make moral decisions €4,95
In winkelwagen
Snel navigeren naar
Voorbeeld
  2.  
  3. OCR
  4.  
  5. Religious Studies
  6.  
  7. G582 - A2 Religious Ethics

Essay

Critically assess the view that Utilitarianism provides a helpful way to make moral decisions
 1 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • G582 - A2 Religious Ethics
  • Instelling
  • OCR

This was written in year 12, achieving an A+ grade and discussing whether utilitarianism is good for moral decision making

Voorbeeld 1 van de 3  pagina's

Document informatie

  • 15 april 2024
  • 3
  • 2022/2023
  • Essay
  • Onbekend
  • A+

Onderwerpen

  • utilitarianism
  • a level
  • ethics
  • philosophy
  • morality
  • rs

Geschreven voor

  • A/AS Level
  • OCR
  • Religious Studies
  • G582 - A2 Religious Ethics
Alle documenten voor dit vak (113)

Verkoper

avatar-seller
lucyhgworthington

Ontvangen beoordelingen

Voorbeeld van de inhoud

Critically assess the view that Utilitarianism provides a helpful way to make moral decisions [30 marks]

Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that advocates actions that tend to maximise happiness, not only for the
person who commits the moral act, but also for everyone who may be affected. Thus, utilitarians focus on the
consequences of an act rather than on the intrinsic nature or motives behind the action. Bentham's classical
Utilitarianism is hedonistic, however stemming from his moral theory also includes the likes of Rule
Utilitarianism, posited by John Stuart Mill, as well as another alternative of Preference Utilitarianism by Peter
Singer. Whilst there are many strengths to this moral theory, it is debatable how valuable the theory is in
resolving all moral dilemmas, and rather it is Singer’s Utilitarianism that proves most effective in solving these.
Therefore, this essay will demonstrate that Utilitarianism overall does not prove a helpful way of making moral
decisions as well as including the scholars Bentham, Mill, Singer, Vardy, MacIntyre, Bernard Williams, Roger
Scruton and W.D. Ross.

The first way in which Utilitarianism could be argued as helpful when making moral decisions is through the
Principle of Utility, which by definition means seeking the greatest balance of good over evil, or pleasure over
pain. From this principle, Bentham created the Hedonic Calculus, which in essence is a guide to help measure
the amount of pleasure and pain an action brings in order to maximise the possible happiness. What is crucial in
Bentham’s calculus is that the pains and pleasures of each individual act are to be taken equally and can be
supported by when the father of Utilitarianism states ‘The question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk?
But Can they suffer?’. Therefore, it is clear Bentham wanted to stress the importance that any animal, human or
non-human that is capable of feeling pleasure or pain should be included in the measurement of the
consequences. That being said, there are both many strengths and weaknesses to Bentham’s utility principle and
thus his hedonic calculus also. A key strength is that Utilitarianism focuses around the concept of pleasure,
which is ultimately consistent with what human’s desire. Realistically, in modern society, sex is mostly based on
pleasure and therefore given this example, Utilitarianism proves very practical in tackling this important
concept, something which other ethical theories lack. A scholar who would support this argument is Bernard
Williams who states that Bentham’s Utilitarianism of seeking basic good, and happiness seems quite reasonable.
He questions those who would not want to be happy in life and maximise happiness for as many people as
possible. However, referring back to Bentham’s stress of treating everyone as equal when applying the hedonic
calculus, what he is forgetting is the strong tendency in our ordinary moral understanding to regard our
obligations to others as different depending on who others are. An obvious example for this point is contrasting
our moral attitude to our own family members to a stranger. Therefore, it is clear through this point that
Utilitarianism cannot prove helpful when making moral decisions, due to our moral thought being conflicted in
such situations.

Another way in which Utilitarianism could be argued as being a helpful ethical theory when making moral
decisions, is due to the fact it is a teleological argument. The consequentialist nature allows us to apply all
utilitarian theories to individual situations, unlike that of a deontological theory that restricts all moral decision
making to an absolute rule. However, whilst this may seem like a core strength to Utilitarianism, ultimately
many flaws can arise from this. A direct counter argument for using a teleological argument is that the
consequences cannot be foreseen and thus actions that may be taken which are not for the ‘greater good’ at all,
is merely a matter of chase and probability. Therefore, if one is not able to predict the outcome of certain
situations, how can Bentham and other utilitarian concept creators base their theory on what will happen in the
future? A scholar who would strongly agree with this, is Peter Vardy, who in A Puzzle of ethics forms an
argument that outlines why making decisions from a Utilitarianism perspective is not truly usable in an accurate
way. Vardy suggests that if a doctor went out to make a house call for a pregnant woman and came across a sar
crash scene which involved her husband and an elderly man, that first impressions would dictate who the
woman attended first, and thus is a non-sequitur. Just because the woman has a baby does not necessarily lead to
the greatest amount of pleasure. It is possible that the baby could grow up to be a serial killer, whereas the old
man may have the most important years of his life ahead of him. Therefore, through this argument posited by
Vardy, it causes problems for a consequentialist approach, and thus also problems for Utilitarianism as our
ability to predict the future is highly questionable and therefore cannot be helpful when making moral decisions.

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lucyhgworthington. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €4,95. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 69252 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis
€4,95  1x  verkocht
  • (0)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd