Explain what you find appealing or unappealing about utilitarianism. Do you agree with the objections that Christian moral philosophers bring against utilitarianism. Why or why not?
i am unappealing about the utlitanism,i agree with the objections that Christian moral philosophers bring againsr U.Because i think the things that the U bring to us are not valueable,such as the money,position,ect.i think these kind of stuff can not be equal to the happiness,i believe these can not bring us an happy life.Only can make us become selfishm,greed and virtus.
I find the majority of utilitarianism appealing because it's principle, the principle of unity, is aimed at the general good of the majority of people. Dismissing the notion that every human life is sacred is correct. During WWII, the Japanese Imperial Army tortured and violently killed thousands of Americans. President Truman's orders of the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were correct. Even though hundreds of thousands of Japanese lost their lives, it was the only way to prevent the continued killing of Americans. The right choice (bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima) was the one that resulted in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people (meaning: end of the Pacific front= end of WWII). However, Utilitarianism's notion that pleasure is the only good which exists (hedonism) is false. Good such as duty, honor, and in some circumstances, pain, exist. I disagree with the objections brought forth by Christian moral philosophers because their belief system can be interpreted as this: if you do not kill a man who has murdered innocent people, then many other men (including himself if he were to escape) would commit that same crime. Sometimes the only way to create peace is through superior firepower.
I agree that some theories put forth by Christian theologians are inherently flawed. It is very difficult to accept the standards that have been laid out. The Church claims that no good can come of an evil action, but I believe the circumstances can greatly change wheter or not an action can be considered good or bad in the first place. Utiitarianism makes a good point that the best actions are those that have the greatest number of good that come from them. Mill prsents an easier concept to grasp while the Christian standards of morality have to be taken on faith alone. The circumstances around war can be understood better through utilitarianism because in order to save millions of lives of one's own country the lives of other will be lost. Mill makes a good point of considering the welfare of each human being which does tie in with Christianity, but Mill expresses not considering those who can't make their own decisions such as an unborn baby. With good intentions the majority of actions can be considered good
I find utilitarianism appealing because I believe decisions should be made to benefit the majority of the people involved in the situation. Although I feel that decisions should be made with the intention of good rather than good consequences, certain choices should be made to benefit the a majority of the people even if the choice is wrong, evil. For example, I believe you should steal a person’s gun if you know they plan to shoot up a school, but I don’t think it is alright to break someone’s pencil people won’t have to listen to the person tap it off the desk anymore. I disagree when it states that human life is expendable, but feel in certain situations a person should be killed. For example a gun dealer should be killed or robbed to prevent him form selling harmful wepons. I agree with Christianity when it says human life is sacred, but believe a small number should be killed if their deaths would save the lives of many more people. I also agree with Christianity that choices should be made with the golden rule in mind. However, I think it is fine to make a choice with the intentions to benefit the lives of a majority of people.
I find Utilitarianism both appealing and unappealing. I find it appealing because it shows that people can make the right decision when it comes down to it. I disagree with Utlitarianism because the majority of the people making the decision could think that their right decision is the wrong one. It is bad because you can make a decision that will hurt people now but will save more peple in tthe long run.
I do believe that there are certain things that i myself as well as chistianity disagree on with utilitarianism.In a certain way it is appealing to me in how the circumstances of the situation can change the outcome. Also I find some of the principle of utility, hedonism appealing. I think that it is good that the from a moral situation the right choice is not just for you but for the greater number of either your community or people in general. For example cheating on a test or hw assignment. If you do so then you aren't helping yourself but making it hard for the teacher and the student you cheated off. But if you didn't cheat then the happiness of the whole class and commmunity wouldnt have to worry about the consequences of the action. Some things however that i find unappealing about utilitarianism is some of there belifs. For example i stronglt believe that choices should be made witht the golden rule in mind so that they are made not just for yourself but for the greater number of people. Also i agree with what christian moral philosophers have against utilitarianism in some ways such as that people can be used as a means. this is something that i disagree with because if you are used as a mean then you are essential a slave and have no rights or moral value. In a way you are being forced to do something in which you may dislikel. Therefore there are many things in which utilitarianism can compare and contrast with. Overall i only agree with certian aspects of utilitarianism and not all of its beliefs.
I find that the principle of utility is the most appealing aspect of Utilitarianism. This states that the correct choice in a moral dilemma is the one that results in the greatest amount of happiness for the most people. The United States was correct in executing Saddam Hussein because he was doing horrible things to his own people and killing him saved many lives. What I find unappealing about Utilitarianism is the belief that an action is good if it has good consequences and bad if it has bad consequences. It is not ok if you steal someone's drugs and use them and the person you stole them from was going to drive and endanger other lives. Conversely, it is not bad if you were giving an injured person a ride to the hospital and you got into a car accident and someone got hurt. I agree with the Christian philosophers' objection that Utilitarians believe that there is no act with good outcomes that could be considered morally wrong. For example, abortion and infanticide are always wrong even if the child has a disease. However, I disagree with the Christian philosophers' objection that every human life is sacred. This is true with most people but, a terrorist should be killed before he inflicts damage on others.
i am unappealing about the utlitanism,i agree with the objections that Christian moral philosophers bring againsr U.Because i think the things that the U bring to us are not valueable,such as the money,position,ect.i think these kind of stuff can not be equal to the happiness,i believe these can not bring us an happy life.Only can make us become selfishm,greed and virtus.
ReplyDeleteI find the majority of utilitarianism appealing because it's principle, the principle of unity, is aimed at the general good of the majority of people. Dismissing the notion that every human life is sacred is correct. During WWII, the Japanese Imperial Army tortured and violently killed thousands of Americans. President Truman's orders of the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were correct. Even though hundreds of thousands of Japanese lost their lives, it was the only way to prevent the continued killing of Americans. The right choice (bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima) was the one that resulted in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people (meaning: end of the Pacific front= end of WWII). However, Utilitarianism's notion that pleasure is the only good which exists (hedonism) is false. Good such as duty, honor, and in some circumstances, pain, exist. I disagree with the objections brought forth by Christian moral philosophers because their belief system can be interpreted as this: if you do not kill a man who has murdered innocent people, then many other men (including himself if he were to escape) would commit that same crime. Sometimes the only way to create peace is through superior firepower.
ReplyDeleteI agree that some theories put forth by Christian theologians are inherently flawed. It is very difficult to accept the standards that have been laid out. The Church claims that no good can come of an evil action, but I believe the circumstances can greatly change wheter or not an action can be considered good or bad in the first place. Utiitarianism makes a good point that the best actions are those that have the greatest number of good that come from them. Mill prsents an easier concept to grasp while the Christian standards of morality have to be taken on faith alone. The circumstances around war can be understood better through utilitarianism because in order to save millions of lives of one's own country the lives of other will be lost. Mill makes a good point of considering the welfare of each human being which does tie in with Christianity, but Mill expresses not considering those who can't make their own decisions such as an unborn baby. With good intentions the majority of actions can be considered good
ReplyDeleteI find utilitarianism appealing because I believe decisions should be made to benefit the majority of the people involved in the situation. Although I feel that decisions should be made with the intention of good rather than good consequences, certain choices should be made to benefit the a majority of the people even if the choice is wrong, evil. For example, I believe you should steal a person’s gun if you know they plan to shoot up a school, but I don’t think it is alright to break someone’s pencil people won’t have to listen to the person tap it off the desk anymore. I disagree when it states that human life is expendable, but feel in certain situations a person should be killed. For example a gun dealer should be killed or robbed to prevent him form selling harmful wepons. I agree with Christianity when it says human life is sacred, but believe a small number should be killed if their deaths would save the lives of many more people. I also agree with Christianity that choices should be made with the golden rule in mind. However, I think it is fine to make a choice with the intentions to benefit the lives of a majority of people.
ReplyDeleteI find Utilitarianism both appealing and unappealing. I find it appealing because it shows that people can make the right decision when it comes down to it. I disagree with Utlitarianism because the majority of the people making the decision could think that their right decision is the wrong one. It is bad because you can make a decision that will hurt people now but will save more peple in tthe long run.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there are certain things that i myself as well as chistianity disagree on with utilitarianism.In a certain way it is appealing to me in how the circumstances of the situation can change the outcome. Also I find some of the principle of utility, hedonism appealing. I think that it is good that the from a moral situation the right choice is not just for you but for the greater number of either your community or people in general. For example cheating on a test or hw assignment. If you do so then you aren't helping yourself but making it hard for the teacher and the student you cheated off. But if you didn't cheat then the happiness of the whole class and commmunity wouldnt have to worry about the consequences of the action. Some things however that i find unappealing about utilitarianism is some of there belifs. For example i stronglt believe that choices should be made witht the golden rule in mind so that they are made not just for yourself but for the greater number of people. Also i agree with what christian moral philosophers have against utilitarianism in some ways such as that people can be used as a means. this is something that i disagree with because if you are used as a mean then you are essential a slave and have no rights or moral value. In a way you are being forced to do something in which you may dislikel. Therefore there are many things in which utilitarianism can compare and contrast with. Overall i only agree with certian aspects of utilitarianism and not all of its beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI find that the principle of utility is the most appealing aspect of Utilitarianism. This states that the correct choice in a moral dilemma is the one that results in the greatest amount of happiness for the most people. The United States was correct in executing Saddam Hussein because he was doing horrible things to his own people and killing him saved many lives. What I find unappealing about Utilitarianism is the belief that an action is good if it has good consequences and bad if it has bad consequences. It is not ok if you steal someone's drugs and use them and the person you stole them from was going to drive and endanger other lives. Conversely, it is not bad if you were giving an injured person a ride to the hospital and you got into a car accident and someone got hurt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Christian philosophers' objection that Utilitarians believe that there is no act with good outcomes that could be considered morally wrong. For example, abortion and infanticide are always wrong even if the child has a disease. However, I disagree with the Christian philosophers' objection that every human life is sacred. This is true with most people but, a terrorist should be killed before he inflicts damage on others.