Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism

For those who renounce moral selfishness and / or are not even satisfied with duty, the natural alternative is that theory is called purposeful utilitarianism. Roughly speaking, duty-oriented theory emphasizes other people, but how will welfare be enhanced?

It is not emphasized, selfishness promotes welfare, but indifference to other people, and utilitarianism eliminates these two flaws at the same time. This theory also eliminates potential conflicts of fundamental principles.

What works for the good of the people, good deeds can be accepted by any other policy without this principle, – our deeds and rules, which achieve the greatest good rather than bad, will be judged by it.

More explicitly utilitarianism may be explained

More explicitly utilitarianism may be explained, which Frankena would use for advantage, but the point he wants to make is that the only criterion of good, evil, and compulsion is the principle of utility, which is to say precisely the moral standard of what we do. In the world as a whole, there is more good than bad (at least there needs to be a minimum probability of good from evil).

Policy has nothing to do with what is meant by “good” or “bad.” From this it seems that good and bad, whatever they may be, can be measured and compared with each other quantitatively or mathematically.

Jeremy Beham tries to introduce the computational law of happiness and sorrow and uses seven dimensions. These are: intensity, certainty, proximity, fertility, purity and breadth. John Stuart Mill, in part, imported qualitative and quantitative differences in the evaluation of happiness. But in this case, it is difficult to understand how the ideal of utilitarianism can be described and Mill has never been able to clarify this.

From this notion of utilitarianism it seems that there is an insurmountable barrier to the measure of good and evil, and there must be such barriers, that is utilitarianism.

Would be a big objection against

Would be a big objection against. These objections cause problems for some, such as Ross and Frankena, because they feel that apparently our duty is to develop the good or to eliminate the bad. Frankena would like to discuss other objections, although in the fifth chapter he will say something about it.

If one thinks, as all utilitarianists think, that what is morally good or evil is more than good, which enhances good, if it is ultimately determined by it, then there may be many opinions and it is not possible to discuss them all. We will distinguish between three types of utilitarianism, each of which may have a set of views.

We will refer to and discuss them in a non-ethical manner, without relating them to any theory, good or bad. In this regard, some utilitarians see happiness and welfare as one with happiness and happiness with contentment. Others are not hedonists, but we will only discuss their compulsion theory, not their value theory.