What is utilitarianism - Essay Example

?Insert Introduction Brandt and Williams are great philosophers of utiliatarianism. Williams suggested that consequentialism has been popular and perceived to be rational in various societies due to a false impression and refusal of non-consequentialist ideologies. Although, Williams fails to provide an alternative moral hypothesis, the philosopher successfully investigated how utilitarianism and its backers root for untenable beliefs about what rational actions entail. On the other hand, Brandt emphasizes that when evaluating the repercussions of the value of an ethical belief, the society should go beyond mere appraisal of the gains of following set etiquettes and instead embrace selective fulfillment of the requirements. This can only be achieved by leveraging the benefits and negative consequences of such rules: for instance, one should appreciate remorse and other dangers linked to interiorizing fundamental prohibitions in the society. This paper analyzes the ethical arguments presented in “A Critique of Utilitarianism” by Williams and “Some Merits of One Form of Rule Utilitarianism,” by Bernard Brandt in their respective articles, in order to establish whose utilitarian philosophy is more effective in today’s society. Overview of the philosophers’ perceptions Williams (606-622) provides an exceptional theory, which defines positive action, based on whether it results in a favorable situation triggers a fundamental conflict between an individual’s ethical capacities and that supposedly right action. It is notable that in an effort to employ utilitarianism in balancing and sustaining practicality as an ethical theory, Williams (607-611) points out the surreptitious incorporation of moral feelings that are not purely utilitarian. For meticulous observation, this confusion often triggers the realization of the weaknesses of a consequentialist approach to understanding satisfactory morality and leadership. By taking into consideration an individual’s ethical inclinations only when they are in tandem with utility implies that there could be a more profound failure to appreciate that such beliefs are often exhibited by the agent’s individual projects and obligations. Therefore, to realize an objective threshold of moral practices, utilitarianism eventually soils an individual’s honor by turning right action immaterial to those initiatives and obligations. Whereas Williams (606-622) perceives that the grounds for the effectiveness of consequentialist moral revolve around to immoral thoughts about moral impacts of the eventualities, Brandt suggests morality is based on moral actions. Brandt argument on utilitarianism contradicts Williams, especially on his suggestion that that the latter’s jump into the impacts of actions occasions the weakening of the individual’s moral standing (Brandt 590-592). In view of this, Williams’ perception of ‘commitment’ as dictated by the party confronted by an ethical dilemma should be based on the actions and not just the consequences. Additionally, in case there is need to maintain honor between individual behavior and minor order projects, it is important to recognize the fact that modern moral theories such as the ones based on consequentialist ideology, this cannot be embedded to individual actions. It is, however, important to recognize that both Williams and Brandt philosophies on ethical actions imply that a certain application is greatly shaped by the actions of an autonomous moral cause. Significance of the ethical goals and actions Williams (607-615) acknowledges that individuals in the modern world are unaware of the connection between human objectives and behavior. Further, the theorist’s argument brings into focus some fundamental issues such as whether individuals take steps for the sole aim of accomplishing particular objectives. And if so, after realizing an intended objective, it is unclear whether the outcome may inspire the pursuing other successive goals in life, because in general, goals in life are an endless phenomenon. The philosopher then indicates that the end of a goal as it is in suggested by Brandt is the process of attaining certain goals, rather than accomplishing any in particular. This argument is based on the fact that as long as an individual is alive, he or she continues to pursue endless causes. In spite of how it is analyzed, not any moral cause carries in it positive consequences. Brandt (589-606) argues that is it important to bring to an end an infinite situation; and this can only be achieved if an eventual objective is theorized or an infinite development as that which is pursued separately without the inclusion of its repercussions. Both philosophers, however, agree that utilitarianism seeks particular valuable or largely good situations as the eventual product of ethical actions. Analysis of the utilitarian philosophies In general, both Williams in his “A critique of utilitarianism” and Brandt’s “Some merits of one form of rule utilitarianism” used utilitarian arguments in their effort to describe moral behavior, and actions in relation to the manner in which the moral party’s actions influence others. These actions encompass the agent’s responsibility for negative actions or the consequences. Nonetheless, if the society accepts that every party has unique initiatives, negative liability would no longer prick the agent for moral actions, especially in respect to associations with neighbors. Conversely, Williams’ utilitarian philosophy revolves around the exploration of the best of moral options to take for unlocking dilemmas, rather than shunning any action (606-622). Williams argues that some times, unresponsiveness should not be tolerated, especially if what is being pursued is morally right. Nor, though, solutions based on utilitarianism favorable. Nonetheless, Brandt (589-606) concurs with Williams that utilitarianism is intended to narrow the gap of an agent’s behavior in regard to pursuing the most appropriate situation by leaving out the party’s own secondary repercussions such as abhorrence of prejudice, or of unkindness, or of elimination from existence. Such cases indicate that moral champions do acknowledge that fellow society members have their distinctive projects which they concentrate on. In fact a large number of people acknowledge both their individual first assignments and the responsibilities of other members, all of which under utilitarianism are often dropped in favor of a purportedly rational option toward reaching a conclusion whereby all participants get a fair share of the good or bad. Additionally, many projects of high significance involve lasting investment of an individual’s personality and motives, which signifies the need to make long-term commitments. Williams argues that if the moral of utility is summoned in that particular predicament, and it conflicts with such a dedication, short-term commitments would be easy to resolve, in which case, the conflict may be resolved by invoking the utilitarian approach in the search for a solution. On the other hand, for a party who has been dedicated to some initiative over a longer period of time, for instance tens of years, to deferment to utilitarianism response would actually sacrifice the honor of the party. Brandt avers that utilitarians do not have the capacity to make appropriate response to this situation. The philosophers add that of course the dedication should be upheld since it carries an immense potential utility. Nonetheless, this is immoral, owing to the fact that the society has already recognized that the party’s dedications are not based on utilitarian situations, rather the acknowledgement of the party’s individual projects. Utilitarianism provides for the action of the dedicated agent against and without any strings attached to personal agendas. It requires actions based on violation of individual integrity, which may spill out to the entire society (William 606-622; Brandt 592-595). Summary of the main points As a conceptual ethical canon, utilitarianism has assumed popularity as an imperative and plausible alternative that was disproved or adopted by Brandt and Williams as they took a stance based on normative ethics in their respective essays. Both theorists, whose philosophies form part of today’s analyses, diverged from several attachments to the evaluation of the psychological theory and ethical communication processes. Williams indicated that utilitarianism now emerges in various customized and complex formulations, adding that there are more weaknesses in the Utilitarian measures (Williams 606-622). For instance, one of them involves the technique of recognizing the repercussions of a decision. This process invokes theoretical as well as feasible flaws as to the actual consequences and proper quantification of the essence of those repercussions. In addition, problems may occur in relation to the approach of judging alternative acts, especially if one operation takes longer time to be performed than another. In view of this, questions may be raised as to whether such acts can be classified as alternatives. The exact issue or act that can be categorized as above the threshold is still contentious between the two philosophers. These conflicts, nonetheless, are widespread to a large percentage of normative ethical concepts since most philosophers acknowledge the consequences of an action as being occasioned by pertinent ethical understandings. The primary fact which informs utilitarianism philosophies revolves around the fact that an individual should champion for contentment and shun discontent whenever possible. Conversely, the critical issue is whether the analysis of the entire normative ethics may be achievable in regard to this straightforward approach (Brandt 589-606). Conclusion In general, both Williams and Brandt are influential philosophers whose ideologies continue to define ethical decisions in the contemporary world. Williams disproved of the clear stipulation of ethics in moral concepts of utilitarianism, which is an imperative philosophical ideology about ethics, suggesting that the ethical life of society is too much of a baggage to be enshrined in any systematic ethical theory. On the other hand, Brandt's ideologies also offer the society grounds not to blindly subscribe to the stipulations of the prevailing laws. He added that the society should observe the feasibility and significance of conceptual transformation. I believe that, of the two philosophers, Williams’ philosophy based on his article “A critique of utilitarianism” provides better and a more profound evaluation of utilitarianism. Williams offered a clearer account of how utilitarian philosophy on ethics should be rationally explored regardless of the consequences of their actions. His philosophy is far more superior to Brandt’s, who stresses the need for a center of utilitarianism but fails support is, indicating that set etiquettes should not blindly followed in the society. Works Cited Brandt, Richard. “Some Merits of One Form of Rule Utilitarianism,” pp. 589-606; Williams, Bernard. “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” pp. 606-622. Read More