1.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical framework that focuses on the outcomes or results of actions. In fact, its name
comes from the Greek word telos, which means “end.” The two most influential developers of the
utilitarian viewpoint were Englishmen Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873).
Under this framework, acting ethically means making decisions and taking actions that benefit people by
maximizing “good” and minimizing “bad.” Outcomes, results, or goals are the focus—not the action taken
to achieve them. Utilitarians facing an ethical dilemma ask, “What is my goal? What outcome should I aim
for?”.

In the notion of consequences the Utilitarian includes all of the good and bad
produced by the act, whether arising after the act has been performed or during its
performance. If the difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not great,
some Utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According
to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences
are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not
merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner.

In assessing the consequences of actions, Utilitarianism relies upon some theory of

intrinsic value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further
consequences, and all other values are believed to derive their worth from their
relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were
hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and
believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians also
assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic values produced by two alternative
actions and to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham believed that
a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist, he maintained, could sum up
the units of pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be affected,
immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure of the overall
good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement as Bentham envisioned
is perhaps not essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the Utilitarian to make
some interpersonal comparisons of the values of the effects of alternative courses of
action.
Advantages of Utilitarianism

1. The morality of an action is particular to cases

2. It fits with the idea that the consequences of our actions matter
3. It fits with the idea that it is right to contribute to happiness rather than misery
4. People tend to act with happiness, not necessarily their own, in mind.
5. It gives a simple methodology for deciding moral questions
6. It gives a guide when there is no time to assess the pros and cons of a situation
7. It treats everyone as equal, there are no special considerations
8. At times utilitarianism advocates self-sacrifice, honesty and justice - all things that we value in moral
terms
Disadvantages of Utilitarianism

1. It only counts happiness

2. It equates happiness with pleasure
3. Calculation problems
4. It treats people as means to an end.
5. It makes both supererogatory acts and trivial acts compulsory.
6. It makes people do the right things for the wrong reasons.
7. It doesn't matter who does something as long as the consequences occur.
8. It assumes we have a common human nature with common desires. It leaves no room for individual
tastes, or for some people to value highly something that others might think is of no account at all.

Examples

The utilitarian's chief concern is the "pursuit of happiness" by doing the "greatest
good for the greatest number". For example, the use of "CFC" propellants was made
illegal in France because, although they were cheap and easy to manufacture and use,
they were quickly depleting the Ozone layer, which is ultimately important to Nature.
In this example, the "greatest good"; being able to breathe our air ,without being
doomed to live underground by year 2000, is obvious. So is the "greatest number";
this referring to humankind, the animal kingdom,(...),Nature in general. Nevertheless
utilitarianism imparts its own limitations; the case described in the exam brings up the
"pros" and "cons" of this philosophy.

Another example, Will saving one child on the other hand bring the most amount of
happiness The parents may feel thankful that one twin is to survive but the surviving
twin"tms feelings will not be known until the future. It is in contrast to act form because it
considers the consequences of an action that has been taken after a general rule has been
adopted. So how can the consequences of an action prove that action morally right or
wrong if one persons view on happiness is completely different from another". Rule
Utilitarianism can almost overcome this problem because it concerns rules that apply to
ensure the most happiness for everyone. Under act Utilitarianism an action is morally right if
it causes the most amount of pleasure for the greatest number, regardless of whether the
original action would be seen as "universally" wrong. Utilitarianism does not therefore
always allow people in an ethical dilemma to be aware of the consequences in the long-
term future that may prove destructive. Utilitarianism concerns making predictions for the
future but these predictions may actually prove wrong. This was supported by Peter
Singer who also argued that ethical decisions should benefit the interests of the affected
rather simple than pleasure. Utilitarianism also fails to distinguish what happiness actually
is. Rule Utilitarianism depends on the consequences of a particular action. This modified
view allows dilemmas to be soled in the best interest of everyone involved without allowing
the majority to overall a very important ethical dilemma. This is the philosophical approach
that says whether a rule can be made universal, for example a rule that says a particular
action is always wrong or right. It is establishes the best overall rules that would eventually
allow the whole community to receive the most amount of pleasure. Utilitarianism
recognises life"tms values and concentrates on the consequences that are ultimately the
most important when it comes to ethical dilemmas. For example not breaking the driving
speed limit is a general rule that I must obey because it is one that ensures the best result
for the community (safety and happiness).

The case is the following: a person, from a group, has the choice between killing the
fat man who was leading them out of a cave, thus saving the others, or letting the fat
man live, thus letting all the others, including himself, drown.

This situation is quite similar to the one in the movie "Abandon ship", in which the
captain of a sunken ship finds himself in the middle of the ocean with only one rescue
raft and twice as many surviving passengers as it can possibly take. Even though
many of them manage to stay in the water clinging to the boat, the raft is about to
sink... The heart of the matter being that he chooses to keep only the correct amount
of passengers -setting the others at large-, so that all the ones on the raft can survive
the upcoming storm. Until now, his utilitarian way of dealing with the situation makes
a lot of sense: he chose to sacrifice a few instead of leading them all into death.
However, new factors comes into play when the storm turns out to be relatively calm
and an unexpected ship appears and rescues them the following day. The last line of
the movie is spoken by one of the rescued, who used the words "too soon", meaning
that the captain could, after all, have kept everyone on and around the boat and they
would all have lived.

If we were to make a parallel with our cave example, it would be as if the group
realized, after killing the fat man, that they could very well have lived because the
high waters wouldn't have reached the top of the cave anyway.

Another example, Will saving one child on the other hand bring the most amount of
happiness The parents may feel thankful that one twin is to survive but the surviving
twin"tms feelings will not be known until the future. It is in contrast to act form because it
considers the consequences of an action that has been taken after a general rule has been
adopted. So how can the consequences of an action prove that action morally right or
wrong if one persons view on happiness is completely different from another". Rule
Utilitarianism can almost overcome this problem because it concerns rules that apply to
ensure the most happiness for everyone. Under act Utilitarianism an action is morally right if
it causes the most amount of pleasure for the greatest number, regardless of whether the
original action would be seen as "universally" wrong. Utilitarianism does not therefore
always allow people in an ethical dilemma to be aware of the consequences in the long-
term future that may prove destructive. Utilitarianism concerns making predictions for the
future but these predictions may actually prove wrong. This was supported by Peter
Singer who also argued that ethical decisions should benefit the interests of the affected
rather simple than pleasure. Utilitarianism also fails to distinguish what happiness actually
is. Rule Utilitarianism depends on the consequences of a particular action. This modified
view allows dilemmas to be soled in the best interest of everyone involved without allowing
the majority to overall a very important ethical dilemma. This is the philosophical approach
that says whether a rule can be made universal, for example a rule that says a particular
action is always wrong or right. It is establishes the best overall rules that would eventually
allow the whole community to receive the most amount of pleasure. Utilitarianism
recognises life"tms values and concentrates on the consequences that are ultimately the
most important when it comes to ethical dilemmas. For example not breaking the driving
speed limit is a general rule that I must obey because it is one that ensures the best result
for the community (safety and happiness).

2. Liberalism from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom" is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal
rights. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these
principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal
democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the freedom of
religion. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a
liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions,
but the dominant variants areclassical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth
century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Liberalism first
became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions
that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as hereditary status, established
religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke,
who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed
the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should
replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and
that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property. The revolutionaries in
the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed
overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in
nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in
the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major
ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Conservatism, fundamentalism,
and military dictatorship remain powerful opponents of liberalism. Today, liberals are organized
politically on all major continents. They have played a decisive role in the growth of republics, the
spread of civil rightsand civil liberties, the establishment of the modern welfare state, the
institution of religious toleration and religious freedom, and the development of globalization.
Political scientist Alan Wolfe wrote, "liberalism is the answer for which modernity is the question".
Liberalism for Beginners
• Liberalism as a doctrine is truly shrouded in myth and innuendo. If you are confused, that is because
the history of liberalism and conservatism as doctrines are themselves sometimes the opposite of what
we have been told by pundits. The “L” word now stands in for what “socialism” used to in this
country, and so few people identify with the label and it is merely useful as an epithet. Conservatives
themselves, have done an about-face on issues once considered sacred.
• Another confusing element: "Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas.
• Within liberalism, there is a spectrum of ideas from left to right.
• In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. In that it has ALWAYS
been “conservative”, seeking to contain more radical social movements.