Do people live their lives by Utilitarianism

Elm Tree

13

Or is it purely theoretical?

Reply 1

luten toon

No, since life is tough. Who cares about "happiness"?

Reply 2

Martyn*

13

Original post by luten toon

No, since life is tough. Who cares about "happiness"?

Therefore all the more need for people to adopt a utilitarian view of society.

Reply 3

snozzle

12

They do if you practice or study economics.

Reply 4

JuliaABlu

Going with the majority seems to be instinctive in some ways but the greatest happiness principle is not all there is in our decisions/life.

Reply 5

Aristocles123

I think we're more like Hobbes' egoists

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 6

419

14

No, we life in a selfish society

Reply 7

ElfishMatt666

It is interesting. Utilitarianism is often referred to as a "back-up" or "common sense" morality. It's what you fall back on when you can't decide. It's what your moral intuitions are based on. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly is true that we rationally prefer a "better" state of affairs to a "worse" one, which is what utilitarianism aims at.

Best Wishes.

Reply 8

SamKeene

11

Original post by ElfishMatt666

It is interesting. Utilitarianism is often referred to as a "back-up" or "common sense" morality. It's what you fall back on when you can't decide. It's what your moral intuitions are based on. I don't know if this is true, but it certainly is true that we rationally prefer a "better" state of affairs to a "worse" one, which is what utilitarianism aims at.

Best Wishes.

A good point. Also OP, consider hospitals. They have a set budget, and they use utilitarianism to decide how to spend it. 'How can we save the most lives with the money we have?'

I think in the heat of the moment, biology and emotive thinking causes us to fall back on more selfish, egoistic ethics.

Reply 9

eeeeeh

8

I do as far as i can
a lot of people do without realising as well

Reply 10

D.R.E

13

Utilitarianism is the only model for human action, no matter how much philosophers like to pontificate about 'moral systems'.

Reply 11

cambio wechsel

20

See Phillippa Foot and the Trolley problem.

Or try it here: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default.aspx

Reply 12

tazarooni89

20

Personally I wouldn't say so. There are many theoretical scenarios in which most people would agree that the utilitarian method of determining what is moral doesn't provide a "correct" result.

For example, suppose you have an extremely rich man (Rob) and another man of average, or slightly below average wealth (Peter). Utilitarianism would suggest that, assuming nobody finds out about it, it is moral for Peter to steal £1000 from Rob, because this increases overall happiness. From Rob's perspective, £1000 is pocket change which he won't notice has gone missing, and doesn't mean much to him anyway. He won't lose much happiness as a result. But to Peter, £1000 is worth a lot more than it is to Rob. It could buy him a new car, or a nice holiday, or something he's only ever dreamed of, and therefore increase his happiness significantly.

One of utilitarianism's main drawbacks (compared to "common sense", I suppose,) is that it ignores the fact that people have their own individual rights that must be upheld, regardless of whether or not it increases overall happiness to do so.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 13

snozzle

12

I think the invention of the theory of utilitarian ethics meant that (some) people started using it. :wink:

Reply 14

kynthiaa

In view of it as a conquestionalist ethical theory, yes. Logically humans will look to the consequences of their actions in decision making.

Reply 15

RawJoh1

14

Original post by kynthiaa

In view of it as a conquestionalist ethical theory, yes. Logically humans will look to the consequences of their actions in decision making.

This does not entail that people act in a consequentialist or utilitarian fashion. Just because you "look to the cosnsequences of your actions" does not make you a utilitarian. Kant looks to the CONSEQUENCES of universal violation of a maxim in order to generate a contradiction in conception. But that doesn't make Kant a consequentialist.

Consequentialism is NOT the view that "consequences matter" or something like that. It is the thesis that the right action is that which maximises the good. This is not an uncontroversial view.

As to whether people live by util or consequentialism. Well ... some people do. Other people don't (I don't, for example). What are the proportions each side? No idea.

Reply 16

Picnic1

19

Original post by 419

No, we life in a selfish society

And it leaves a hole in society as a result. Maybe this hole creates its own interesting things, like the punk movement, but, post-punk and post-Britpop, post 9/11, I think that , from my personal perspective, I am seeing that there is no replacement for the 'All you need is love' Beatles spirit. But when that is not reflected across society love starts to feel like merely an old fashioned notion or just a survival mechanism instead of the glue that society quietly relied upon to be worthy of being called a society. But this love has to be cross generational. Older people must not hate young people just because they have more of their lives ahead of them or just because those older people have made poor life choices resulting in them feeling like **** or because they project on to those young people what they were at their age rather than what those young people are in their own right. And young people must not hate older people for the same reason. But, on the other hand, let's remember that older people HAVE had longer to mess things up, to not contribute to society, to squander opportunities to educate the young well, to be aloof without any real standing for that aloofness. Society would be ideal if generations, of any age, taught themselves the wisdom that they have acquired downards AND upwards, outside of formal education. Celebrities need to stop being celebrated for anything other than what they make. It is a relative handful of people who have the power to shape how we view our society, through the medias. If we disagree with their judgements then we have to stop rewarding them for it- stop buying their magazines, newspapers (whether tabloid or broadsheet). We do not have to live in unity with the attention span / attention to detail poor 21st Century if we prefer the ways and values of an earlier age. We can be like spikes against complacency.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 17

Fatfis

Original post by RawJoh1

This does not entail that people act in a consequentialist or utilitarian fashion. Just because you "look to the cosnsequences of your actions" does not make you a utilitarian. Kant looks to the CONSEQUENCES of universal violation of a maxim in order to generate a contradiction in conception. But that doesn't make Kant a consequentialist.

Consequentialism is NOT the view that "consequences matter" or something like that. It is the thesis that the right action is that which maximises the good. This is not an uncontroversial view.

As to whether people live by util or consequentialism. Well ... some people do. Other people don't (I don't, for example). What are the proportions each side? No idea.

Kant actually had issues with his theory in that Ammoral or even immoral e.g 'do not help anyone' maxims could be Universalised without contradiction, so he added an extra qualification ' think on wether this is a world you would want to live in' so Kant was a consequentialist.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 18

manty

17

Hey guys, i havent studied philosophy but im really interested in it, is Utilitarianism a decision making tool, in which happiness is the primary factor?

Reply 19

Fatfis

Original post by manty

Hey guys, i havent studied philosophy but im really interested in it, is Utilitarianism a decision making tool, in which happiness is the primary factor?

Yeah I mean type it into google and your'll a pretty apt description, at base it underpins an actions moral value on the basis of maximising pleasure and minimising suffering, it examines the consequential pleasure of an action. But pleasure is a difficult concept to define, therefore quantify.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Do people live their lives by Utilitarianism

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you