Utilitarianism as an ethical theory
Utilitarianism can be perceived to be a normative theory of ethics where the justification of the right and wrong occurs absolutely based on the outcomes of selecting one action over any other actions. As such, it scopes over the interests of any individual and spans over the interests of the others also. In this context, Mill states that the Principle of Utility of Bentham can be highlighted. Bentham approves and/or disapproves any action based on the level of pain or pleasure that is experienced owing to the consequences of any action. This implies that pleasure and pain are absolutely quantifiable and hence thus the application of the ethical theory gives a clear implication of the level of positives or negatives enjoyed by the stakeholders of any .organisation.
Act Utilitarianism
This is actually a theory of teleological ethics, which proposes that actions should actually be judged on a one to one basis the actions should actually be based on their Principle of Utility. This implies that actions are supposed to be done only when great happiness is caused to the maximum number of people. The central proposition of the Act Utilitarianism is that actions are supposed to be judged based on the virtue of the outcomes. As per Tom and
Werkhoven, no other ethical consideration is worth mentioning. In the way of assessing the consequences, the parameter is simply the level of happiness that is caused owing to the outcome.
Rule Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism comes in to parity with the Act Utilitarianism in the perception that the aim of the perception is that the path to achieve that is seldom known in the case of Rule Utilitarianism. On the contrary, it implies a slight variation wherein it is professed that people should live by a framework of rules that is intended towards maximum utility. One example can be provided here. As per the example provided by Lyons, it is ambiguous for the Rule utilitarian, to understand whether killing an innocent will be of a good cause since it is essential for the saving of the lives of others or it is worse because of the fact that this would be detrimental for the loss of the social cohesion and would be costing a life actually.
Further Discussion
There are 5 apparent criticisms of the Utilitarian theory. The first is that by focusing entirely up on the consequences of any of the actions, it is not confirmed whether the action derives maximum happiness for the most number of people or not. Rather, the means through which the consequences are caused, are ignored completely. The means by which happiness is caused for the people is actually irrelevant and unethical at times also.
Besides, it is an important fact that utilitarianism emphasises entirely on the consequences caused by any action. The intentions with which the actions are caused are absolutely ignored. Such considerations are very critical while taking a moral consideration in to account. On intent that be highlighted here is that if a burglar attempts to steal property and assets of another person for feeding someone else, along with the consequences, it also needs to be considered that the intention of the robber had been to steal and put the lives of the people from whom he is stealing at stake.
Part B
Nietzsche
Nietzsche made the claim that the exemplary person should be crafting their personal identity by means of self-realisation. Again, he also emphasises that this needs to be done without relying on something transcending this life like any supernatural power or the power of god. This way of living the life should be professed even if one is to adopt most problematic means of living. Nietzsche proposed a cosmologic theory whereby he professed the will to power. However, critics like White, view him as proponents of a general cosmology. Questions have been raised regarding the coherence of the views of Nietzsche. As raised by Bowie, the major question is that whether all the views of Nietzsche can be accepted without any contradiction or not. Another important question is that whether any particular perception be disregarded if their view is found to be incoherent or at large incompatible.
Kant
Kant
had the perception that there are peculiar types of actions that are prohibited
absolutely even if they are likable to bring about higher level of happiness
compared to the alternative. This is true for the instances like murder, theft,
as well as lying. For any followers of Kantian ethics, two questions are needed
to be asked before committing to any action. The first question is whether it
will be rational for everyone to act as the person is willing to act right now.
The second question is that whether there is respect for the goals of human
beings rather than their own purposes, in their act.
References
Bernd, Magnus. “Nietzsche’s Philosophy in 1888: The Will to Power and the Übermensch 1.” Nietzsche. Routledge, 2018. 99-118.
Bowie, Norman E. Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Lyons, David. “Utilitarianism.” Wiley Encyclopedia of Management (2015): 1-4.
Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy. Routledge, 2016. 337-383.
Patrick, Tom, and Sander Werkhoven. Utilitarianism. Macat Library, 2017.
White, Joshua J. Josh. “Nietzsche’s Forgotten Spirit: Woman in Nietzsche’s Philosophy (thesis).” (2016).
