In three pages this paper discusses utilitarianism in rule and in act and argues that it does not encourage ethical decision making. Two sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: RT13_SA315U.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
appear to be morally repugnant but perfectly acceptable under the paradigm. The present war in Iraq is another example. The end result is for the greater good of society.
Yet, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers die. Is that right? Even if the end will be a liberated state, should those human beings have to die? Is the
war justified on utilitarian grounds? The answer is probably yes, so questions about morality linger. One objection to utilitarianism is that it permits too much. It is essentially too lenient
for a moral theory. It is important to note that while act utilitarianism states that the ends justifies the means, rule utilitarianism is a bit different. Hence, in studying
the different types, one may see remarkably different outcomes. Brandt (as cited in Beauchamp, 2002) explores a sort of rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is quite different than act utilitarianism.
It is the difference between someone who does not see any harm in keeping a sum of cash they find on the street and someone who sees it as morally
wrong not to turn it in to the police. Some people look at rules or laws and others look at results and hold onto an ends justify the means philosophy.
Consequentialism is a relatively recent concept in utilitarianism that rejects the old way to measure righteousness by looking at happiness, and instead looks at consequences; direct consequentialism is
the idea that the goodness of anything depends only on the goodness of the overall state of affairs consequent upon it (Honderich, 1995). It is like the older philosophy
supported by Bentham but there are slight differences. The important thing to remember is that the outcome, or the result, is what matters. Here, the ends justify the means. Direct