UNIT III.

VIRTUE ETHICS__________________________________________________________

Overview

This unit provides you a vibrant understanding of virtue ethics and the
highlights of the biography of the proponents. The criticism of virtue ethics is
also provided in this unit as well as the ways on how to manifest these virtue
ethics in your life.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of the unit, I am able to:

1. Articulate what virtue ethics
is; 2. Critique virtue ethics; and
3. Make use of virtue ethics.

Setting Up

Name: _____________________________ Score: ____________________

Course/Year/Section: ______________ Date: _____________________

Directions: Rate your level of happiness in each given situation from 1-10. The
highest happiness rate is 10 and 1 is the lowest. Write your answer in the
column before the given situation.

You have bought a new IPhone 11 Pro Max.

You have bought a new house and a lot.
You are drinking alcohol with friends.
You have bought a new car.
You have just won a competition.
You are having a party with your family.
You have a new boyfriend/girlfriend.
You are having a party with your friends.
You have bought new clothes.
You have graduated from college.
Lesson Proper
Virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is a moral structure wherein hypotheses underline the

purpose and significance of one's character and virtue so as to evaluate the
integrity of their actions. It focuses on the improvement of an individual's
general righteous character or greatness. (Kraut, R, 2018) According to
Aristotle, a virtuous individual is the one who is routinely checking his conduct
and correcting them accurately. For the Greeks, virtue is equal to greatness.

Aristotle or Artistoteles lived in Greece sometime in 384 and 322 BCE.

He contemplated reasoning under Plato in the Academy and built The Lyceum,
his own school. He is considered as perhaps the best philosopher in old
Philosophy.

In Aristotle's theory of ethics, he centered on discussing excellence and

character or “what makes a human life good or worth living” working in his
book and moral hypothesis which he called Nicomachaean Ethics which he
named after his child Nicomachus. Telos is a Greek expression that signifies
"last reason". It additionally implies reason, objective, end or genuine last
capacity of an object. (Hurthouse, 1999)

According to Aristotle everything that a man has a capacity or action,

the great and the well is thought to live in the capacity.

From the word telos come the principle of teleology which is the
ethical theory that considers reason to be the "end" and one's obligation and
good commitment depend on what is the acceptable or attractive result.
Teleology is additionally known to be a consequentialist theory. Aristotle was
not the person who created teleology but rather his form is the most acclaimed
record of this ethical theory.

For instance, Millen needs to purchase another cellphone regardless of

whether her cellphone is as yet working. Do you think her choice to purchase
another cellphone is right if we will utilize the standards of teleology?

Telos: The function Argument

Aristotle accepted that all things have purposes, objectives, or ends

which must be accomplished to its benefit. He considered this contention the
capacity argument. Aristotle likewise underlines the need to realize one's
actual function to have the option to accomplish goodness or greatness. He
called this intellectual virtue.
Telos: The Golden Mean
Aristotle states in Nicomachean Ethics that virtue is a mean. It is a
condition of clarification and apprehension from pain and pleasure. An
excellent character is the one that is continually and effectively cleaning up
the soul from closing out or slaving from pain and pleasure.

Photo taken from Frontlearners.com

Here are the similar perspectives on men's constant propensities
and their classes under the rule of golden mean.

Deficiency Virtue Deficiency

Prudence Temperance Self-indulgence
Spineless Good Temper Irascibility
Self-depression Honesty Boastfulness
Boorishness Wittiness Buffoonery
Surliness Friendliness Obsequiousness
Cowardice Courage Rashness/Recklessness
Stinginess/Miserliness Generosity/Magnificence Extravagance
Sloth Ambition Greed
Humility Modesty Loquacity/Pride
Moroseness Good humor Absurdity
How about we check this guide to comprehend the ramifications of
following Aristotle's the golden mean. In the area of satisfying others, we
consider agreeableness to be an ethical demonstration yet its lacking
rendition, being quarrelsome, and its outrageous adaptation, ingratiation are
both seen as grievous by individuals. It is hard to manage factious individuals
while you'll never become more acquainted with the genuine individual
behind charmed man. (Sachs, 2002)

Virtue ethics St. Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas was born in Roccasecca, Italy between 1224 and

1226. At the point when he kicked the bucket, he was consecrated as the
benefactor holy person of educators, hence as a rule being designated "The
Universal Teacher." His two notable works of art are Summa Theologiae and
Summa Contra Gentiles. The two works of Aquinas on his comprehension of
the Latin philosophy.

In spite of Aquinas in Christianity, he didn't prevent from attempting

to reconcile religion and science. He immovably accepts that confidence and
reason can live one next to the other and not restricted to one another. Hence,
his laborers primarily spin in getting Christianity and the regular law under
the focal points of reason and oppose obdurate getting faith. (Chenu, 2019)

There four types of law that oversee the universe as indicated by

Aquinas. These are Eternal Law, Divine Law, Human Law, and Natural Law.
Eternal law is indistinguishable from the brain of God. It is everlasting
however confused by the human brain. Divine law is the law that originated
from the disclosure of God to people written in the Old and New Testaments.
Human Law is the law that is formulated by a human explanation as indicated
by geological, social, and historical conditions. Natural law is the law that
administers everything in nature and the establishment of pragmatic thinking
human law. In any case, in this exercise, we will just concentrate on natural
law.

Virtue Ethics: Natural Law

Let’s focus our lesson on natural law. Aquinas' moral theory rotates in
the possibility of the "Natural Law.” For him, the natural law isn't particular
from divine fortune however in fact pieces of it since it causes us to see how
God really made the universe and ordered it. According to him what is good is
to be done and evil is to be avoided.

All in all, what is the meaning of natural law? For Aquinas, natural law
is our natural comprehension and tendency to do certain things normally, for
example, safeguarding or ensuring one's life, teaching our kids, keeping our
opportunity, working for the benefit of all of the community, looking for God,
and avoiding obliviousness. In this way, we should apply these standards in a
judicious way with a steady impression of our desire to prosper as people and
that piece of nature is that we likewise have carnal impulses that we should
screen.
Along these lines, how might we become virtuous according to St.
Thomas Aquinas? Human nature is normally disposed of being a rational, free,
social, and physical being. We should consistently seek after what is beneficial
for us. On the off chance that something will stop us from prospering as
individuals, it isn't right to look for it. To realize what is acceptable and terrible
for us, we should consistently think about our essential needs and
comprehend the natural law.
 Natural law likewise has three moral principles which are essential to
know to comprehend the fundamental principles of Aquinas’ virtue ethics.
Aquinas contended that there are three general qualities that manage our
ethical information where each and every individual who has accomplished
primary education can comprehend.He said that these qualities are pertinent
consistently at all times, places, and circumstances. They are principles that
can be learned through the reflection of one's very own encounters by
analyzing them with human explanation, aside from faith.

Natural Law: Three Universal Values

Here are the three universal moral principles as indicated by Aquinas.

First is, all-inclusive standards are consistent with each individual who has
arrived at the time of reason as a general rule. It's the guideline of personality
and non-logical inconsistency. The model for the main good standard is you
should consistently do great and keep away from evil. Second is, all-inclusive
rules that with certain reflections can be reached from the main standards. Its
model is, we ought to reimburse the beneficial things done to us. On account
of our parents, we can't reimburse their penances really; consequently, we
should regard and love them consistently. In conclusion, widespread rules that
are not handily seen by individuals so a savvy educator must assistance clarify
it. Furthermore, the best model for this is we ought to be beneficent to those
out of luck.

Presently we should move to another point given by Thomas Aquinas

in his moral hypothesis. In this inquiry, he was asking how we can achieve
happiness in which he addressed that we can accomplish joy once we have
recognized and achieved our ultimate objective from different methods. He
accepted that we generally set different ultimate objectives throughout
everyday life except we additionally have an extreme end which is bliss, itself.

A definitive ultimate objective is a finish all things considered and

won't be utilized as a way to some further closures. For instance, secondary
school students concentrate hard to get passing marks at school. Having
passing marks is critical to get ready for school. Once in school, studies mean
to secure as much information as possible to get passing marks and graduate
on schedule. A decent scholastic foundation will at that point influence in
getting a decent line of work. A great job implies steady and good pay. Riches
carry a feeling of monetary opportunity to an individual to do exercises that
will satisfy the person in question.

In the example, we can see that there is part of objectives referenced

yet every one of these objectives were as yet not the finish of the activity,
rather, they were then used to help accomplish another objective until one
arrived at the last and extreme ultimate objective which is to be happy.

All in all, is it conceivable to have numerous goals? The appropriate

response is no. For Aquinas, there is just extreme ultimate objective which is
happiness in light of the fact that a definitive ultimate objective is something
we look for the wellbeing of its own and is altogether fulfilling the entirety of
one's wants.

In his work, Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas characterized

righteousness as a "propensity" that causes an individual to play out his
capacity, activity, or development appropriately. He introduced numerous
sorts of ethics in his book that characterize human goodness; notwithstanding,
he recognized four explicit temperances that arranges us to carry on with
ethically great lives. He called this the Cardinal Virtues. These are prudence,
temperance, courage, and justice.

The first virtue under Cardinal Virtues is prudence. Reasonability is

the righteousness of scholarly fitness or capacity to do certain things mentally
and sanely. For instance, Aria needs to go to the sleep gathering of her cousin
yet she has a test the following day. She begins to figure out how she will have
the option to go to the sleeping party but then breeze through her test the
following day. She thought of cheating yet it isn't right. She likewise thought of
reading for not many hours and heading off to the sleeping party with her
books and notes. She picked the subsequent choice and arranged her timetable
in like manner.

The second virtue is temperance. Restraint is the temperance of

refining our methods of making the most of our real wants. It guides us to
follow a control like balance, accommodation, quietude, forbearance, and
celibacy. For instance, swearing off drinking liquor, eating exorbitantly,
engaging in sexual relations, and living extravagantly is temperate for Aquinas.
Being modest, tame, and mercy are additionally viewed as ethical on the
grounds that these show control of one's passionate responses.

Courage is the virtue of limiting feelings of trepidation while figuring

out how to bear preposterous hunger for wild activities. Fearlessness realizes
when to battle and when to fly. In the event that you have fearlessness, you
likewise have continuance, certainty, heavenliness, persistence, and diligence.
For instance, facing a challenge to go after that position you are sitting tight
for quite a long time is a type of mental fortitude yet skydiving without
legitimate hardware for the adrenaline surge is a type of foolishness.
 The last cardinal excellence is, justice that different from the three, is
centered on going people to productive members of society. Equity is the
ethicalness that administers our connection with others and the state. This
righteousness administers our relationship with others not at all like different
excellences referenced. The reason for this prudence is to cause individuals to
turn out to be productive members of society. The two kinds of equity are
commutative and distributive. Commutative is justice between common
individual residents. While distributive is equity as the aggregate activities of
the individuals from the state.

Kant and Rights Theorists: Goodwill and Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant is a German Philosopher (1724-1804) whose way of

thinking on the goodwill and categorical imperative is established in utilizing
an individual's capacity to reason. We have four learning results to accomplish
before the finish of the theme, Kant, and Rights Theorists. We will accomplish
these learning results through talks and class exercises. We will use contextual
analyses, book articles, and different references for this point. We will have a
test and a case examination as an appraisal.

Kant's way of thinking addresses the inquiries: what would i be able to

know? The heavenly confidence which isolates what we can experience versus
what we can't comprehend; we can just know about things we can understand;
what would it be a good idea for me to do? Which intends to act sanely in
agreement to an all-inclusive good law; what may I trust? That spirits are
godlike, there is God and that world is planned as per standards of equity.

Kant accepts that the feeling of profound quality of people doesn't

really originate from an incomparable power of God. So as to decide directly
from wrong, we need to utilize reason. As indicated by him, profound quality
and religion ought to be isolated on the grounds that people have various
religions, that we will have various answers and reasons for our ethical
quality.

Maxim

A maxim serves as a premise or rule on how and why we act. It is like

an unwritten guideline book which humans attribute to. For instance, on the
off chance that we need cash, we buckle down.
These are two sorts of saying. First is the abstract or the theoretical
goal. This typically benefits an individual. Second is the target or the absolute
objective. This depends on the reason.
Duty and Goodwill

How carry out proverbs identify with obligation and generosity? Duty
is an objective maxim “irrespective of all objects desire.” This obligation of
man is to follow the unmitigated goal (target adage). The inability to do so
implies that one is silly, represents his/her own pleasure, and abuses reason.

Kant likewise contends that the inspirations of people for their

activities go past joy, and that we practice reason above impulse. According to
Sjöstedt-H, (2007) the capacity of the reason isn't delight or bliss, however, to
create a will that is acceptable in itself.

Cooperative attitude is in this manner about after obligations without

respect for joy or wants. It is "showed in representing the purpose of
obligation" (Sjöstedt-H, 2007). For instance, you experience an old who is
encountering trouble going across the road where you are in. Regardless of
whether you are in a surge, you step in to assist (of obligation, and not for joy).

Imperatives

What are the goals? A basic is an order. Models are the signages like
keep off the grass or don't hinder the driveway. There are two sorts of
objectives: hypothetical and categorical.

Hypothetical imperatives are restrictive orders dependent on your

applicable want. Models; In case you have to float through the test, you have
to inspect (If you would prefer not to pass, at that point the order isn't
pertinent to you). In the event that you need to join the class, at that point join!
(In case you're not enthused about joining, by then don't join).

The categorical imperative is an all-inclusive moral guideline that is

unqualified, objective, and soundly essential. For instance, the guidance,
"While conforming, offer an approach to people with handicaps." Even in the
event that you need to advance beyond the line to spare time, you may decide
not to do as such. Let us talk about the clear cut basic in the following slides.

Categorical Imperative

Kant discussed The Categorical Imperative (CI) which acknowledges

that there is a unique standard of moral quality. This is an instance of
deontological moral speculation (deon is Greek for obligation), which says that
how we judge our exercises as either right or wrong isn't dependent upon the
outcomes, anyway on whether our exercises fulfill our commitment. CI
chooses our commitment.
In order to separate the even-minded clarification, Kant agrees that
normal administrators (a man using insightfulness and reason) are required
to insist to instrumental guidelines. Thus, the non-instrumental rule of CI is
fundamental to a sound being which "must be viewed as self-sufficient, or free,
in the feeling of being the creator of the law that ties it."

To further understand CI, let us look at some of its formulations.

Formula 1: The Universality principle. According to Kant, a man must act just
as indicated by the adage which you can simultaneously will that it should turn
into an all-inclusive law without logical inconsistency.

Example: While at checkout in the grocery store, you noticed that the
bagger accidentally placed items in your bag even if you have not purchased
them. Is it morally okay for you to do this?

Analysis: If you approve of the maxim (in the example, your maxim is
taking something you have not paid for or simply stealing), then you are
universalizing it, meaning everyone should always do the maxim (stealing)
you approve of.
Formula 2: The formula of Humanity: According to Kant, “Act so that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in that of the other, always as an
end, and never as a mere means.”

Example: Lina runs to Ana’s house. Lina’s husband arrives a few

minutes later, looking for his wife. Ana lied and told him Lina wasn’t inside.
Lina, however, decided to slip through the back door and unfortunately
bumped through her husband on her way out. Upon the encounter, the man
assaulted his wife.

Analysis: Ana is considered responsible for Lina’s assault because her

lie has caused it. If Ana told the truth, the responsibility of the assault would
fall on the husband. Ana violated the moral law about lying, but she did it with
the intent of protecting Lina.

Morality and the Categorical Imperative

How does morality relate to the Categorical Imperative? CI emphasizes

basic respect for the humanity of others. According to Kant, “moral law is a
truth of reason, and hence that all rational creatures are bound by the same
moral law” (Jankowiak, n.d.). CI serves as the basis and justification of morality
because morality governs us, and we cannot excuse ourselves from it. Thus,
violating CI results in immoral actions.

Other philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Aquinas also believe in

the importance of having standards of rationality as a basis for morality.
Hobbes point out, however, that “these standards were either instrumental
principles of rationality for satisfying one’s desires.” Locke and Aquinas, on the
other hand, argue that these standards are “external rational principles that
are discoverable by reason” Johnson and Cureton, 2019.

The Moral Worth of Persons

Given the CI, what makes someone a good person? According to Kant,
the moral worth is evaluated through people, and not actions (a person is
morally worth vs lacks moral worth).

Motivation – what caused you to do the action determines whether you

are good or bad. You are morally worthy if your actions are motivated by
morality. You lack moral worthiness if your actions are motivated by emotion
or desire.

Let us look at this example from Sjöstedt-H (2007), “Imagine that I win
the lottery and I’m wondering what to do with the money. I search for what
might be the most amusing to do with it: purchase a yacht, travel in top of the
line far and wide, get that knee activity, and so forth. I conclude that what
might be extremely fun is to give the cash to a good cause and to appreciate
that exceptional inclination you get from satisfying individuals, so I part with
all my lottery cash.”

Based on Kant’s assumptions, the person in the example is not morally

worthy because the motivation was selfish and was based on what was the
“most fun.” The moral worth of the deed could have been achieved had it been
done out of a sense of duty, regardless of the person found it “fun” or not.

Kant and Rights Theorists: Different Kinds of Rights

Understanding the relationship between legal rights and moral rights

is key to comprehending rights theories. We have four learning outcomes to
achieve by the end of the topic, Kant, and Right Theories. We will achieve these
learning outcomes through lectures and class activities. We will be utilizing
case studies, books, articles, and other references for this topic. We will be
having a quiz and a case analysis as an assessment.

What are Rights?

 In the first place, let us characterize rights. The Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy (2016) characterize rights as Rights are privileges (not) to play
out specific activities, or not to be in sure states, or qualifications that other
(not) play out specific activities or not be in sure states.

Nickel (1992) characterized human rights as "fundamental good ensure

that individuals in all nations and societies supposedly have basically on the
grounds that they are individuals. Calling these ensures "rights" recommends
that they join to people who can conjure them, that they are of high need, and
that consistency with them is required as opposed to optional. Human rights
are oftentimes held to be all-inclusive as in all individuals have and ought to
appreciate them and to be autonomous as in they exist and are accessible as
measures of defense and analysis whether they are perceived and executed by
the lawful framework or authorities of the nation." (Nickel, 1992:561-2)

Human rights permit each person to have a decent life. It guarantees

that the positive and negative essentials to accomplish these are accessible
and available. A few affirmations show and foundations that secure human
rights are: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), European
Convention on Human Rights (1954), International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights (1966), International Bill of Rights, and open specialists or the
legislature that the individual is exposed to.

Be that as it may, human rights don't give us an exhaustive record of

profound quality. (Human rights don't forbid lying which is ethically offbase).
"What human rights do principally plan to recognize is the reason for deciding
the shape, substance, and extent of basic, open good standards." (Fagan, n.d.)

The central idea of rights is normal to law and profound quality. In this
manner, human rights are sure of good certifications. Which carries us to the
accompanying inquiries: Are lawful rights moral? Are good rights lawful?

Moral Rights

What are moral rights? Moral rights are rights that are granted to any
human simply because they are human. Everyone has unalienable access to
moral rights. The existence and validity of a moral right do not depend on the
law. Moral rights represent the natural law. Moral rights are grounded in
moral reasons. Moral rights are not enforceable by law.

Example: The Right to privacy. On the off chance that I reserve an

option to protect, at that point you (and others) are committed not to attack
my security. A situational example is when you paid the hospital bill for a
colleague without her consent so that he may be released from the premises
and so that he can come back to work. If your colleague does not pay you back,
you cannot go to court since you voluntarily offered help. As mentioned, moral
rights are not enforceable by law.

Legal Rights

What are the legal rights? Legal rights are granted to people under a
legal system (authority, government). Legal rights are mandated by the laws
of the country the individual is subjected to. Legal rights represent positive
law. Legal rights derive from the laws of society. They can be found in legal
codes. Legal rights are enforceable by law which recognizes and protects it.

Example: Right to education. In the Philippines, children have the legal

right to education. Situational example. Using our previous example, if your
colleague specifically asked you for help through a loan so that he may settle
his hospital bill, if he does not pay you back, then you can go to court.

Rights Theories

Let us discuss some rights theories that encompass moral and legal
rights, such as Legal Positivism, the Interest Theory, Natural Law, the Human
Rights Doctrine, and the Will Theory.

First is legal positivism. Legal positivists argue that only rights that
exist are legal rights that exist in the legal system. Jeremy Bentham, a legal
philosopher believes that human rights do not exist before it was codified.
Under legal positivism moral rights – they are moral claims that can only be
espoused within the law.
The Human Rights Doctrine. Relies on the philosophical claim that
moral order exists and applies to everyone, everywhere, anytime, or the moral
universalism. Moral beliefs and concepts are objective, valid, and universal.
Human rights cannot be reduced to or exclusively identified with legal rights
and vice versa. It is both moral and legal right. The existence of human rights.

The Interest Theory by Bentham (1748-1832). If an individual has the

right to something (A), then someone else (B) has the duty to provide to A.
Violation happens if the duty bearer (B) fails to fulfill his/her duty to A. Also
called the “benefit theory” which believes that the foundation of moral rights
is everyone’s basic duty to respect the interest of others (life, liberty). Anyone
can have (legal or moral) interest-based rights given that the interests of that
person have “sufficient reasons” to hold someone else accountable for the
fulfillment of these interests.
 The Will theory by Herbert L.A. Hart (1907-1992). Developed by Hart,
a British legal scholar who supports Kant’s argument on that freedom is the
most basic right. An individual’s (A’s) right to something means that the
individual has control over the free will of another (B), in regard to the A’s
right, otherwise they can do as they please. Violation happens if the other
person (B) acts in the opposite of the individual’s will in regard to the objective
of your own right. Also known as the “choice theory,” this believes that anyone
can claim or waive their own rights.

The last theory on our list is a natural law. Believes that humans have
the right to the law simply because they do. Timeless and immutable,
universal, and inalienable. The natural rights are: Right to life, Property, and
Liberty. Given these violations of these rights means that you violate
someone’s very existence or humanity. If we recognize the existence of natural
law then no individual can violate another’s freedom, property, and endanger
the other’s life. Law aims to be just and serve its individual subjects. It is a
collection of the individual natural rights.

The Law

As indicated by Frederic Bastiat, "The law has gone farther than this;
it has acted contrary to its own motivation. The law has been utilized to
demolish its own target: It has been applied to obliterating the equity that it
should keep up; to restricting and decimating rights which it’s genuine reason
for existing was to regard. The law has put the aggregate power at the removal
of the corrupt who wish without hazard, to misuse the individual, freedom,
and property of others. It has changed over loot into a right, so as to secure
loot. What's more, it has changed over legitimate safeguard into wrongdoing
so as to rebuff legal resistance."

What makes a decent law? A decent law is key for the presence of a
free and well-working society. It secures the life, property, and freedom of
each human. Law punishes murder (infringement of right to life). Law
punishes robbery (infringement of right to property). Law punishes
compulsion (disregards right to opportunity and freedom). Ensures the frail
against the oppression of the solid and forestalls conceding benefits to
uncommon gatherings to the detriment of others.
Let us consider this statement by Frederic Bastiat, "When law and
ethical quality negate one another, the resident has the brutal option of either
losing his ethical sense or losing his regard for the law."

What is a terrible law? Law can likewise be exploited by the individuals

who need to live to the detriment of others, in this manner bringing treachery.
In a perfect world, what is legitimate ought to be good. In any case, a few laws
induce the jobs of casualty and recipient. For instance, enterprises are
regularly controlled through licenses and allow. The individuals who are
progressively steady get simpler access to these yet little league organizations
may experience issues sticking to these.

Law is power. It is an instrument of equity that holds together the

general public. It can permit people to grow, however, it can likewise bring
shamefulness.

Let us currently answer the inquiries toward the beginning of this

module. Are lawful rights moral? What is lawful might be adverse to the ethical
privileges of others Are good rights legitimate? Moral rights are regularly
classified as legitimate rights, however not constantly.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism believes in the principle that happiness is an intrinsic

value that every human aspire for, therefore it drives our morality. We have
three learning outcomes to achieve in this topic. We will have a lecture, class
activity, and case study. We will be utilizing case studies, books, articles, and
other references for this topic. We will be having an individual case analysis as
an assessment.

Basic Principles

Basic Principles of Utilitarianism focuses more attention on the results

or consequences rather than the intent and behavior (a form of
consequentialism). Main Principle: Do what produces the best consequences.
Utilitarianism believes that morality aims to make life better by increasing
happiness and reducing suffering. Good consequences equal good results.
Happiness is equal to pleasure or the absence of pain. Unhappiness is equal to
pain or the absence of pleasure.

Origin

In 1789, Jeremy Bentham, a British Philosopher distributed "An

Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation." Bentham perceived
the ethical significance of rights, for example, the opportunity of articulation,
ladies' privileges, basic entitlements, separate, cancelation of bondage, the
death penalty, and flogging, decriminalization of gay acts, and so forth.
 The principle was further developed in the 18th century by Bentham
and John Stuart Mill to attempt a moral theory that would be good for
everybody. The origin could be traced back to Epicurus who said that on the
off chance that thou shrivel fulfill a man, include not unto his wealth, yet
detract from his wants.
Nature of the Theory

Utilitarianism believes that happiness is a universally shared value

and that every human’s goal is to be happy, and this thrives our morality. It
believes that happiness is a balance of pressure over pain. In a way, it can be
egalitarian because it accounts for each person’s happiness as equal to anyone
else’s. Everyone has equal morality and no individual is more special.

We will go through these three questions to further explain the nature

of utilitarianism. What is good and what is bad? Whose happiness should be
maximized? And which type of consequence should be considered?

What is good and what is bad? Jonathan Bentham adapted hedonism

into the theory of utilitarianism. Hedonism believes that happiness is the only
thing that is good on its own and does not need to produce further value. On
the other hand, the lack of it produces unhappiness which is also bad in itself.

Whose happiness should be maximized? Supporters of utilitarianism

believe that an action is morally permissible if it produces more happiness or
pleasure and less suffering than any other alternative action.

Individual. Utilitarianism measures morality based on happiness. It is

often referred to as egoism which means pursuing something for one’s own
good. Example: Suppose you are craving for both cake and ice cream, and you
can only get one. Since you need to select only one, you should choose which
among the two you crave the most, which will then bring you more happiness.

Group

The maximum value that a group can benefit from is determined by

the total of the interests (benefits and losses) of all its members. Example:
Suppose you are buying dessert for a gathering at work. Thirteen out of 20
prefer ice cream, while only 7 (including you) preferred cake. Because you are
considering the sum of the interests in your group, you will buy ice cream since
it will bring happiness to more people.
 Everyone affected. Utilitarianism operates on the idea that when
considering the benefit from an action, one must look at it through an
outsider’s perspective – without bias to own or favored benefit to others.

Which type of consequence should be considered? First is the actual

consequence. These are actual results produced by the action. This serves as a
determining factor of what is right and what is wrong. A person can act
morally right by considering the action that can maximize the expected utility
(a combination of good and bad effects).

Second is the foreseeable consequence. These are the perceived

results that may be produced by the action. This serves as a reference for a
decision-making procedure. A person can only consider the morally right
action depending on what is currently available to him/her at the time of the
action.

Elements
The elements of utilitarianism are the value theory and the theory of
right action. Value theory means that the only thing that is intrinsically
valuable is happiness or the happiness of suffering. And the theory of right
action is the one that produces the most valuable or the most expected value.
Frameworks

The two frameworks of Utilitarianism are the Act Utilitarianism means

choosing the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number;
Evaluates individual action; Pain is pain regardless of whose experiences it is.
And Rule Utilitarianism connotes that we ought to act according to moral rules
which would produce more utility compared to other moral rules; Evaluates
the moral rules then evaluates individual actions if they followed the rule that
would produce more utility; Consider cues that will maximize utility for the
majority of the time.

Critiques of the Theory

One. There are situations where we happen to be in. If there are

instances where we can make the situation better, we must, even if it means
that we must make a little sacrifice. (If you sit and watch something bad
happen and refuse to get involved, you are still guilty of the crime).

Two. For the value theory, happiness should not be

the only
available thing in our life. Well-being should also be considered valuable. G.E.
Moore also accounts for friendship, knowledge, and the experience of beauty as
intrinsically valuable in one’s life, apart from happiness.

Three. For the theory of right action, since it takes into consideration
the act that will cause more happiness, the alternative is considered less
valuable, what is less valuable is transitive. People have a right not to have
their interest sacrificed for the greater good.

Four. The prevention of suffering should be prioritized over the

increase in happiness. Modern utilitarianists addressed this and labeled it as
“negative” utilitarianism.

Five. Utilitarianism focuses on the total amount

of good (pleasure/happiness) produced not on how it is distributed
across people.

Six. The Diminishing Margin Utility of Wealth – the more resources we

have, the less impact it gives. For example, if a poor man receives 1000 pesos,
it will make him very happy. If a rich businessman, receives 1000 pesos it will
have less impact on him.

Impacts of Utilitarianism

Impact on Law. The principles of utilitarianism became useful in terms

of punishment for an individual which aims to separate him from society or
reform him. This accounts for the greater good of most people if the criminal
is put away.
Impact on Politics. Utilitarianism is useful in asserting the best action
for a society based on the utility of an individual and the authority of the
government. It takes into consideration the importance of assessment of
consequences which requires evidence. Utilitarianism advocates for a system
where the interest of the larger society matches the government’s intent. It
gives power to individuals to judge the best consequence for him/herself.

Impact on Economics. In the theory of economic value, the cost of labor

in production is paid more attention compared to the commodity; Welfare
economics; In terms of policies, early utilitarians believe that the economy
could prosper on its own. Modern utilitarians believe that government
intervention is important to ensure further good (that no abuses are
committed).