Sentences with phrase «in utilitarianism»

Jermy Bentham confused us in utilitarianism or liberalism.

Unfortunately, Mill does not develop this criterion any further in Utilitarianism.

Its spiritual aspirations were embodied in the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill.

I suspect that the force of the egoist's objection to his «proof» of utility did not strike Mill because of his previous arguments in Utilitarianism regarding the ultimate sanction of the principle of utility.

There is, however, another passage in Utilitarianism where Mill appears to suggest a different criterion of good experience, which is summarized in thesis (4) above.

Not exact matches

The default mode of bioethical reasoning in popular Christian culture — a sentimental version of utilitarianism — deems such reflective distance unfeeling and cruel.

In terms of my account thus far, one might classify Whitehead's ethics as a modified Benthamite utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism in his versatile usage becomes a synonym for natural law in one place and a description of rational argument in another.

As it says «the economists» most basic problem is anthropological», in other words the subject is based upon a narrow and restrictive concept of rationality which ignores the richness of human relations in favour of an obsolete utilitarianism.

The usual formulations of utilitarianism assume an individualism that in principle works against the common good.

In a social context where the default position of most people is a crude mixture of utilitarianism and relativism, we need to reiterate the intrinsic wrongfulness of certain actions (e.g. killing the innocent), and the intrinsic goodness of other actions (consensual sexual intimacy in marriageIn a social context where the default position of most people is a crude mixture of utilitarianism and relativism, we need to reiterate the intrinsic wrongfulness of certain actions (e.g. killing the innocent), and the intrinsic goodness of other actions (consensual sexual intimacy in marriagein marriage).

When one realizes how different Hartshorne's ethics is from that found in deontology as usually conceived, and when one notices his numerous and repeated criticisms of utilitarianism, 10 one is then in a position to see how he culls insights from both of these in the effort to develop his own virtue ethics centered around the law of moderation.

One of the standard criticisms of virtue ethics is that it is weak when dealing with issues in applied ethics, in contrast to deontology or utilitarianism, and this because virtue theorists focus on good or bad agents rather than right or wrong acts.

In this effort I hope to show that Hartshorne's thought is an improvement with respect to some of the weaker features of virtue ethics as it has been defended by some recent philosophers, in particular regarding the allegation made by virtue ethnicians that deontology and utilitarianism are defective because they depend on abstract ruleIn this effort I hope to show that Hartshorne's thought is an improvement with respect to some of the weaker features of virtue ethics as it has been defended by some recent philosophers, in particular regarding the allegation made by virtue ethnicians that deontology and utilitarianism are defective because they depend on abstract rulein particular regarding the allegation made by virtue ethnicians that deontology and utilitarianism are defective because they depend on abstract rules.

The last two decades have witnessed a rebirth of interest in the virtues, an interest which, at a minimum, acts as a supplement to the familiar alternatives of deontology and utilitarianism, and, at a maximum, acts as a substitute for deontology and utilitarianism.1 1 will not be defending the maximal thesis in this article, as some in the virtue ethics «movement» have done (e.g., Alasdair MacIntyre and Philippa Foot2).

Questions of strategy have to be asked by the church serious about her task in spite of the lurking dangers of utilitarianism.

In the present crisis of mankind, all emphasis seems to be placed on utilitarianism in both science and religioIn the present crisis of mankind, all emphasis seems to be placed on utilitarianism in both science and religioin both science and religion.

There is little basis in history for the promise that this religion sincerely followed will bring fullness of life to its adherents in the sense that theological utilitarianism intends.

One can also easily understand why religious utilitarianism in our time should be dominantly social, since our greatest concern is for the preservation and ordering of a social life that is threatened with anarchy and since our greatest sufferings arise out of our social disorder.

Why there should be such a development of theological utilitarianism at any time and especially in our time we can readily understand.

If there is not much ground in history for the assurances of theological utilitarianism, there seems to be less ground in the structure of the faith itself.

The utilitarianism of an individualistic period, which promised men that through faith they might gain the economic virtues and wealth, differs from the pragmatism of our social climate of opinion, in which religion is used as a means for gaining social order and prosperity; but they are both utilitarian and equally remote from the love of God for his own sake and of the individual or social neighbor in his relation to God.

In the present crisis of mankind, however, all emphasis seems to be placed on utilitarianism in both science and religioIn the present crisis of mankind, however, all emphasis seems to be placed on utilitarianism in both science and religioin both science and religion.

Recently the social form of this utilitarianism has been given high sanction in an official statement made by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America.

Above all, this means a change in the meaning of work, a lessening of its pure utilitarianism, a recovery of the idea of work as a calling.

Although that might appear to be a conclusion of mere practical reason, first reached by the so - called Enlightenment, there is also a case to be made for it in terms of biblical Christianity as well as «natural law» or secular utilitarianism.

Charles Reynolds, in his article, «Somatic Ethics: Joy and Adventure in the Embodied Moral Life,» is more accurate in claiming that an ethics based on process metaphysics «avoids the beguiling trap of utilitarianism for an ideal participant perspective» (SE 127, my emphasis).

Moskop thus makes at least three important claims in his brief essay: I) that the five theses adequately and unambiguously represent the framework of Hartshorne's moral philosophy, 2) that Hartshorne's metaphysics justifies not only a broad understanding of altruism but rather a dependence upon an understanding of the principle of utility quite similar to that of utilitarianism, and 3) that in both Hartshorne's moral philosophy and his metaphysics the claims of justice are necessarily subordinate to those of utility.

Although many concur in categorizing any ethical system based on process metaphysics as teleological or consequentialist, recent writings have gone beyond this, attempting to demonstrate the affinity between process ethics and utilitarianism.

Under the rising criticism of utilitarianism, first in the late 18th century and then with ever greater insistence in the 19th and 20th centuries, freedom came to mean freedom to pursue self - interest, latterly defined as «freedom to do your own thing.»

The affinity between this mode of economic organization and certain modes of moral and cognitive culture that have roots deep in western culture undoubtedly helps explain why those modes, utilitarianism and science, have become such central cultural forms in modern America.

I am convinced that the continued and increased dominance of the complex of capitalism, utilitarianism, and the belief that the only road to truth is science will rapidly lead to the destruction of American society, or possibly in an effort to stave off destruction, to a technical tyranny of the «brave new world» variety.

The complex of capitalism, utilitarianism, and science as a cultural form has its own world view, its own «religion» even — though it is an adamantly this - worldly one — and its own utopianism: the utopianism of total technical control, of course in the service of the «freedom» of individual self - interest.

Unless there really is moral obligation, it will not be a form of natural law, and unless the immediate ground for that obligation is the metaphysical structure that makes a being human, the theory in question will not amount to natural law but an ethics of some other sort, whether divine command, Kantian deontology, utilitarianism, or something else.

The most widely accepted ethical teaching in that century was utilitarianism.

There Mill argues that the primary source of utilitarianism's strength as a guide to action (its «ultimate sanction») is to be found in «the social feelings of mankind — the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures» (U 40).

With regard to the altruistic nature of utilitarianism, Hartshorne once again offers a metaphysical justification in place of Mill's psychological claims.

Hartshorne's doctrine of God, which he has developed and defended throughout his long and prolific career, plays a crucial role in his justification of utilitarianism.

I believe that the resemblance of Hartshorne's ethical writings to classical utilitarianism, and in particular to John Stuart Mill's version of utilitarianism, is a very close one indeed.

I was planning to followup my critique of Kant with a parallel commentary on utilitarianism, but was waylaid by picking up some unread material sitting in my bookcase: an anthology of Aquinas» thought On Law, Morality, and Politics, Hackett Press, Second Edition.

A hundred or 200 years ago my forerunners among political economists could find their valuational moorings in the philosophies of natural right and utilitarianism, which in their turn were based on the associational psychology of hedonism — and which are now, in my view, defunct.

As Fr Dylan James brings out later in this issue, the justification of «human rights» today is less and less grounded on the objective nature of Man and more and more on the shifting sands of utilitarianism.

It drew on the economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book 1 of the Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law, [5] utilitarianism [6] and progress.

Utilitarianism specifies that saving more of the workers will amount to the greatest good; hence, it is morally permissible to kill one in order to save five.

She reviewed all the philosophical possibilities — including utilitarianism, which promotes the «greatest good for the greatest number,» principlism, and virtue theory, which are often taught in medical schools.

It seems as though any attempt to escape arbitrary social rules via utilitarianism eventually runs smack into a set of somewhat biased and arbitrary social rules that must be implemented in order to measure and compare the utility of different groups of people.

And I guess I'm «biast» because, in the battle between deontology and utilitarianism, I find the latter much more convincing — and I absolutely hate to see it as misrepresented as it is here in Thanos.

Once they have some theory under their belts, they apply their knowledge of utilitarianism and the categorical imperative to the ethical dilemmas confronting a group of strangers working together to survive in a zombie apocalypse.

This is both a civil right under the equal protection doctrine and good social policy, grounded in the individual and social utilitarianism of educating all students.

A medium - term scheme of work covering an introduction to morality and ethics and examining the Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill in a comprehensive overview, suitable for GCSE or A-level Religious Studies.