欢迎来到51Due,请先 | 注册
关注我们: 51due论文代写二维码 51due论文代写平台微博



Essay代写:Maximized utility is unnecessary

2018-03-08 | 来源:51due教员组 | 类别:Essay代写范文

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- Maximized utility is unnecessary,供大家参考学习,这篇论文讨论了效用最大化是不必要的。功利主义理论认为,有的行动可以使效用最大化,从而收获更多的利益。如果行动有助于增进幸福和快乐,那就是适当的行动。相反,如果它制造了相反的东西,那么这个行为就是错误的。人们总是在追求幸福的生活方式。行动的唯一目的是想要获取他们的幸福。但就这一点而言,如果效用最大化,那么功利主义就会对人的日常生活产生负面影响。

Maximized utility,效用最大化,英国代写,essay代写,代写

The theory of utilitarianism states that the greatest action could maximize utility generally defined as well-being and benefits for human beings. The founder of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, gave the description of it that it is the total pleasure from an action excluding the suffering in this action. If the action contributes to increase well-being and happiness, it is a proper action. On the contrary, if it creates the opposite things, this action is a wrong one (Eyal, Nir 4). People are always on the way of pursuing happiness in their whole life. The only aim of the actions is to gain the happiness they would like to own. In terms of this point, the utilitarianism has its negative influence on human’s daily life if the utility were maximized.

We can describe the utilitarianism briefly that it is to maximize the total utility or to obtain the best happiness by most people. Supposed that our society maximize the utility and the following examples will show results. First of all, if a dead donates his healthy organs to save other patients, in principle, he does a great thing. And then, there are two patients need an organ to save them but the cure rate are 80% and 20% respectively. If the later one were willing to give up the chance, is it right according to the theory of utilitarianism? Could we come to a conclusion: a healthy people go to the hospital to have a body check, supposed ten people could be saved by killing him. Is it ethical as per utilitarianism? The answer is obvious. In today’s society, it could not come true. We should not sacrifice minority of people to help the other people to achieve their goals. It is unfair and unethical.

Moreover, another example would also prove that we should not maximize utility. People could contribute to the interest of the whole society by smoking (McDaniel, Patricia 2). It might be ridiculous after reading these words. Why? Because the buyers have to pay high-tax when they buy the cigarettes contributed to increase the nation’s revenue which may be used to develop other social welfare. At the time, the tobacco industry grows and therefore, there are more employment opportunities. With the growth of smokers, the dead rate increase and it saves more pensions for aged people. It lessens the pressure of the society in terms of utilitarianism. However, it is apparently unethical to advocate smoking. The results always seem to be quite logical from the examples above but the progresses are absolutely inadvisable.

If there are certain conflicts between two religions, according to the utilitarianism, one of the religions could kill the other one only because they have more people than the other one. If a person were pushed into the Roman Colosseum in order to entertain millions of spectators. Millions of spectators gain the pleasant sensation while only one person is painful. As the result, there would be more happiness than pain. Logically, the action is true. But ethically, it must be cruel and ruthless.

What’s more, the utilitarianism has even ignored the good faith between people. Suppose a person made an appointment with his friend yesterday. But he did not appear because he had to do an important thing which would bring him a great profit. From the view of utilitarianism, money is more valuable than good faiths. As the matter of fact, bad faiths would never be recognized in social relationship in this society.

In conclusion, we should be clear that society is a community that composed of every single individual and everyone is one of the parts of it. We have to maintain it jointly. The utilitarianism completely ignores the right of the minority group. It is not a fair practice and it does not suit the society due to right equality (Kaswan, Mark 41). If we pursuit the advantage of the result blindly, the society would be in chaos. Although a person could benefit from his selfishness, it is not the truest happiness. That is to say only people join all together, can they get to the ideal happiness. In addition, the sense of happiness or pain could not be measured and the life as well. Different people have different feelings towards the same thing. Just as an old saying goes, “only the wearer knows where the shoes pain.”

The principle of happiness of the utilitarianism just only considers the sum of it but it ignores the distribution of every single person of happiness. Besides, the welfare may be different among different people. Therefore, the increasing welfare of one is not necessarily the increase of collectivity’s one. What’s more, as an excuse of increasing collectivity’s welfare, it is unethical to deprive the freedom of minority people. It is contradicted with the original theory of the utilitarianism. It not only goes against the equality of the society, but also goes against people’s rights. People derive a certain rights. However, it could not be violated by other people just because they would like to have some fun. So, the theory of the utilitarianism is wrong. The actions it supported as the right ones are totally self-contradictory and not moral.

Works Cited

Eyal, Nir.Non-consequentialist Utilitarianism. Harvard University:eScholarship,2008.print.

McDaniel, Patricia. Understanding Philip Morris's pursuit of US government regulation of tobacco.San Francisco: eScholarship, 2005.print.

Kaswan, Mark. Happiness, Well-Being, and William Thompson’s Social(ist) Utilitarianism. Los Angeles: eScholarship, 2008.print.




  • 05年成立,已帮助上万人
  • 24小时专业客服
  • 团队成员都毕业于全球著名高校
  • 保证原创,支持检测