Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices people face. Things that can be assessed include actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it is based on the idea that these are the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. which determine whether they are good or bad, good or bad. In general, whatever method is evaluated, we should choose the one that will produce the best overall results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” that is, the action or policy that produces the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism seems to be a simple theory because it relies on only one evaluative principle: do what produces the best consequences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand this single principle unless we know (at least) three things: a) what things are good and bad; b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should seek to maximize; c) whether the actions, policies, etc. are made good or bad by their actual consequences (the results our actions actually produce) or by their predictable consequences (the results we predict will occur based on the evidence we have). Jeremy Bentham answered this question by adopting the view called hedonism. According to hedonism, the only thing that is good in itself is pleasure (or happiness). Hedonists do not deny that many kinds of things can be good, including food, friends, freedom, and many other things, but hedonists view them as "instrumental" goods that are valuable only because that they play a causal role in the production of pleasure or happiness. . However, pleasure and happiness are “intrinsic” goods, meaning that they are good in themselves and not because they produce another thing of value. Likewise, on the negative side, lack of food, friends, or freedom is inherently bad because it produces pain, suffering, and unhappiness; but pain, suffering, and unhappiness are intrinsically bad, that is, bad in themselves and not because they produce anything additional bad. Many thinkers have rejected hedonism because pleasure and pain are sensations we feel, arguing that many important goods are not types of feelings. Being healthy, honest, or knowledgeable, for example, are considered by some people to be intrinsic goods that are not types of feelings. (Those who think that there are many such goods are called pluralists or "objective list" theorists.) Other thinkers see desires or preferences as the basis of value; whatever a person desires has value to that person. If desires conflict, then the things one prefers most are identified as good. In this article, the term "well-being" will generally be used to identify what utilitarians consider good or valuable in itself. All utilitarians agree that things are valuable because they tend to produce well-being or decrease ill-being, but this idea is understood differently by hedonists, objective list theorists, and list theorists.preferences/desires. This debate will not be explored further in this article. Action utilitarians and rule utilitarians agree that our overall goal in evaluating actions should be to create the best possible outcomes, but they differ on how to achieve this. Act utilitarians believe that whenever we decide what to do, we should perform the action that will create the greatest net utility. They argue that the principle of utility – doing whatever will produce the best overall results – should be applied on a case-by-case basis. The right action in any situation is the one that produces more utility (i.e., creates more well-being) than other available actions. Rule utilitarians adopt a two-part view that emphasizes the importance of moral rules. According to rule utilitarians: a) a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; b) a moral rule is justified if its inclusion in our moral code would create more utility than other possible rules (or no rules at all). According to this perspective, we should judge the morality of individual actions by reference to general moral rules, and we should judge particular moral rules by seeing whether their acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-being than other possible rules. The main difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that act utilitarians apply the utilitarian principle directly to the evaluation of individual actions, while rule utilitarians apply the utilitarian principle directly to the evaluation of rules and then evaluate individual actions by seeing whether they obey or disobey these rules. the acceptance of which will produce the most utility. The contrast between act and rule utilitarianism, although previously noted by some philosophers, was not clearly highlighted until the late 1950s, when Richard Brandt introduced this terminology. (Other terms that have been used to express this contrast are "direct" and "extreme" for act utilitarianism, and "indirect" and "restricted" for rule utilitarianism.) Because the contrast does not had not been clearly established, earlier utilitarians like Bentham and Mill sometimes applied the principle of utility to actions, sometimes to the choice of rules for evaluating actions. This led to academic debates over whether classical utilitarians supported act utilitarians or rule utilitarians or some combination of these views. An indication that Mill accepted rule utilitarianism is his assertion that a direct appeal to the principle of utility is only made when "secondary principles" (i.e. the rules) come into conflict. with each other. In such cases, the principle of “maximizing utility” is used to resolve the conflict and determine the correct action to take. [Mill, Utilitarianism, chapter 2] Act utilitarianism is often considered the most natural interpretation of the utilitarian ideal. If our goal is always to produce the best results, it seems plausible to think that, in deciding what the right thing to do is, we should consider the available options (i.e. what actions could be taken), predict their results and approve the action that will produce the most good. If every action we take produces more utility than any other action available to us, then the total utility of all our actions will be the highest possible level of utility we can achieve. In other words, we can maximize the overall utility we are able to achieve by.