Argumentative Essay Is Utilitarianism a ‘universalist’ and ‘impartialist’ theory Essay Example

Argumentative Essay: Is Utilitarianism a ‘universalist’ and ‘impartialist’ theory? Essay While Utilitarianism as a practical philosophy can find application in affairs of democratic policy making and economics, its stature are a satisfactory system of morality is contested. The scholarly consensus as of date is that Utilitarianism is a partial system of morality and is somewhat inadequate on account of its authors’ reluctance to front up to complexities of ethics. Utilitarianism asserts that ‘It is morally good to act for the general happiness.’ As this assessment is taken at face value by most, the salient critical question is ‘What is it that is morally not good, which stands in opposition to this?’ In answering this question proponents say, ‘acting for unhappiness’. (Grote 123) Utilitarian moral philosophy thus has for its subject the ascertaining of what happiness is, which is placed in polar opposition to unhappiness. Having found what constitutes happiness, the philosophy strives to device methods to achieve that end. B ut real life experiences and events are not strictly broken into these clear-cut dichotomies and therein lie the major objection to Utilitarianism’s veracity as a ethical theory. The following passages will explain the two central concepts of ‘impartiality’ and ‘universality’ and identify their shortcomings for application in practical ethics. The founding texts of Utilitarianism think of it as inherently ethical. For example, deriving from post-revolutionary French thought, especially that of Helvetius, Godwin asserted that â€Å"Morality is that system of conduct which is determined by a consideration of the greatest general good.† (Godwin, as quoted in Scarre 67) The founding doctrine also makes it clear that the two pillars of ‘impartiality’ and ‘universality’ especially add to its ethical soundness. Utilitarianism espouses the principle of impartiality, to the extent that it places the happiness of all individuals in the community on par with each other. Moreover, it encourages constituent individuals in a group to see the virtue of valuing the happiness of others as much as theirs own. In other words, the expectation is to rise above the consideration of one’s own individual interests. Put as such, this principle sounds laudable. But as critics point out, there is plenty of sco pe for incorrect application of this principle, which could lead to adverse outcomes. For example, We will write a custom essay sample on Argumentative Essay: Is Utilitarianism a ‘universalist’ and ‘impartialist’ theory? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Argumentative Essay: Is Utilitarianism a ‘universalist’ and ‘impartialist’ theory? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Argumentative Essay: Is Utilitarianism a ‘universalist’ and ‘impartialist’ theory? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer â€Å"In an action then which, in the truest and widest sense, we should call right or good, there is more than one sort of goodness. And unless we treat rightly this variety of rightness or goodness, our moral philosophy, whatever side we take, must be partial: and we shall not be able to argue against opponents of it without being in danger of arguing against something which, it is probable, an impartial and practical reader will consider morally proper.† (Grote 124) Even actions by individuals are mediated by this consideration for the greatest common good. The agent’s actions are never to enhance his/her own happiness, but that of all concerned. As John Stuart Mill himself clarifies in his treaties, â€Å"As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.† (Mill, as quoted by Grote 86) One of Utilitarianism’s notable critics is the famous legal theoretician, John Rawls. Rawls’ objection to the notion of impartiality arises from the philosophical system’s blanket application of its principles to the entire social plane. For example, just as an individual weighs the gains and losses in the preset against that estimated in the future, so a society could measure satisfactions and dissatisfactions between different individuals. And through this endeavor the principle of utility is applied in a natural way: â€Å"a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net [or average] balance of satisfaction.† ((Rawls 1971:24), as quoted in Scarre 21). Universalism has been a historically significant feature in Utilitarian discourse. Of the central maxim of ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’, universalism concerns with the latter half, namely, ‘the greatest number’. As universalism seeks to promote the distribution of happiness as widely as possible, it can be deemed as an extension of the Enlightenment project, which too purports to expand the boundaries of moral concern. Utilitarians underscore the moral weight of this principle through this explication: â€Å"Any person, no matter how poor, or powerless, or socially marginal, no matter how remote from the centers of influence and privilege, may, by invoking moral principles, assert a claim or express a grievance in the language of a system to which nobody, however rich, powerful, or well-bred, may claim immunity† (Scheffler 1992:12, as quoted in Scarre 23). This rationale had such an intuitive appeal that universalism had become a pillar of Utilitarian philosophy by the middle of18th century. Such prominent intellectuals as Helvetius, had called on the government of France to create legislation that would â€Å"produce a happiness which was universelle as well as egale.† (Helvetius, as quoted in Crisp 13) Across the English channel, in Scotland, philosopher Francis Hutcheson proclaimed that â€Å"‘that action is best which secures the greatest happiness of the greatest number’† (Selby-Bigge, as quoted in (Crisp 14). The list of supporters also included criminal law thinker Cesare Beccaria. Jeremy Bentham spoke eloquently of how it is the duty of the government to â€Å"create a fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and law† (Bentham, as quoted in Crisp 14). John Stuart Mill even took the Biblical analogy in his defense of the ethical fortitude of universalism and by extension utilitarianism. (Scarre 23) In short, universalism states that each individual’s interests count equally, and thus in moral terms there is no segregation among the citizens. While universalism sounds self-evidently correct and beyond scrutiny, a rigorous analysis of all its implications will question this status. There is a simple technical reason why it is flawed, namely, we cannot logically pursue the double maximand of the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, for we mostly confront situations where the choices are between â€Å"one action which will provide a lesser utility for a larger population and another which will produce a larger utility for a smaller number. In such circumstances it is not possible simultaneously to produce the greatest happiness and to benefit the greatest number.† (Crisp 18) Even Jeremy Bentham, one of the founding fathers of Utilitariansm, retrospectively acknowledged this problem and hence moderated the core principle to simply that of ‘greatest happiness’, forgoing the insistence on the ‘greatest number’. Works Cited †¢ Crisp, Roger. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge, 1997. †¢ Grote, John. An Examination of the Utilitarian Philosophy. Bristol, England: Thoemmes, 1990. †¢ Scarre, Geoffrey. Utilitarianism. London: Routledge, 1996. .

The Purpose of Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Court

The Purpose of Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Court A dissenting opinion is an opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majority opinion. In the U.S. Supreme Court, any justice can write a dissenting opinion, and this can be signed by other justices. Judges have taken the opportunity to write dissenting opinions as a means to voice their concerns or express hope for the future. What Happens When a Supreme Court Justice Dissents? The question is often asked why a judge or Supreme Court justice might want to write a dissenting opinion since, in effect, their side lost. The fact is that dissenting opinions can be used in a number of key ways. First of all, judges want to make sure that the reason why they disagreed with the majority opinion of a court case is recorded. Further, publishing a dissenting opinion can help make the writer of the majority opinion clarify their position. This is the example given by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her lecture about dissenting opinions. Secondly, a justice might write a dissenting opinion in order to affect future judgments in cases about situations similar to the case in question. In 1936,  Chief Justice Charles Hughes stated that â€Å"A dissent in a Court of last resort is an appeal...to the intelligence of a future day...† In other words, a justice might feel that the decision goes against the rule of law and hopes that similar decisions in the future will be different based on arguments listed in their dissent. For example, only two people disagreed in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case that ruled that African-American slaves should be viewed as property. Justice Benjamin Curtis wrote a forceful dissent about the travesty of this decision. Another famous example of this type of dissenting opinion  occurred when Justice John M. Harlan dissented to the  Plessy v. Ferguson  (1896) ruling, arguing against allowing racial segregation in the railway system. A third reason why a justice might write a dissenting opinion is in the hope that, through their words, they can get Congress to push forward legislation to correct what they see as issues with the way the law is written. Ginsburg talks about such an example for which she wrote the dissenting opinion in 2007. The issue at hand was the time frame within which a woman had to bring a suit for pay discrimination based on gender. The law was written quite narrowly, stating that an individual had to bring suit within 180 days of the discrimination occurring. However, after the decision was handed down, Congress took up the challenge and changed the law so that this time frame was greatly extended.   Concurring Opinions   Another type of opinion that can be delivered in addition to the majority opinion is a concurring opinion. In this type of opinion, a justice would agree with the majority vote but for different reasons than listed in the majority opinion. This type of opinion can sometimes be seen as a dissenting opinion in disguise. Sources Ginsburg, Hon. Ruth Bader. The Role of Dissenting Opinions. Minnesota Law Review. Sanders, Joe W. The Role of Dissenting Opinions In Louisiana. Louisiana Law Review, Volume 23 Number 4, Digital Commons, June 1963.

Analysis adolescence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Analysis adolescence - Essay Example My goal in this paper is to analyse adolescence and youth of today as echoed in Hall’s â€Å"sensation-seeking adolescents† several decades ago. The reasons behind the innate aggressive behavior of males and females are examined. Sexual development is discussed to give light to the questions of heightened sexuality during adolescence. I will try to establish the link between sensation-seeking and risk behavior, especially the occurrence of confusions in adolescents. The different aspects of adolescents’ confusions on matters like physical changes, eating habits, and sexuality are viewed. Their desire to build their own identity keeps them at odd with their parents. They feel nobody loves them so they become closer to their friends. But sometimes, they fall victims to wrong companions and they are led to drugs, unreasonable behavior and other forms of vices. Peer pressure and family pressures are also discussed to unravel what’s going on inside an adolescen t’s mind. Another controversial aspect is the analysis of the child’s sexuality. ... Hall’s â€Å"storm and stress† view is examined in three key aspects: conflict with parents, mood disruptions and peer pressures. In all three aspects, evidence supports a modified storm and stress view that takes into account individual differences and cultural disparities. This paper will present research that both supports and critises the inherent nature of adolescents. The analysis of the case is achieved in three main sections. I will begin by giving the meaning of adolescence. ‘Adolescence is the process of changing from a child into an adult’ (Hurrelnan1994). Furthermore, rapid changes in body size and shape are the most obvious signs of approaching adolescence. Both girls and boys grow swiftly in height. ‘The arm and leg bones lengthen, and the chin and jaws develop so the face takes on a more mature look’ (Rice 1986). Finally, Hall’s observation of adolescence as a period of storm and stress is investigated before concluding. I t is during adolescence that young people mature physically, becomes responsible and start to face the world on their own. ‘It usually begins at the age of 11 and 14, and continues six to ten years’ (Allen 1993). Physical changes are evident in their bodies. ‘The girl’s body becomes more rounded and soft, her hips broaden and her breasts start to develop. Her voice deepens and pubic hair starts to grow. On the other hand, the boy’s body becomes firmer and angular, his voice deepens, his shoulder broadens and hair develops in his body and feet. Sex glands mature in both sexes’ (Santrock 1987). These changes begin before puberty and differ from one person to another. ‘In both sexes, the reproductive organs gradually reach their adult sizes and functions during the first two-thirds of adolescence.