0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Did George Washington Carver act by any belief?
maybe
Is Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses mainly on one's intentions?
No, it focuses on opinions. If it is your opinion that intentions mean more than actions, then your relative morality does. If it is another's opinion that actions mean more than intentions, then that other's relative morality doesn't. Relative morality is just the variation in moral opinion from person to person, or from society to society on a larger scope. It doesn't give any values or demerits in and of itself.
What are the alternatives to utilitarianism?
Any form of government would be an alternative to Utilitarianism. You could have anything from Communism to a Democratic Republic all the way to an Oligarchy.
What does liberalism and utilitarianism have in common?
Utilitarianism is, according to Wikipedia, a theory in normative ethics that holds that the proper course of action are things that increase utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Usually, Conservatism sees the responsibility of such things as belonging to the individual, while Liberalism sees that responsibility as falling on society. By extension, utility would be based on what is necessary based on the above framework rather than based on ideals. Conservatism is more focused on ideals, whereas liberalism seems more focused on the challenges of life. Classical utilitarianism is essentially hedonism. Modern utilitarianism is a form a consequentialism. Consequentialism holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. That fits with the notion many have of liberalism that if something feels right, you should do it.
What is the present participle of happiness?
Happiness is a noun and doesn't have any tenses or participles.
What is ulititarism?
I may not be the best person to answer this question, but from my understanding 'Utilitarianism' is a philosophical theory about what makes actions good or bad. The idea of Utilitarianism the right decision (in any dilemma) is the one that will create the most happiness. A famous example of this sort of thinking would be the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: though many people died in the explosion, the bombing stopped WWII and potentially saved even more lives (thus the bombing was a 'good decision' as it created more happiness by a greater number of people). Utilitarianism works in contrast to Deontology, 'Kantian' ethics, which state that there are absolute moral values that cannot be breached. Meaning that any action that does breach these actions "such as killing someone' cannot be considered good as it has breached some innate moral code. As I said before I'm not the best person to explain this, and these are definitely the sort of ideas that need a lot more room to explain. So if you find this interesting you may want to check out a library, or do a quick google search. Either will get you tons of results. Hope this helps :)
What do you call a person who has no belief in any any religious belief of any sort whatsoever?
They can be classified as either atheist or agnostic.
Discuss the Relevance of kant's utilitarian theory?
Kant did not have a utilitarian theory but rather a categorical imperative that utilitarians have attempted to link to Kant's theory of categorical imperative in order to reconcile the flaws that come with their own theory. Utilitarianism comes in many forms such as John Stuart Mills theory of utilitarianism, but the for the purposes of this answer we will only discuss the ethical theory behind utilitarianism. In that regard, utilitarianism theorizes that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed up by the whole of humanity. Machiavelli, while not a utilitarian, had actually stated this in his manifesto the Prince, only he stated it as such: "The end justifies the means." This as an ethical theory is problematic and any ethical being knows full well that the end does not justify the means but rather it is the means that justify the end. Kant had no regard for the utilitarian theory and because of that formulated a dentological moral system to counter the utilitarianism of his day. Kant had argued that hypothetical moral systems do not persuade people to act moral because they are concerned with the outcome as a whole and do little to instruct an individual why it is in their best interest to behave morally. This dentologicalc moral system was based on his own categorical imperative which supposes that morality can be summed up in one assertion of reason. Kant defined imperative as any action or inaction that of one that is necessary. A categorical imperative then makes an unconditional requirement to behave in such a way that it is an end in and of itself rather than a justification of that end. He stated this as such: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." The major problem with Kant's theory, although much more sound than that of utilitarianism, is in the notion that we can will universal law. We, of course, can no more will gravity than we can will the speed of light and the act of murder is not wrong because we as humanity have willed it so, it is wrong because it disparaged the right of that who was murdered to life. The law of murder is universal and applies on distant planets the same as it does here, just like gravity or the speed of light. The major problem with the ethical theory behind utilitarianism is in defining ethics as either happiness or pleasure. While happiness is indeed a moral duty it is not morality in and of itself. Pleasure, on the other hand is not a moral duty but rather a biological command to seek that which pleasures us. Sex, drugs and rock and roll can give many people pleasure but has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Out of control orgies where carnal knowledge is gained with people we have no knowledge of is not only not an ethical theory it is just plain dangerous for more than just the parties involved and as such and as pleasure it has no place in an ethical framework
Do you find happiness in any type of art?
Yes. :)
What is the connection of love and happiness?
Real love is caring about the happiness of another person without any thought or concern for themselves.
What is the most selfish act?
In my humble opinion…. The most selfish thing is …….. to give…… without expecting anything in return. Thus the most selfish thing is the selfless. Confusing, right…. Let me try to explain as much as I can What is a selfish act…..any act that we think will benefit us in anyway. What is the greatest benefit we are looking for… for the whole life? Isn't it the happiness/bliss, that we are searching for from birth to death…searching every where..in things..money…marriage..children….etc..the list goes on and on…. So the act to be the most selfish must give us the most happiness/bliss….
How do you us belief in a sentence?
The belief system is flawed; It requires an input from you!
