Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
That is, positive utility functions as a tiebreaker in that it determines which outcome is better (or less bad) when the outcomes considered have equal disutility. [21] "Lexical threshold" negative utilitarianism says that there is some disutility, for instance some extreme suffering, such that no positive utility can counterbalance it. [22 ...
The paradox of hedonism, also called the pleasure paradox, refers to the practical difficulties encountered in the pursuit of pleasure.For the hedonist, constant pleasure-seeking may not yield the most actual pleasure or happiness in the long term when consciously pursuing pleasure interferes with experiencing it.
The demandingness objection is a common [1] [2] argument raised against utilitarianism and other consequentialist ethical theories. The consequentialist requirement that we maximize the good impartially seems to this objection to require us to perform acts that we would normally consider optional.
A few applications of the utilitarian bioethics in policy are the Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands and the Advance Directives Act in Texas. In the 1990s, backlash against utilitarian bioethics emerged, led by such figures as Wesley J. Smith and novelist Dean Koontz. [3] [4] Philosopher Bernard Williams was also critical of the utilitarian ...
As an example, one's attitude toward ice cream may serve a utilitarian function because it is likely to be based on the reward (e.g., enjoyable taste) and punishments (e.g., weight gain) associated with ice cream and to guide behavior that maxims benefits while minimizing costs (e.g., eating low-fat ice cream) (Shavitt & Nelson, 2002 [7]).
The study found that eating a diet high in these foods was associated with a higher risk of: Anxiety, depression and other common mental health problems Type 2 diabetes
Animal rights writer Henry S. Salt termed the replaceability argument the "logic of the larder".. In 1789, the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham endorsed a variant of the argument, contending that painlessly killing a nonhuman animal is beneficial for everyone because it does not harm the animal and the consumers of the meat produced from the animal's body are better off as a result.
The woman adds that she thinks her sister-in-law might've brought the dish in several containers to "cut the 'good parts.' " The woman and her mother agreed to disagree, however, and the ...