Asses the Merits of Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Asses the Merits of Utilitarianism Essay Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a humans natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the father of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 into a family of lawyers and was himself, training to join the profession. During this process however, he became disillusioned by the state British law was in and set out to reform the system into a perfect one based on the ? Greatest Happiness Principle, ? the idea that pleasurable consequences are what qualify an action as being morally good. Bentham observed that we are all governed by pain and pleasure; we all naturally aim to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He then decided that the best moral principle for governing our lives is one which uses this, the ? Greatest Happiness Principle. This is that the amount of overall happiness or unhappiness that is caused by an action should determine whether an action is right or wrong. He stated, ? the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question is the right and proper, and only right and proper end of human action Here Bentham is saying that the principle is the only valid of deciding and justifying our actions, that the principle should be applied regardless of any others, as it is the only true and reliable way of defining whether an action is right or wrong. An advantage of utilitarianism is that it can be applied to any situation. Unlike many moral approaches you are not restricted by rules such as ? it is always wrong to lie, or ? killing is never right. This allows the philosopher to consider any dilemma or problem in its own specific context. For example applying Kantian ethics, abortion or euthanasia would have to be defined as wrong, however a utilitarian has the scope to make there own decision considering a range of factors and situations. Bentham realised that because this theory is based on the outcome of our actions it may be difficult to assess fairly which action will produce the most happiness. He therefore developed the ? hedonistic calculus, a form of calculating the happiness resulting from an act by assessing 7 different factors of the pleasure produced such as intensity and duration. In doing this Bentham was attempting to create some sort of happiness ? currency which would allow us to compare happiness as if it were measured in numbers, this of course cannot be possible, the thought of being able to compare different pleasures almost scientifically is just not feasible, and of course many pleasures rely on the context they occur in for example, if I were starving, a sandwich might seem the greatest thing in the world, however, if I went out for an expensive gourmet meal and was served a simple sandwich I expect I would be quite disappointed! Another problem with Benthams philosophy is that he would not distinguish between pleasure and pain, seemingly defining them as the same thing. In my opinion pleasure is generally a momentary thing whilst happiness is a more lasting and consistent thing. One might gain pleasure from sitting watching TV all day long. However in doing he is missing work and so will end up with no job and no money to support himself (and pay his TV licence! ) and will presumably be left unhappy. So, as demonstrated by this example, pleasure is not necessarily happiness and Bentham, was mistaken to define them together The usefulness of his calculus, and the way Bentham defined pleasure came into question from one of his students, J.S. Mill who found his approach too general and simplistic. Mill rejected Benthams idea that all pleasures are the same and can be compared, he felt that there were different types or ? levels of pleasure, and that some are more desirable or valuable than others. He decided that some pleasures or more desirable and meaningful than others, that there are ? higher and ? lower pleasures, the lower being animal pleasures such as the satisfaction of a full stomach, having a drink when your thirsty, sex etc. These are the same kinds of pleasures that an animal would experience and therefore if one only strives for these pleasures they are not much different to an animal. The other pleasures Mill described were ? higher more desirable, pleasures such as reading a good book or enjoying the opera. This concept however poses a big problem. How can one reasonably calculate pleasure as a whole if there are different ? levels of pleasure, and how much more worth does a higher pleasure carry than a lower pleasure? These pleasures would also be rated differently by different people, some might much rather watch TV than a play so TV would therefore make them happier. If an act is right because it makes one feel happy, then for the person watching TV would therefore be the right thing to do. There are sometimes slightly different criterions used in Utilitarianism. There are two different forms, ? positive and ? negative utilitarianism, ? positive seeking to maximise good and ? negative to minimise suffering or harm. The latter however seems to defeat the concept of the ? greatest good as minimising harm is not necessarily making people happy, for example not inflicting harm on someone is not really going to contribute to their happiness, it may prevent them from being unhappy, but as specified earlier, the goal of utilitarianism is happiness. ?Negative utilitarianism seems to encourage laziness, to enforce the attitude that it is better to do nothing than take an action that could possibly cause pain. There are two general types of utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is basically what Bentham discussed, an act being right if it creates the greatest happiness, it relies on this one simple formula being applied to every single act. This method is one that virtually comes naturally and is scientific in its approach, however it has been criticised as sometimes justifying something which one would intuitively regard as wrong. An example often used to demonstrate this; in a neighbourhood where there is a lot of racially motivated disruption and violence a member of one of the involved races is raped by a member of the ? rival race. The chief officer of the law knows exactly who committed the crime and it can easily be proven. However by sentencing this man the community will learn of the crime and there would almost certainly be a riot causing mass destruction and probably multiple deaths. However he could easily dismiss the case and the crime would go unnoticed. According to act utilitarianism it would be best to ignore the case and not press charges, as it would lead to the maximum happiness to the community ? no riots, death etc. This obviously seems to completely go against what most people see as right and fair and completely contradict ones natural moral response. In an effort to try and avoid these incidents rule utilitarianism was created. This is where rules are drawn up using utilitarian principles. Rule utilitarians assess a specific act such as ignoring crime and not providing justice to the victim, rather than investigating every single act in its own individual context. Rule utilitarianism seems to avoid the potential injustices that could be permitted with act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism seems to exclude the aspects of utilitarianism that make it more appealing than other theories of morality, the freedom to assess every single act in its own individual context. Act Utilitarianism, like any other ? list of rules approach to morality can be wrong in certain situations and encourages people to blindly follow rules. Utilitarianism is a reality, not just a theory like many other philosophies; it is practiced every day, for instance the vote system. This ongoing practice of utilitarianism in society has show that it is flawed. Just because the masses vote for something, doesnt make it right. The masses can be fooled, as in Nazi Germany for example, thousands of people were behind Hitler even though his actions were undeniably evil. Utilitarianism is a logical system, but it requires some sort of basic, firm rules to prevent such gross injustices, violations of human rights, and just obviously wrong thing ever being allowed. This could be the ? harm principle which Mill devised. ?Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.

Wedding Toasts †Topics to Avoid :: Wedding Toasts Roasts Speeches

Wedding Toasts – Topics to Avoid Don’t Mention Anything About â€Å"Milk† or â€Å"Cows† At the rehearsal dinner, one of the bridesmaids, who had been drinking, gave a toast. It started off just fine, but then she ended it with " thank God, sometimes guys do buy the cow even when they get the milk for free!" Don’t Blasphemy About a year ago, my fiancà © and I attended the wedding of my cousin. She married her college sweetheart, and the bridal party was made up mostly of their college friends. During the toast, the best man decides to talk about when he first knew the groom was going to propose. He says that he and the groom were in New Orleans celebrating Mardi Gras. He was surprised to hear about the upcoming proposal at that time, given that they were surrounded by women taking their tops off to get beads. The conclusion he comes to--and proceeds to tell the whole group of family, friends, and of course the bride's father--is that my cousin "must have better breasts than God." Don’t Comment on the Many Years it took for the Bride to Find a Sucker (Husband) At my wedding a year ago, my father gave a toast that went over like a lead balloon. He said (in paraphrase), "I've seen my daughter grow through the years and have had a few laughs, like the time she fell in the toilet as a small child. She was so mad at me for laughing at her, that I think maybe that's why it took her so long to find a man to marry." (I was 32 when I got married.) Remember, It’s a Wedding Toast, not an Esoteric Diatribe My husband's brother is well known for his selfishness. He was the best man in our wedding and gave the worst toast you could ever imagine. The speech was typed, single-spaced, on 5 pages, front and back. It lasted about 20 minutes and I (the bride) don't recall being mentioned once. The theme of the speech was "I'm losing my brother" and contained gems like "I can't believe he is getting married", "it's going to be so weird" and "we won't be able to hang out anymore". I was not welcomed to the family, not congratulated, not spoken to or looked at. And we get along just fine -- it wasn't intended to be disrespectful.

The Military in Art

The word propaganda has come to have sinister overtones though this was not always the case. Propaganda today evokes images of sinister lies and obfuscations told by enemies of the state to sway the minds of the citizens. Yet in a larger sense all art is propaganda to some degree and military art is propaganda on a grand scale. Art is designed to cause an emotional response in the viewer. Throughout history artists have served the state, willingly or not so willingly, in an effort to further the aims of the government, be it republic or clan of elders.   Those works of art that are most effective are those that hit the viewer viscerally and cause a response that is near equal to the actual event being depicted in the art work. The works mentioned here are like that. I served in the United States Air Force for six years as a military policeman. I have traveled to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Korea. I have seen artwork that has evoked emotion in me and I have seen art that was truly representational of the events I have seen. James Dietz’ work, I Shall Defeat Them on the Battlefield, can be found as a limited edition print from the online gallery of the artist. The image size is 36† x 21.5 â€Å". It depicts the United States Army 75th Ranger Unit on the ground. This unit remains the Army’s premier special operations force capable of conducting a full spectrum of operations to include direct action raids and forced entry operations (JamesDietz.com). Dietz depicts an action scene in a dim setting. In the background is the skyline of a city that was ancient in the days when Christ walked the lands of the Middle East. The modern warriors, carrying firearms and dressed in body armor seem incongruent beneath the palms and the domed edifices creating the negative space in the lower portion of the sky. An automobile is in the streets where camels would seem more at home, juxtaposed in contrast to the ancient city and the modern warriors, signifying a delivery system of enemy fire. First Boots on the Ground, by William Phillips, is now available as a limited edition print, measuring 31† x 19 â€Å". It is a classic scene from the Viet Nam era, featuring a sky filled with helicopters and reminiscent of Apocalypse Now. The work depicts the 1965 battle of La Drang Valley, famous for its intensity.   â€Å"At 10:48 the helicopter touches down, and Lt. Col. Moore, Sgt. Major Plumley, Capt. Metsker, Bob Ovellette, Al Bosse and Vietnamese translator Mr. Nik become the first boots on the ground at La Drang† (OzarkAirFieldsArtworks 2005). This art is compelling and personal to me for it depicts the ultimate in warfare, that time when the soldier commits and becomes a weapon aimed at the heart of the enemy. He has left the relative safety of the helicopter. He no longer is behind the line depending on artillery or mortar fire, but rather advances, putting his life on the line as he moves inexorably toward the opposing warrior. Charlene Cooper’s moving artwork, titled with the acronym B.O.M.B., signifying Blood of My Brothers, is a drawing in graphite and colored pencil. The intense blue of the flag is complimented by the red of the tear streaming down the face of the warrior. It appeals to me for reasons that would be clear to most combat veterans, as it shows the side of a soldier seldom seen or discussed openly. The man holds a folded American Flag as that single tear, executed in the red of blood, is seen to escape his eye. He shows the pent up emotion which soldiers rarely display and gives the viewer the understanding that he is a flesh and blood creature, endowed with all the sentiment and feeling of any other man. He is proud of the job he has done, but keenly aware of the price that was ultimately paid by so many of his friends and compatriots. I find Cooper’s work the most compelling of these three, for it appeals to a side of me that is most often hidden from the view of others. It touches me in a place where I am alone with my feelings and appeals to me on a spiritual level. Even her choice of title is compelling, bringing to the piece a thought-provoking message that transcends the art and gives the viewer ideas that there is more to the piece than what appears on the surface, making it multi-leveled and multi-dimensional. Works Cited Artwanted.com  Ã‚  Ã‚   2007 B.O.M.B. (Blood of My Brothers) Retrieved 10-8-2007 From: http://www.artwanted.com/imageview.cfm?id=458010  Ã‚  Ã‚   JamesDietz.com 2007 I Shall Defeat Them on the Battlefield Retrieved 10-8-2007 OzarkAirFieldArtworks.com  Ã‚   2005   First Boots on the Ground Retrieved 10-8- 2007 from: http://www.ozarkairfieldartworks.com/firstbootsontheground.html                      .

Flaming B-52 Drink Recipe (and Other Flaming Cocktails)

Its easy to make flaming cocktails. Essentially, you take a drink recipe and then add and ignite a float of any high-proof alcohol. Most commonly this is 151 rum, but any alcoholic beverage 150-proof or higher will work. Many flaming drinks today are flaming shots, but you can set most drinks on fire. Heres what you do. Basic Flaming Drink Directions Prepare your drink.Warm a little liquor in a spoon. Hold your hand steady so that the flammable vapor can collect right over the liquid.Ignite the alcohol in the spoon and pour it onto your drink.Dim the lights to enjoy the show, then blow out the flame before taking a drink. Be careful! The glass and drink may be hot. Also, pure alcohol burns with an almost-invisible blue flame. Adding a rim of sugar or salt to the glass will help make the flame more visible. Flaming B-52 Recipe If youre ready for something a little more advanced, try my personal favorite, a flaming B-52. This is a layered drink. If you make it correctly, you will have a tricolored drink topped by a flame. B-52 Cocktail Ingredients KahluaIrish CreamGrand Marnier or CointreauShot glassSpoon or a maraschino cherryMatch or lighter151 rum or Everclear Fill the shot glass about a third full with Kahlua.You form layers with the lighter alcohols by slowly pouring them over the back of a spoon (or a cherry), touching the side of the glass just above the liquid. Use this technique to slowly add a layer of Irish Cream over the Kahlua.Add a layer of Grand Marnier on top of the Irish Cream.Pour a couple of drops of 151 on top of the Grand Marnier and light the drink on fire.If you use warmed Grand Marnier, you dont even need the 151.You can drink the lit drink using a long straw, from the bottom of the drink. Its more prudent to blow out the flame before drinking the B-52. Heres a nice YouTube video you might want to watch if you want to see how to form the layers. Once you learn how to layer drinks, you can try this technique with other liqueurs (or sugar water, if you want something non-alcoholic with even more layers). Combinations to try (heaviest to lightest) include Tia Maria, Irish Cream, Absinthe or Amaretto, Irish Cream, and rum. Its a Flaming Density Column While the purpose of a flaming cocktail is entertainment, the layered drink is a good example of a density column. The different layers have different densities, so if they are poured carefully, they will remain separate. The project also illustrates the flammability of ethanol (the kind of alcohol you can drink). If the cocktail is prepared poorly, it shows the miscibility of alcohol and water. When alcohol and water mix, the flammability of the alcohol is offset by the presence of the water. Flaming Drink Safety Fire is fun and all, but you need to be safe. Dont mix or drink flaming drinks if youre intoxicated.You really ought to blow out the fire before drinking the drink. In my opinion, its not worth burning yourself.Dont add spirits to a flaming drink.Use heavy glassware to minimize the chance of the glass cracking.Short or rounded glasses tend to work better than tall, narrow glasses.Dont prepare or serve flaming drinks near open bottles of liquor.Coating the rim of the glass with salt (not recommended for the B-52, for flavor) can add yellow to the flame from the sodium. This can make the flame easier to see, reducing the chance of a burn. Key Points The key to preparing a flaming cocktail is to ignite a high-proof alcohol and float it on top of the drink.Alcohol is less dense than the other ingredients, so it sits on top of the drink. However, it will mix with the next layer over time, so the final float should be added just before lighting it.Alcohol burns with a nearly invisible flame, so its important to make certain the flame is extinguished before skin contact.Prepare a flaming B-52 by layering (bottom of the glass to top) Kahlua or other coffee liqueur, Irish Cream, and Grand Marnier or Cointreau, topped with a bit of 151 rum or Everclear.