This paper analyzes historical disagreements among utilitarians, specifically regarding justice and political theory. Utilitarians hold varying perspectives on the existence of universal rules that maximize utility, and whether total or average utility should be maximized. After reviewing centuries of discourse, this paper defends the author’s thoughts on utilitarianism.
This paper is a utilitarian critique of Kant’s categorical imperatives. I maintain that constants exist in consequences (such as happiness and pain), but not in moral actions. Therefore, Kant’s emphasis on intent and universalizability disregards consequences and the complexity of situations in favor of rigid and impossible moral laws.
This paper defends my utilitarian perspective of moral standing and moral duties. I argue that the ultimate criterion for moral standing is the ability to experience pain since it is the only element that is intrinsically bad. Moral agents have a responsibility to minimize the average amount of pain experienced by all sentient beings.