Everyone likes to think of themselves as moral. Objectively evaluating morality is decidedly tricky, though, not least because there’s no clear consensus on what it actually means to be moral.
A group of philosophers and psychologists from Oxford University have created a scale to evaluate one of the most clear-cut and well-known theories of morality: utilitarianism. This theory, first put forward by 18th century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, argues that action is moral when it creates the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people. Utilitarianism’s focus on consequences states that it’s morally acceptable to actively hurt someone if it means that, overall, more people will benefit as a result.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
2More
When Art Is Dangerous (or Not) - NYTimes.com - 7 views
1More
What Should I Do With Old Racist Memorabilia? - The New York Times - 4 views
1More
Neuroscience and Moral Responsibility - The New York Times - 2 views
2More
The End Of Rational Vs. Emotional: How Both Logic And Feeling Play Key Roles In Marketi... - 2 views
1More
Why Swearing Makes You Stronger - The New Yorker - 0 views
1More
Students take Hilary Mantel's Tudor novels as fact, says historian | Books | The Guardian - 0 views
« First
‹ Previous
181 - 197 of 197
Showing 20▼ items per page