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
1More
12th hour graffiti campaign in yemen surfaces political concern - 0 views
1More
Why the One Appealing Part of Creationism Is Wrong : The New Yorker - 0 views
1More
Labs Are Told to Start Including a Neglected Variable: Females - NYTimes.com - 1 views
2More
Dehumanization and terrorism | Practical Ethics - 0 views
1More
There Is No Theory of Everything - The New York Times - 0 views
3More
Czech Reality TV Show Makes a Game of Life Under Nazi Rule - NYTimes.com - 0 views
5More