how to write an essay on utilitarianism

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Basic concepts

Methodologies.

• Antecedents of utilitarianism among the ancients
• Growth of classical English utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism since the late 19th century
• Effects of utilitarianism in other fields
• Summary and evaluation

utilitarianism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Santa Clara University - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics - Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics
• World History Encyclopedia - Utilitarianism
• Humanities LibreTexts - Utilitarianism
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The History of Utilitarianism
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Act and Rule Utilitarianism
• Open Okstate - Utilitarianism
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Utilitarianism
• Rebus Community - Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics - Utilitarianism
• Table Of Contents

utilitarianism , in normative ethics , a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill according to which an action (or type of action) is right if it tends to promote happiness or pleasure and wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain—not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it. Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism , the general doctrine in ethics that actions (or types of action) should be evaluated on the basis of their consequences. Utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories are in opposition to egoism , the view that each person should pursue his or her own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some actions (or types of action) as right or wrong independently of their consequences ( see deontological ethics ). Utilitarianism also differs from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an action dependent upon the motive of the agent—for, according to the utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be done from a bad motive. Utilitarians may, however, distinguish the aptness of praising or blaming an agent from whether the action was right.

(Read Peter Singer’s Britannica entry on ethics.)

The nature of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a person to do?” The answer is that a person ought to act so as to maximize happiness or pleasure and to minimize unhappiness or pain.

In the notion of consequences the utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced by the action, whether arising after the action has been performed or during its performance. If the difference in the consequences of alternative actions is not great, some utilitarians would not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner.

In assessing the consequences of actions, utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value : something is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists ; i.e, they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic values produced by two alternative actions and to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham believed that a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist, he maintained, could sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure of the overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement as Bentham envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the utilitarian to make some interpersonal comparisons of the values of the effects of alternative courses of action.

As a normative system providing a standard by which an individual ought to act and by which the existing practices of society, including its moral code, ought to be evaluated and improved, utilitarianism cannot be verified or confirmed in the way in which a descriptive theory can, but it is not regarded by its exponents as simply arbitrary. Bentham believed that only in terms of a utilitarian interpretation do words such as “ought,” “right,” and “wrong” have meaning and that, whenever people attempt to combat the principle of utility , they do so with reasons drawn from the principle itself. Bentham and Mill both believed that human actions are motivated entirely by pleasure and pain, and Mill saw that motivation as a basis for the argument that, since happiness is the sole end of human action, the promotion of happiness is the test by which to judge all human conduct.

One of the leading utilitarians of the late 19th century, the Cambridge philosopher Henry Sidgwick , rejected such theories of motivation as well as Bentham’s theory of the meaning of moral terms and sought to support utilitarianism by showing that it follows from systematic reflection on the morality of “ common sense .” Most of the requirements of commonsense morality , he argued, could be based upon utilitarian considerations. In addition, he reasoned that utilitarianism could solve the difficulties and perplexities that arise from the vagueness and inconsistencies of commonsense doctrines.

Most opponents of utilitarianism have held that it has implications contrary to their moral intuitions—that considerations of utility, for example, might sometimes sanction the breaking of a promise. Much of the defense of utilitarian ethics has consisted in answering these objections, either by showing that utilitarianism does not have the implications that its opponents claim it has or by arguing against the opponents’ moral intuitions . Some utilitarians, however, have sought to modify the utilitarian theory to accommodate the objections.

One such criticism is that, although the widespread practice of lying and stealing would have bad consequences, resulting in a loss of trustworthiness and security, it is not certain that an occasional lie to avoid embarrassment or an occasional theft from a rich person would not have good consequences and thus be permissible or even required by utilitarianism. But the utilitarian readily answers that the widespread practice of such acts would result in a loss of trustworthiness and security. To meet the objection to not permitting an occasional lie or theft, some philosophers have defended a modification labelled “ rule ” utilitarianism. It permits a particular act on a particular occasion to be adjudged right or wrong according to whether it is in keeping with or in violation of a useful rule, and a rule is judged useful or not by the consequences of its general practice . Mill has sometimes been interpreted as a “rule” utilitarian, whereas Bentham and Sidgwick were “ act” utilitarians.

Another objection, often posed against the hedonistic value theory held by Bentham, holds that the value of life is more than a balance of pleasure over pain. Mill, in contrast to Bentham, discerned differences in the quality of pleasures that make some intrinsically preferable to others independently of intensity and duration (the quantitative dimensions recognized by Bentham). Some philosophers in the utilitarian tradition have recognized certain wholly nonhedonistic values without losing their utilitarian credentials. Thus, the English philosopher G.E. Moore , one of the founders of contemporary analytic philosophy , regarded many kinds of consciousness —including friendship, knowledge, and the experience of beauty—as intrinsically valuable independently of pleasure, a position labelled “ ideal ” utilitarianism. Even in limiting the recognition of intrinsic value and disvalue to happiness and unhappiness, some philosophers have argued that those feelings cannot adequately be further broken down into terms of pleasure and pain and have thus preferred to defend the theory in terms of maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness. It is important to note, however, that, even for the hedonistic utilitarians, pleasure and pain are not thought of in purely sensual terms; pleasure and pain for them can be components of experiences of all sorts. Their claim is that, if an experience is neither pleasurable nor painful, then it is a matter of indifference and has no intrinsic value.

Another objection to utilitarianism is that the prevention or elimination of suffering should take precedence over any alternative act that would only increase the happiness of someone already happy. Some modern utilitarians have modified their theory to require this focus or even to limit moral obligation to the prevention or elimination of suffering—a view labelled “negative” utilitarianism.

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Understanding Utilitarianism
• > Introduction

Book contents

• Frontmatter
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Classical utilitarianism
• 3 Proofs of utilitarianism
• 4 Well-being
• 5 Injustice and demands
• 6 Acts, rules and institutions
• 7 Acts, rules and institutions
• 8 Practicality
• 9 The future of utilitarianism
• Questions for discussion and revision
• Further reading

1 - Introduction

What is utilitarianism?

In his brief essay Utilitarianism , John Stuart Mill provides a very succinct account of the Utility Principle.

Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.

However, this deceptively simple principle is not the whole story. Utilitarianism is a broad tradition of philosophical and social thought, not a single principle. The central utilitarian idea is that morality and politics are (and should be) centrally concerned with the promotion of happiness. While Mill's principle is one expression of this basic idea, there are many others. In particular, Mill's principle focuses our attention on particular actions. As we shall see, utilitarians have often been more interested in evaluating codes of moral rules or systems of political institutions.

Why study utilitarianism?

If you are taking an introductory ethics course, then you will probably be asked questions about utilitarianism. If you want to pass the course, this gives you a reason to study utilitarianism. Fortunately, there are other – nobler – reasons to study utilitarianism. Throughout the past two centuries, the utilitarian tradition has been very influential – not just within philosophy, but in the more obviously practical disciplines of politics and economics. As a result of this influence, utilitarian assumptions and arguments abound in modern economic and political life, especially in public policy.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Introduction
• Tim Mulgan , University of St Andrews
• Book: Understanding Utilitarianism
• Online publication: 05 February 2013
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9781844653904.001

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

113 Utilitarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best utilitarianism topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on utilitarianism, 📌 most interesting utilitarianism topics to write about, ⭐ simple & easy utilitarianism essay titles, ❓ utilitarianism essay questions.

• Examples of Utilitarianism in Business: Utilitarianism Case Study This argument has led to the development of the second premise in the theory, which states that in order for actions and decisions to qualify as right and moral, they must appeal to the happiness […]
• Justice Theory: Business Ethics, Utilitarianism, Rights, Caring, and Virtue The foremost portion of business ethics understands the theory of rights as one of the core principles in the five-item ethical positions that deem essential in the understanding of moral business practices.
• Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism Essay Ross is of the view that people do not undertake tasks because they are aware of the consequences of their actions; rather, the decision to undertake such tasks is propelled by a promise that they […]
• Virtue Theory, Utilitarianism and Deontological Ethics The foundation of utilitarianism theory is in the principle of utility. On the other hand, the theory of deontology embraces the concept of duty.
• Death Penalty: Utilitarian View on Capital Punishment Another significant benefit offered by the death penalty to the society is that it leads to the permanent incapacitation of the convicted person.
• Utilitarianism Theory Essay At the center of the utilitarian argument that shifts from the concern we physically have for our personal feelings of pain and pleasure, to others feelings of pain and pleasure, is the belief that this […]
• Utilitarianism and Social Contract Theories Unfortunately, there is limited information about the limits of the rights of individuals and this makes most people abuse the freedoms of others.
• Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham The main difference between Mill’s and Bentham’s conception of Utilitarianism is that Mill, though a consequentialist, makes a case for the qualitative aspects of happiness.
• The Theory of Utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham According to utilitarianism, the greatest ethical action is the one that benefits society, and the value of each person is more significant than the value of a community.
• Utilitarianism and Deontology: The Case of Coca-Cola This is one of the deontological rights that the company may have under deontological ethics; it must not be condemned for the reason that its products cause obesity to young children.
• Utilitarianism vs. Moral Relativism If to assume that moral relativism is true, then it is impossible to discuss good and bad outside the specific situation. Thus, their actions were morally wrong according to the assumptions of moral relativism.
• Utilitarianism Critique From Kantian Perspective In the words of Kant, utilitarianism cannot be used as a yardstick in the evaluation of human actions because it is not universal.
• Utilitarianism in Government In the modern society, the government applies utilitarianism with the sole purpose of offering an answer to the practical question asking what should be done in society to improve the conditions of living.
• The Difference Between Act and Rule Utilitarianism Utilitarianism emerged as a systematic theory at the end of the eighteenth century with the philosophical works of Jeremy Bentham, who created the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” formulation of the principle of utilitarianism.
• Utilitarianism vs Libertarianism: Examples and Facts In libertarianism, the libertarians’ perceives the government as the one that threatens peoples’ rights. It is not suitable for the government to dictate the life of an individual.
• Act Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics: Pros and Cons Therefore, act utilitarianism is better than virtue ethics since it is clear, concise, and focuses on the majority. Virtue ethics’ strengths can be utilized to enhance the act-utilitarianism theory.
• A Critique of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that states that the morality of an action is based on its effects; any action that increases the pleasure and happiness of the greater majority is just.
• Utilitarianism and Human Resource Management In order to fully comprehend the effects of the United States president on the Bill of Rights denial, it is imperative to understand the provisions of the utilitarianism and the significance of Bill of Rights […]
• The Debate Over Utilitarianism While the writers offer objections to utilitarianism, they conclude that the concept has more benefits to society compared to the use of common sense in terms of morality.
• Utilitarianism: Principles and Assumptions The philosopher argues that the accomplishment of the goal of solving the cases of stress must be based on an individual’s pleasure and actions that promote happiness. For instance, Bentham argues that the chain of […]
• Michael Sandel’s Objections to Utilitarianism The moral and intellectual pleasures were considered to be “highest pleasures”, and the experiences, that caused satisfaction of flesh were considered to be “lower pleasures”. The pleasures of the majority, in that case, are considered […]
• Comparing Utilitarianism with Immanuel Kant’s View On the other hand, the teleological ethical perspective states that the results for all actions matter in determining the nature of the undertaken decisions.
• Utilitarianism in Healthcare During the COVID-19 Pandemic This principle is particularly applicable to the lockdown situation by evaluating the number of lives that would be lost in the event of a lockdown.
• Philosophy Issues: Utilitarianism or Deontology? Regardless of the extent to which some people are opposed to the applications of moral principles, which should be consistent with the scriptures of God, they are used to produce the best results in communities.
• Philosophy Issues: Kantianism and Utilitarianism Utilitarianism can be explained using the principle of ‘the end justifies the means’, meaning if the end of a processor action is good, then the means of arriving at that end are also good and […]
• Peter Singer and John Rawls on Utilitarianism Consequently, we should not engage in slavery even if utilitarianism theory assumes that such engagement may produce pleasure, happiness, and contentment to the majority or the greatest number of people.
• Act and Rule Utilitarianism Considering that John is a drunkard who drove himself to the accident that led to the rapture of his kidney; the choice of giving him the kidney would be avoided based on the fact that […]
• Act and Rule Utilitarianism in Decision Process On the basis of the act-utilitarianism, as an oncologist, I would give the trial drug to the genetics researcher since her recovery would benefit many people under the Malaria research.
• Resolving Ethical Issues in the Workplace: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics The ethical issue in question is in regard to whether Alice should report the huge error she has discovered in Mark’s nutritional reporting to the company’s upper management.
• Principles of Utilitarianism At this point, the utilitarian theory is also associated with the tools that can provide individuals and community with happiness through recognition of felicity as the foundation of all human actions.
• Introduction to the Utilitarianism Theory The good in the action is what is focused on and not what it leads to. This is in disregard of Bentham’s thought that pleasure is the same qualitatively and the only thing that matters […]
• Utilitarianism & Social Contract in Shakespeare’s All’s Well That Ends Well While Helena represented the lower class of the society and believed in the Utilitarianism values to the road of success, Bertram was much inclined towards the elements of social contract theory and its application.
• Utilitarianism’ Critique by B. Williams and P. Pettit Consequentialism is a concept in normative ethics that opines that the goodness or badness of an action is determined by the impacts of the action and not the motive of the doer.
• Utilitarianism: The Moral Story of Flight 93 Considering the huge negative repercussions of Flight 93 in terms of loss of lives, destruction of invaluable resources and a series of other harmful consequences; as a utilitarian, one would argue that shooting the plane […]
• Humanity Theories: Utilitarianism Second, the theory of deontology embraces the concept of duty and adherence to rule. However, this theory does not refer to physical happiness, but that of the mind and soul.
• Mill’s Utilitarianism and Gomez Lobo’s Natural Law The definition given for lying is an expression of words that contradicts the thoughts with an intent to deceive a person who has the right to know. The implication is that the theory fails to […]
• Happiness in Mills’ Utilitarianism Theory Mill further supports his claim by explaining that the justice sentiment is based on utility and that the existence of rights is due to human happiness. The freedom from pain involving health issues and other […]
• Ethics, Prosperity, and Society: Virtue Ethics and Utilitarianism First, due to the heated argument of the superior on duty, they might take out their anger on the trainee, in which case the trainee might be told to either resolve the issue personally or […]
• How Utilitarianism Approves Prostitution However, on moral and ethical grounds, the sex workers and the society are the primary parties that this philosophy considers justifying whether the goodness that comes with prostitution outweighs the bad or the wrong cause […]
• Deontology and Utilitarianism: Comparative Analysis The idea of the purpose justifying the means is central to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is dependent on consequentiality since it asserts that the most moral thing to do is to use happiness for the benefit of […]
• Discussion: Ethics of Utilitarianism In the situation described with the purchase of a bag and a TV, the utilitarian ethic recommends that you donate to a charitable foundation, as this will increase happiness for more people.
• Utilitarianism: Ethical Theory in Healthcare The ethical theory addresses the main concepts: the intrinsic value of one’s happiness, the importance of operating under the premise of well-being as the primary value, and happiness being equally important regardless of the individual.
• Ethical Implications in Business and Utilitarianism The organizational culture is essentially a set of moral, ethical, cultural, and managerial rules that regulate the interpersonal relationships in an organization, as well as communicate its agenda to the outside world.
• Morality in Utilitarianism and Deontology Followers of utilitarianism thus claim that an action is morally right when it increases the happiness of the involved parties and minimizes the harm.
• Vaccination and Utilitarianism Such an approach may be problematic for parents since they also have a moral obligation to act according to the best interests of their child.
• The Theory of Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism A possible moral choice in the situation can also be interpreted from the point of view of the theory of existentialism and hedonism.
• Act Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics The theory greatly neglects and ignores the happiness of individual because everyone is on the run to be accepted morally to the society and tend to make individuals do what tends to make them happy.
• Utilitarianism Drawbacks in Business Decision-Making For instance, when choosing the appropriate manager to develop an IT project, the director ignores the candidates’ level of knowledge in this sphere due to their equality in this question.
• Ethical Concepts: Utilitarianism and Deontology Utilitarianism is primarily based on the outcome, where the one with the most amount of good is considered to be the right choice.
• Normative Ethics: Utilitarianism and Deontology In their refusal to do business with Wikileaks, the management of the bank of America was justified by reason that the actions of Wikileaks were inconsistent with the internal policies of the bank, and therefore, […]
• Capital Punishment: Utilitarianism and Retributivism Theories However, to rule out chances of an innocent person being punished, the theory advocates for justice; before punishment is administered, the court should proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
• The Main Risks of Utilitarianism In this theory of act utilitarianism, is well stated that, when one is faced with a decision to make, the first thing to consider is the outcome of the potential deeds and, from that decide […]
• The Theory of Utilitarianism in the Global E-Commerce Business Dealings Generally, it is of importance that businesses and corporations in e-commerce ensure ideal and sincere dealings to meet the expected level of satisfaction by their clients.
• Thomas More’s Utopia, Utilitarianism, and Technology Therefore, the meaning of “utopia” did not change to a tangible extent, as the modern meaning aligns with the one that More assigned to it.
• Virtue Ethics: Kantianism and Utilitarianism Despite the strengths and theoretical significance of both approaches, the theories of Aristotle and Aquinas suggest more flexibility and breadth in ethics interpretation as compared to rule-based theories.
• Abortion and the Theory of Act Utilitarianism One possible philosophical approach to the problem of choice in such sensitive issues as abortion is the theory of Utilitarianism measuring the moral value of the action.
• Elements of Utilitarianism as a Philosophical Theory First, in Utilitarianism, the decision-makers should not only consider the happiness that the decision brings but also the unhappiness or pain.
• Act Utilitarianism: Term Definition The theory advocates for actions that bring a large amount of pleasure and little pain to the majority of the people or rather the course of actions that maximize happiness and minimize pain by considering […]
• Difference Between Social Contract, Utilitarianism, Virtue and Deontology This essay gives a description of the differences in how ethical contractarianism, utilitarianism, virtue, and deontological ethics theories address ethics and morality.
• Deontology vs. Utilitarianism in Medicine: Dray vs. Staten Island University Hospital The ACOG and the AAP made a statement that even the most substantial evidence for the benefit of a fetus could not be considered as an ethical presumption to neglect the decision of a pregnant […]
• Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Virtue Ethics, Egoism Quote: The amanagers of a corporation must take responsibility to fulfil their duties to their stockholders and to the public’. According to this normative theory, the utility can be described as anything that is related […]
• Utilitarianism in Ron Paul’s Rhetoric In fact, former Congressman Ron Paul believes that in order to create the most good, the best strategy is to reduce the involvement of big government in the affairs of men.
• Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, and Deontology Utilitarianism relates to the concept of value in that the quality of something which is good is measured by the value attached to it.
• Ethics: Egoism, Utilitarianism, Care and Virtue It is necessary to note that it is benign most of the time, but the issue is that such behavior may not be liked by other members of society, and it can lead to numerous […]
• Robert Nozick’ Ideas about Utilitarianism Nozick was of the view that people are not in a position to differentiate between their experiences when in the experience machine and when outside.
• Retributivism and Utilitarianism Theories Another approach to the question of punishment has a theory of utilitarianism. However, it is possible to suggest some fusing of these two different theories in an attempt to create some new approach to the […]
• Ethics of Relativism, Utilitarianism and Libertarianism Therefore, the concept is based on the fact that reality felt by an individual is bound to the culture or societal beliefs.
• Defensive Approach: Utilitarianism The utilitarian attitude towards rights is that the moral ‘right’ is built on the basis of utilitarian aspects, especially on the principle that seeks to reduce pain and suffering of living organisms.
• Sandel’s Analysis of Utilitarianism and Libertarianism It is therefore important to point out the circumstances that led to the creation of the U.S.political system that incorporated the principles of utilitarianism and libertarianism.
• Utilitarianism and Natural Law Theories This may be done with the interest of the society at heart where, the person wants to improve the well being of everyone else in the community.
• Media Ethics: Towards Employing Utilitarianism and Kantian Theory in Examining Practical Ethical Issues In the claim, it is clearly evident that the author would choose the action that has a greater impact and helps more people that of continuing to film instead of lending a hand.
• The Application of the Principle of Utilitarianism in Explaining the Death Penalty However, the theory supports a form of punishment when the level of suffering is so high that it is beneficial to society.
• Analysis of News Article Using Act Utilitarianism and Kant’s Categorical Imperative The other issue in consideration is that of the black market which is supposedly benefiting due to the lack of a legal market for body organs.
• Concept of Utilitarianism Theory The good thing about the utilitarianism theory relates to the notion that it is the simplest form of any applicable ethical system.
• Limitations of Utilitarianism The reasoning is that the greater good would be to kill one person, as opposed to five because the happiness of five people is much greater than that of one.
• Utilitarianism as a Teleological Theory Therefore, in the interest of maximizing happiness for both parties, human beings are supposed to be vegetarians and animals are supposed to enjoy their freedom as animals.
• Analyzing the Differences between Utilitarianism and Libertarianism: Ethical Issues and Moral Judgments As Luntley says, t6he first and the foremost is the ability to make sure that the truth is independent from judgment.
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings.
• Utilitarianism Theory Application in Duelling Dilemma The claimants in this scenario consist of the government of the PRC, those protesting against the censorship and the general public who might not be aware of such attempts by the government.
• The Utilitarianism Theory in Society Therefore, utilitarianism should lead to an increase in happiness of the society. In utilitarianism, rules are necessary in the governing of the actions.
• What Is a Good Example of Utilitarianism?
• How Would Charles Darwin Critique John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism?
• What Are Some Objections to Utilitarianism?
• What Are the Main Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism and Formalism?
• What Is Utilitarianism in Layman’s Terms?
• What’s the Difference Between Act and Rule Utilitarianism?
• How Does the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill Compare to Jeremy Bentham’s?
• What Is the Difference Between Pragmatism and Utilitarianism?
• How Would Aristotle Respond to Utilitarianism?
• What Are the Best Arguments for and Against Utilitarianism?
• Which Definition Best Describes Utilitarianism?
• What Are the Main Principles of Utilitarianism?
• What Is the Opposite of Utilitarianism?
• What Are the Three Types of Utilitarianism?
• Is Utilitarianism Fundamentally Opposed to Libertarianism?
• What Is the Relationship Between Utilitarianism and Consequentialism?
• Why Is Utilitarianism Called an Unfalsifiable Ethic?
• How Does Utilitarianism Differ Between John Stuart Mill and Peter Singer?
• Why Are INTJs Obsessed With the Philosophy of Utilitarianism?
• What Are the Criticisms of Utilitarianism?
• What Are the Best Arguments Against Utilitarianism and for Deontology?
• What Are the Two Key Objections to Utilitarianism?
• Is Democracy Based on Utilitarianism?
• What Does the Term Utilitarianism in English Literature Mean?
• Which Is Right: Utilitarianism, Deontology, or Some Combination of the Two?
• Why Is Utilitarianism Considered a Consequentialist Theory?
• How Can a Libertarian Refute a Progressive Plea to Utilitarianism?
• Who Came Up With Utilitarianism?
• Where Was Utilitarianism Practiced?
• How Does Utilitarianism Threaten Individual Rights?
• Egoism Ideas
• Romanticism Titles
• Ethical Relativism Essay Topics
• Idealism Paper Topics
• Nietzsche Essay Titles
• Virtue Ethics Questions
• Activist Essay Titles
• Media Ethics Titles
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 113 Utilitarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/utilitarianism-essay-topics/

"113 Utilitarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '113 Utilitarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "113 Utilitarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "113 Utilitarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "113 Utilitarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

• Famine, Affluence, and Morality
• Utilitarianism: Simply Explained

Introduction to Utilitarianism

“The task of the benevolent is surely to diligently seek to promote the benefit of the world and eliminate harm to the world and to take this as a model throughout the world. Does it benefit people? Then do it. Does it not benefit people? Then stop.” – Mòzǐ 1

What, morally, ought we to do? Utilitarianism gives an answer: we ought always to promote overall well-being. Compared to other ethical theories, utilitarianism is less deferential to ordinary thought and may tell us to make substantial changes to how we lead our lives. Perhaps more so than any other ethical theory, it has produced a fierce philosophical debate between its proponents and its critics .

Why Do We Need Moral Theories?

When we make moral judgments in everyday life, we often rely on our intuition. If you ask yourself whether or not it’s wrong to eat meat, or to lie to a friend, or to buy sweatshop goods, you probably have a strong gut moral view on the topic. But there are problems with relying merely on our moral intuition.

Historically, people held beliefs we now consider morally horrific. In Western societies, it was once firmly believed to be intuitively obvious that people of color and women have fewer rights than white men; that homosexuality is wrong; and that it was permissible to own slaves. We now see these moral intuitions as badly misguided. This historical track record gives us reason to be concerned that we, in the modern era, may also be unknowingly responsible for serious, large-scale wrongdoing. It would be a very lucky coincidence if the present generation were the first generation whose intuitions were perfectly morally correct. 2

Also, people have conflicting moral intuitions, and we need a way to resolve these disagreements. We see the project of moral philosophy as being to reflect on our competing moral intuitions and develop a theory that will tell us what we ought to do, and why. This will then allow us to identify which moral judgments of today are misguided, enabling us to make moral progress and act more ethically.

One of the most prominent and influential attempts to create such a theory is utilitarianism . Utilitarianism was developed by the philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill , who drew on ideas going back to the ancient Greeks. Utilitarianism has since been widely discussed, and has had significant influence in economics and public policy.

Track Record

While history cannot directly tell us which moral theory is correct, utilitarian moral reasoning has a strong track record of contributing to humanity’s collective moral progress—suggesting that there may at least be something morally salutary to these ideas. The classical utilitarians of the 18th and 19th centuries had many social and political attitudes that were far ahead of their time: As a progressive social reformer, Jeremy Bentham advocated for the separation of church and state; the abolition of slavery and of capital punishment; legal regulations to protect criminals and non-human animals from cruel treatment; 3 and the decriminalization of homosexuality. 4 Indeed, his manuscripts on homosexuality were so liberal that his editor hid them from the public after Bentham’s death. They were only published two centuries later.

John Stuart Mill defended the provision of social welfare for the poor and of freedom of speech. He was the second MP in the UK Parliament to call for women’s suffrage 5 and advocated for gender equality more generally. In his essay The Subjection of Women , 6 Mill argued that

the principle which regulates the existing social relations between the two sexes—the legal subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other. 7

In a similar vein, Henry Sidgwick advocated for women’s education and the freedom of education from religious doctrines. Modern utilitarians like Peter Singer are outspoken advocates against pressing moral problems such as extreme poverty and factory farming. 8

The early proponents of utilitarianism were still far from getting everything right. (For example, Mill disappointingly shared the unsavory colonialist attitudes common among his compatriots.) But their utilitarian reasoning led them to escape many of the moral prejudices of their time and reach more enlightened moral and political positions. Those of us living today are, of course, still fallible, just as our forebears were. To help overcome our own biases, our moral and political views may similarly benefit from being checked against utilitarian principles.

What Is Utilitarianism?

We can define utilitarianism in simple terms:

Utilitarianism is the view that one ought always to promote overall well-being.

The core idea is that we should want all lives to go as well as possible, 9 with no-one’s well-being counting for more or less than anyone else’s.

Sometimes philosophers talk about “welfare” or “utility” rather than “well-being”, but these words are typically used to mean the same thing. 10 (Others sometimes use “well-being” and “happiness” interchangeably, though we’ll take “happiness” to be a narrower concept.) 11 Utilitarianism is most commonly applied to evaluate the rightness of actions, but the theory can also evaluate other things, like rules, policies, motives, virtues, and social institutions. It is perhaps unfortunate that the clinical-sounding term “utilitarianism” caught on as a name, especially since in common speech the word “utilitarian” is easily confused with joyless functionality or even outright selfishness.

All ethical theories in the utilitarian family share four defining elements: consequentialism, welfarism, impartiality, and aggregationism, which we’ll define as follows:

• Consequentialism: one ought always to promote overall value.
• Welfarism: the value of an outcome is wholly determined by the well-being of the individuals in it.
• Impartiality: a given quantity of well-being is equally valuable no matter whose well-being it is.
• Aggregationism : the value of an outcome is given by the sum value of the lives it contains. 12

Utilitarianism’s rivals are theories that deny one or more of the above four elements. For example, they might hold that actions can be inherently right or wrong regardless of their consequences, or that things other than well-being can contribute to an outcome’s value, or that morality allows us to be partial towards our friends and families, or that we should do whatever will most benefit the worst-off member of society.

We cover the four elements of utilitarianism in greater depth, along with further theoretical distinctions, in Chapter 2: Elements and Types of Utilitarianism .

Chapter 3 explains reflective equilibrium as a moral methodology, and presents several arguments for utilitarianism (and similar consequentialist views) over competing approaches to ethics. This includes discussion of the veil of ignorance, the expanding moral circle, and the argument that utilitarianism offers an especially compelling account of what fundamentally matters . This chapter also explains the paradox of deontology, evolutionary debunking arguments, and other objections to non-consequentialist ethics.

Specific theories of well-being and of population ethics are explored in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. While utilitarianism is often associated with hedonism about well-being and the total view of population ethics (a combination known as classical utilitarianism ), other options are also worth considering. It’s especially worth bearing in mind that objections to hedonism or to the total view may yet leave other forms of utilitarianism untouched. (Note that the chapter on population ethics is the most difficult and technical of the book, and some readers may prefer to skip it.)

Chapter 6 and our supplemental article Acting on Utilitarianism explore the practical applications of utilitarianism, and its implications for how we should live our lives. We argue that, in practice, a utilitarian should try to do as much good as possible while still abiding by commonsense moral virtues like integrity, trustworthiness, and law-abidingness, in order to advance social cooperation and mitigate the downside risk of miscalculation.

Chapter 7 examines how robust these practical recommendations are to various departures from strict utilitarian theory. While some alternative theories may yield radically divergent practical implications, we argue that a wide range of reasonable views ultimately converge on the core practical recommendation of utilitarian ethics—namely, to use a significant fraction of your time and/or money to help others, and to try to do so as effectively as possible, without violating commonsense moral constraints.

Prominent objections to utilitarianism are addressed in Chapter 8. We introduce a “ toolkit ” of general maneuvers available to utilitarians to address a wide range of objections, and then show how this toolkit can be used to address concerns about rights, demandingness, cluelessness, and more.

What matters most for utilitarianism is improving the well-being of all individuals, regardless of their gender, race, species, or geographical or temporal location.

All utilitarian theories share four key elements: consequentialism, welfarism, impartiality, and aggregationism. Classical utilitarianism includes two further elements: hedonism and totalism. Hedonism is the view that one’s well-being is determined by the balance of one’s positive and negative conscious experiences. The total view holds that the value of adding an additional person to an outcome is equal to the value of that person’s lifetime well-being, together with whatever effects they have on others’ well-being.

Utilitarian ethics has an intellectual tradition spanning centuries, during which it has prompted many heated debates. Critics of utilitarianism accuse the theory of disregarding rights and being overly demanding, among other objections. Advocates counter that the theory has attractive theoretical virtues and offers a compelling account of what fundamentally matters. If difficult tradeoffs were settled behind a veil of ignorance to minimize risk of bias, it would be rational for everyone involved to endorse utilitarian recommendations. Close examination of these competing arguments is required to come to an informed view of this controversial theory.

The next chapter discusses the four elements of utilitarian theories in greater depth and introduces several variants of utilitarianism.

How to Cite This Page

Want to make the world a better place.

Learn how to put utilitarianism into practice:

Resources and Further Reading

Introduction.

• Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36
• Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek & Peter Singer (2017). Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Krister Bykvist (2010). Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed . London: Continuum.
• Kwame Anthony Appiah. What is Utiiltarianism? , Royal Institute of Philosophy 15-Minute Masterclass .

The Classics

• Jeremy Bentham (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation .
• John Stuart Mill (1863). Utilitarianism .
• Henry Sidgwick (1874). The Methods of Ethics .

Further Reading

• Julia Driver (2014). The History of Utilitarianism . The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
• Bart Schultz (2017). The Happiness Philosophers: The Lives and Works of the Great Utilitarians . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• James Crimmins (2017). The Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism . Bloomsbury.
• Derek Parfit (2011/17). On What Matters . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Yew-Kwang Ng (1990). Welfarism and Utilitarianism: A Rehabilitation . Utilitas . 2(2): 171–193.

Mòzǐ 32: 1, C. Fraser transl.  ↩︎

For more details, see Williams, E. G. (2015). The Possibility of an Ongoing Moral Catastrophe . Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18 (5), 971–982.  ↩︎

For instance, Bentham commented on the issue of animal protection: “the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes. We have begun by attending to the condition of slaves; we shall finish by softening that of all the animals which assist our labors or supply our wants.”

Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation . Bennett, J. (ed.), pp. 143–144.  ↩︎

Cf. Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation . Bennett, J. (ed.); and Campos Boralevi, L. (2012). Bentham and the Oppressed . Berlin: De Gruyter.  ↩︎

The UK Parliament, The 1866 Women’s Suffrage petition: the first mass Votes for Women petition .  ↩︎

Mill attributes many of the ideas in The Subjection of Women to his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill. See Mill, J. S. (1873). Autobiography . Bennett, J. (ed.), p. 166.  ↩︎

Mill, J. S. (1869). The Subjection of Women . Bennett, J. (ed.), p. 1.  ↩︎

On extreme poverty, see: Singer, P. (2019). The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty , 2nd ed. The Life You Can Save, Bainbridge Island, WA and Sydney, available free at <www.thelifeyoucansave.org>.

On factory farming, see: Singer, P. (2023) Animal Liberation Now: The Definitive Classic Renewed , New York: HarperCollins.  ↩︎

This is most clear-cut in a fixed-population setting, where one’s actions do not affect the number or identity of people. For more complex cases, see the discussion of population ethics in Chapter 5.  ↩︎

However, when economists use the term “ utility ” they typically refer, instead, to the numerical representation of an individual’s preferences .  ↩︎

We use ‘happiness’ to refer to pleasant conscious experiences. Chapter 4: Theories of Well-Being explores whether well-being may involve more than this.  ↩︎

This definition applies to a fixed-population setting, where one’s actions do not affect the number or identity of people. There are aggregationist theories that differ in how they deal with variable-population settings. This is a technical issue, relevant to the discussion of population ethics in Chapter 5. Further note that non-welfarists might take things other than lives to contribute value to the world, which would then need to be included in the sum. We bracket this possibility for ease of exposition.  ↩︎

Introduction to Utilitarianism

Checked : Luis G. , Curtis H.

Latest Update 19 Jan, 2024

Table of content

How Does Utilitarian Reasoning Work?

Real-world applications of utilitarianism, flaws in utilitarianism.

Imagine you are in a country that suffers from a severe lack of donated organs, with thousands of people on the waiting list for a transplant. A full set of organs from one person would be able to save seven lives. You, as a doctor, could choose to remove the organs from one healthy but homeless beggar in order to save seven important high-ranking members of society in your care. Would you do it?

Or what about the converse, removing the organs from one   healthy, important high-ranking member of society in order to save seven homeless beggars in your care?

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory and a type of consequentialism that focuses on maximizing happiness, or pleasure, and reducing pain. When faced with a decision, a utilitarian would consider the available options and ask themselves how many people would benefit and how many would suffer from it. The most ethical course of action in utilitarianism is the one that causes the greatest amount of good to the most number of people, or the least harm to the least number of people.

Utilitarianism believes that all living beings, present or future, are equal to the extent that they can experience pain and pleasure. As such, in the organ transplant examples above, a utilitarian would always choose to sacrifice one person to save the seven, no matter who was a beggar and who was an important member of society, because all humans are equally capable of experiencing pain and pleasure.

In early times, utilitarian philosophers sought to come up with a scientific process of determining which course of action would be the most ethical. They came up with a calculative method similar to a cost-benefit assessment, weighing the consequences of each action in terms of the benefits received and losses incurred by all affected sentient beings. Sentient beings were not just restricted to human beings, but animals as well, because they also have the ability to feel pain and pleasure (though utilitarianism considered that animals felt pain and pleasure to less of an extent than humans).

The calculation process took into account a number of factors, including the following:

• The number of sentient beings that would benefit (i.e. feel pleasure or happiness)
• The number of sentient beings that would suffer losses or be harmed (i.e. feel pain)
• The intensity of any resulting pleasure, and how long it would last
• The intensity of any resulting pain, and how long it would last

Utilitarian thinking sees all people as equals. As such, if you were to choose either to benefit your one child or benefit five strangers, a utilitarian would choose to benefit five strangers as more people would be happy that way. Although you are making the decision and could choose to make someone you know happy, utilitarianism believes that a person’s identity has no bearing on their ability to feel pain and pleasure, and thus, each person’s happiness is just as important as another person’s happiness. Utilitarianism employs an impartial calculation process to determine the most ethical course of action.

Utilitarianism has seen many applications throughout the world’s history. It was used to bring an end to slavery, end the mistreatment of animals, orphans and child laborers, as well as providing better treatment to adult laborers, prisoners and criminals, the poor and those with mental conditions. It helped in fighting for women’s rights and the equal treatment of any gender.

Today, not everyone may rely on calculations to make choices in their daily lives. However, we can still see the impact of utilitarianism in teaching us that all people are equal and everyone’s happiness is just as important, regardless of their wealth, age, gender, race, social status or anything else.

Many modern societies make decisions based on this rationale, and the community in general usually tries to choose the action with the most benefit and least harm. For example, when a major decision is to be made, voting is carried out among the affected populace to determine the public’s opinion, and the majority vote is taken. This ensures that the option chosen is the one that makes the most number of people happy, thereby maximizing happiness and reducing harm. Additionally, in an ideal voting system, everyone’s vote has an equal weightage regardless of their position in society, demographics or other factors, which aligns with the utilitarian belief that all humans’ happiness is equally important.

Despite the advantages of utilitarianism, the ethical theory still has its drawbacks. Remember the organ transplant scenario discussed at the start of this article? Well, it is generally considered unacceptable in modern society to harm a perfectly healthy person even if it could save thousands of other lives. If it was socially acceptable to sacrifice one life to save seven others, what would happen to our society?

Another flaw of utilitarianism is the assumption that all humans involved in the consequences are equal. Consider a car driver who has to choose either to swerve to another lane and kill one person, or stay on the current lane and kill four people. Utilitarianism would prompt the action that results in less harm, which would be swerving to kill that one person, thus sparing the other four. However, what if you later learned that that one person was a business owner and solely responsible for the livelihoods of a thousand other people, including the four you spared?

Additionally, utilitarian thinking assumes that the course of each action will result in the expected consequence. What if you chose the ethical action, but it actually resulted in an unexpected – and worse – consequence? Would your action still be ethical then?

Do you think that the calculative process of utilitarianism is a viable way to determine the most ethical course of action? Why or why not?

Can you think of one situation not mentioned in this article that displays a flaw of the theory of utilitarianism?*

Some people say that some types of pleasure can be better than other types of pleasure and some types of pain can be worse than other types of pain. Other people think that all types of pleasure are equally good and all types of pain are equally bad. Which do you agree with, and why?

We Will Write an Essay for You Quickly

Utilitarianism works based on the principle that one can assume that others will respond to a consequence in the same way as they do. In other words, a person can assume that whatever causes them pleasure will similarly cause others pleasure, and whatever causes them pain will similarly cause others pain. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?

*One example: Suppose you had to choose either to give ten billion people a free ride at an amusement park, or heal the terrible chronic pain of one person. Assuming that receiving a free ride would make each of those ten billion people happy, utilitarianism would theoretically dictate that the more ethical course of action would be to give ten billion people a free ride because it makes more people happy, instead of healing one person’s terrible chronic pain and making just that person happy. However, most people would probably agree that the ethical course of action in this case would be to alleviate one person’s terrible pain instead of giving ten billion people a free ride, which they can easily do without. This is an example of how, in some cases, no amount of pleasure can add up to terrible pain.

Looking for a Skilled Essay Writer?

• Wake Forest University: Bachelor

No reviews yet, be the first to write your comment

Write your review

Thanks for review.

It will be published after moderation

Latest News

What happens in the brain when learning?

10 min read

20 Jan, 2024

How Relativism Promotes Pluralism and Tolerance

Everything you need to know about short-term memory

Model Essay – Utilitarianism

August 14, 2018.

To what extent, if any, is Utilitarianism a good theory for approaching moral decisions in life? (30/40 Grade B)

Below is a sample essay from our book on Model Essays available in the shop. If you have an essay you’d be happy for us to include in our next selection please email it to me (preferably grade A or B standard). I will mark it with detailed comments for free if we use it. Other essays can be marked for £10 an essay – please buy an essay marking credit in the shop.

Arguably, the use of utilitarianism for the making of moral decisions is more detrimental to a society than it is beneficial. Indeed the very basis on which utilitarianism is founded, ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure’, proves to be the first stumbling block. The ‘paradox of hedonism’ suggests that pleasure itself cannot be directly obtained. Instead, we must aim for more substantial conclusions, such as wealth or power – pleasure is merely a symptom that follows. This idea is most acutely explained by politician William Bennett: ‘Happiness is like a cat, If you try to coax it or call it, it will avoid you; it will never come. But if you pay no attention to it and go about your business, you’ll find it rubbing against your legs and jumping into your lap.’

Good. Excellent summary of the utilitarian problem that once you pursue happiness or pleasure as an end in itself it tends to elude you.

Therefore, to base one’s entire ethical approach to life on happiness, something which is so fleeting and indistinct, suddenly seems irrational. You need to mention a philosopher here such as Mill and ground the argument in what he says . If we cannot amass pleasure within ourselves, how can we be so vain as to assume we can recognise its form in others, particularly those we don’t know (e.g. in the case of a politician forming their policies on utilitarian principles.) That is not to say that the ‘pursuit of happiness’ in a wider sense will always be futile, but that one should make decisions independently, on grounds other than those utilitarian, and allow happiness to follow.

Is it not true to say we can assess polices looking backwards with hindsight because all the consequences are known, but not forwards when there are often unintended consequences? This paragraph is too general to be of much analytical quality – make sure you go straight into a philosophical theory.

On the other hand, rule utilitarianism appears to offer a resolution. If one chooses to implement a pre-determined set of rules (e.g. to avoid lying, to be pacifistic, to be modest,) which predominantly bring about the most ‘pleasure’/good for society, then focus can be diverted away from pursuing you mean personal happiness here happiness, and instead towards living a righteous life.

Yes, but again, you need to give this a theoretical grounding in Mill’s so-called ‘weak rule utilitarianism’ – Mill’s point is we are foolish to ignore the experience of people who have gone before us in terms of general rules or guidelines for creating the happy society. But when moral dilemmas occur we revert to being act utilitarians.

Jeremy Bentham (the father of modern utilitarianism) was somewhat of a polymath – to suggest that he was solely a ‘philosopher’ would be a vast understatement. This kind of comment is irrelevant to the question and a waste of time. Undoubtedly, he was also a great social reformer, basing his beliefs on the underlying principle of egalitarianism (i.e. equality for all.) However, in many ways, utilitarianism innately contradicts ‘egalité . ’

This paragraph is a good example of the kind of paragraph a highly analytical essay never contains because you are merely describing the life and times of Mr Bentham and not adding anything to the argument.

Initially a thought experiment experiment devised by the American philosopher Robert Nozick, ‘the utility monster,’ undermines the very equality for which Bentham’s philosophy once fought. Visualise a situation in which the hedonic calculus is being employed. In such a case, the intensity (quality) of the perceived happiness must be acknowledged. For illustration’s sake, imagine rations are being distributed amongst a group of isolated individuals. However, one of these individuals appears to gain a disproportionately high intensity of pleasure on receiving food, despite all other individuals being of an equally critical state of health (e.g. starvation.) To apply the hedonic calculus would not only (unfairly) favour the minority, but also pose a great risk to the majority (assuming that the individual’s pleasure is greater than the collective pleasure of the majority.)

Ye s this is a good point but it wouldn’t apply to Mill’s theory because social utility would mean we need principles of justice, otherwise any of us would be permanently miserable at just the thought of a utility monster.

The most valid counterargument to which is proposed by the British philosopher Derek Parfit, arguing that the scale of happiness should be seen as asymptotic rather than linear. That is, the happiness of a utility monster cannot perpetually increase, but will eventually reach a point near enough to ‘complete’ happiness. Hence, such a being is not conceivable. This argument bears a strong resemblance to prioritarianism, which suggests that individuals on the lower end of the ‘pleasure spectrum’ will obtain a greater amount of happiness (‘per unit of utility’) than those closer to the reverse end.

Again a good point and actually illustrating what economists call the principle of diminishing marginal utility – we eventually have less and less satisfaction as an individual until at some point we experience no satisfaction at all.

Or, to some extent, the intensity of happiness could thereby be omitted from the hedonic calculus to account for the utility monster. However, there is also a troubling flaw with the seventh principle – ‘extent,’ or the amount of people that a particular moral choice may affect. Counterintuitively, the one society which utilitarianism does not appear to permit, is a microcosmic ‘utopia.’ When summating the pleasure of individuals, the greatest amount will be achieved, theoretically, by an extremely populous group with indifferent levels of happiness rather than a very small but extremely contented group. This is known as the ‘repugnant conclusion.’

Interesting and unusual point. Which philosopher talks about this problem?

In counterargument one might say, ‘the average pleasure should supersede the total amount of pleasure’ for this particular instance. Yet this line of argument spawns issues of its own. A simple average can easily be skewed by extremities. Such that one individual in a state of euphoria would significantly raise the average happiness of his miserable counterparts. Under the aforementioned, atrocities such as slavery could feasibly be justified. What’s the suffering of one thousand imprisoned subordinates if the overseer is delighted by the recent success of his cotton farm? Utilitarianism, in this context, seeks to diminish the more valuable pursuits (charity, liberal arts) over the happiness one gains through materialism (e.g. the wealth garnered from a cotton farm.)

Even if all the preceding shortcomings were to be deemed permissible, there is still a flaw which is perhaps the most pertinent of all. Humans, by their very nature, are unable to reliably predict consequence, and without consequence, the principle of utilitarianism is worthless. Given the nature of the ‘ripple effect,’ it would be naive to assume that every possible consequence of even the simplest of decisions could be accounted for. Or moreover, to predict the ways in which people would (potentially dangerously,) apply utilitarianism if it were to be adopted as a global ethic.

Yes, again a very good point.

Even attempting to apply such a primitive, nebulous philosophy to an infinite diversity of ethical decisions seems rather unrefined. Despite superficially appearing succinct and rational, the impracticalities of achieving ‘the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people’ cannot be overlooked. Indeed, utilitarianism is theoretically sound but there are far too many exceptional cases for it to be one’s ruling principle.

‘Primitive’ and ‘nebulous’ are rather emotive (rude) words to use of a philosophy that has guided Government policy for years.  Welfare is another word for happiness (just a little more neutral!).In Politics and Economics we use social welfare measures to evaluate our decisions – as it is impartial.

Overall 30/40 75% Grade B

The essay has some very interesting points to make.   However, it would not achieve an A* because the establishment of how the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill actually works is rather thin. Particularly, there is little substance about how Mill’s weak rule utilitarianism actually works, and how some argue that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism. In terms of social benefits versus individual benefits the candidate needs to bring out how this operates in Mill’s theory, and how he grounds the final chapter of his essay on justice as a fundamental prerequisite of the happy society. Mill also moves his whole argument much closer to Aristotle as he writes his essay – leading some to call him an inconsistent utilitarian because he can’t quite decide whether to go for qualitative pleasures or another concept of long-term welfare that is closer to eudaimonia in Aristotelean thought. It is lighter on AO1 marks than AO2 but seems to miss some of the analytical steps necessary to be a really compelling argument.

AO1 Level 4 10/16

A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding. Addresses the question well. Good selection of relevant material, used appropriately on the whole. Mostly accurate knowledge which demonstrates good understanding of the material used, which should have reasonable amounts of depth or breadth. A good range of scholarly views.

It is ‘good’ because it contains a very strong critical thesis. But it is neither very good nor excellent because the precise detail of how Bentham’s and Mills theories work is lacking – it is assumed rather than stated and established and analysed. For example, there is an interesting relationship in Mill between higher and lower pleasures and act and rue utilitarianism whereby we should, Mill argues, generally follow a rule which past experience suggest will maximise social happiness but when we face a moral dilemma we revert to being an act utilitarian. There is also an ambiguity in the question which is never considered – moral decisions for whom?

AO2 level 5 20/24

A very good demonstration of analysis and evaluation in response to the question. successful and clear analysis, evaluation and argument. Views very well stated, coherently developed and justified. There is a well–developed and sustained line of reasoning which is coherent, relevant and logically structured.

It would have been excellent if there had been a little more engagement with the academic philosophers who produce the arguments, rather than just the arguments themselves.

Study with us

Practise Questions 2020

Religious Studies Guides – 2020

Check out our great books in the Shop

Leave a Reply Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Essay on Utilitarianism

Students are often asked to write an essay on Utilitarianism in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Utilitarianism

Understanding utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is a theory in ethics. It suggests that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness. This idea, also called “the greatest good for the greatest number,” was developed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

Key Principles of Utilitarianism

The main principle of utilitarianism is happiness. It says that an action is good if it increases happiness for most people. It’s not just about one person’s happiness, but everyone’s. So, if a decision makes more people happy, it’s the right one.

Utilitarianism in Daily Life

Utilitarianism can guide our daily decisions. For example, sharing your lunch with a friend who forgot theirs. By sharing, you both become happy. This is a simple example of utilitarianism in action.

Also check:

250 Words Essay on Utilitarianism

Introduction to utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory of ethics, posits that the morality of actions is determined by their outcomes. The principle of utility, or the ‘greatest happiness principle’, is at its core, advocating for the maximization of overall happiness.

Historical Overview

The philosophical roots of utilitarianism can be traced back to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham, the founder, believed in quantifying pleasure using a ‘hedonic calculus’. Mill, however, introduced a qualitative aspect, differentiating between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures.

Types of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism branches into two types: Act and Rule. Act utilitarianism focuses on individual actions and their direct consequences. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, emphasizes following rules that would lead to the greatest good if generally applied.

Critiques and Counter-Arguments

Critics argue that utilitarianism can justify immoral acts if they result in overall happiness. Also, it’s challenging to accurately predict consequences. Utilitarians counter these criticisms by highlighting the theory’s practicality, flexibility, and its inherent promotion of welfare and equality.

Utilitarianism, despite its critiques, presents a compelling ethical framework. It encourages actions that promote the greatest good, fostering a society that values collective happiness and welfare. As with any theory, it is essential to consider its strengths and weaknesses in practical applications.

500 Words Essay on Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical doctrine that posits the best action is the one that maximizes utility. The term ‘utility’ is often interpreted as the well-being of sentient entities. Introduced by Jeremy Bentham and later refined by John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism argues that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility, that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all individuals.

Principles of Utilitarianism

There are two primary forms of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it maximizes overall happiness, considering only the consequences of that specific action. In contrast, rule utilitarianism asserts that an action is right if it conforms to a rule that, if followed consistently, would create the most happiness overall.

Utilitarianism and Morality

Utilitarianism has profound implications for our understanding of morality. It rejects the notion of moral absolutism, suggesting instead that morality is contingent on the circumstances and consequences of actions. This perspective has been both praised for its practicality and criticized for its potential to justify harmful actions if they lead to greater overall happiness.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Despite its intuitive appeal, utilitarianism has been subject to several criticisms. Some argue that it is overly demanding, requiring individuals to always act in the interest of maximizing happiness, even at the expense of their own needs or desires. Others contend that utilitarianism can justify morally reprehensible actions, such as lying or stealing, if these actions result in greater overall happiness.

In conclusion, utilitarianism is a compelling ethical theory that prioritizes overall happiness or pleasure in determining the morality of actions. While it has been subject to criticism, it continues to be a significant influence in moral philosophy and policy-making, providing a framework for assessing the ethical implications of our actions.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources
• Ethical Decision Making

Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics

Imagine that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency gets wind of a plot to set off a dirty bomb in a major American city. Agents capture a suspect who, they believe, has information about where the bomb is planted. Is it permissible for them to torture the suspect into revealing the bomb's whereabouts? Can the dignity of one individual be violated in order to save many others?

Greatest Balance of Goods Over Harms If you answered yes, you were probably using a form of moral reasoning called "utilitarianism." Stripped down to its essentials, utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. So long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion.

Many of us use this type of moral reasoning frequently in our daily decisions. When asked to explain why we feel we have a moral duty to perform some action, we often point to the good that will come from the action or the harm it will prevent. Business analysts, legislators, and scientists weigh daily the resulting benefits and harms of policies when deciding, for example, whether to invest resources in a certain public project, whether to approve a new drug, or whether to ban a certain pesticide.

Utilitarianism offers a relatively straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation we may find ourselves in. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account.

The principle of utilitarianism can be traced to the writings of Jeremy Bentham, who lived in England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Bentham, a legal reformer, sought an objective basis that would provide a publicly acceptable norm for determining what kinds of laws England should enact. He believed that the most promising way of reaching such an agreement was to choose that policy that would bring about the greatest net benefits to society once the harms had been taken into account. His motto, a familiar one now, was "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Over the years, the principle of utilitarianism has been expanded and refined so that today there are many variations of the principle. For example, Bentham defined benefits and harms in terms of pleasure and pain. John Stuart Mill, a great 19th century utilitarian figure, spoke of benefits and harms not in terms of pleasure and pain alone but in terms of the quality or intensity of such pleasure and pain. Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences or in purely economic terms of monetary benefits over monetary costs.

Utilitarians also differ in their views about the kind of question we ought to ask ourselves when making an ethical decision. Some utilitarians maintain that in making an ethical decision, we must ask ourselves: "What effect will my doing this act in this situation have on the general balance of good over evil?" If lying would produce the best consequences in a particular situation, we ought to lie. Others, known as rule utilitarians, claim that we must choose that act that conforms to the general rule that would have the best consequences. In other words, we must ask ourselves: "What effect would everyone's doing this kind of action have on the general balance of good over evil?" So, for example, the rule "to always tell the truth" in general promotes the good of everyone and therefore should always be followed, even if in a certain situation lying would produce the best consequences. Despite such differences among utilitarians, however, most hold to the general principle that morality must depend on balancing the beneficial and harmful consequences of our conduct.

Problems With Utilitarianism While utilitarianism is currently a very popular ethical theory, there are some difficulties in relying on it as a sole method for moral decision-making. First, the utilitarian calculation requires that we assign values to the benefits and harms resulting from our actions and compare them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions. But it's often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain benefits and costs. How do we go about assigning a value to life or to art? And how do we go about comparing the value of money with, for example, the value of life, the value of time, or the value of human dignity? Moreover, can we ever be really certain about all of the consequences of our actions? Our ability to measure and to predict the benefits and harms resulting from a course of action or a moral rule is dubious, to say the least.

Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine instances where a certain course of action would produce great benefits for society, but they would be clearly unjust. During the apartheid regime in South Africa in the last century, South African whites, for example, sometimes claimed that all South Africans—including blacks—were better off under white rule. These whites claimed that in those African nations that have traded a whites-only government for a black or mixed one, social conditions have rapidly deteriorated. Civil wars, economic decline, famine, and unrest, they predicted, will be the result of allowing the black majority of South Africa to run the government. If such a prediction were true—and the end of apartheid has shown that the prediction was false—then the white government of South Africa would have been morally justified by utilitarianism, in spite of its injustice.

If our moral decisions are to take into account considerations of justice, then apparently utilitarianism cannot be the sole principle guiding our decisions. It can, however, play a role in these decisions. The principle of utilitarianism invites us to consider the immediate and the less immediate consequences of our actions. Given its insistence on summing the benefits and harms of all people, utilitarianism asks us to look beyond self-interest to consider impartially the interests of all persons affected by our actions. As John Stuart Mill once wrote:

The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not...(one's) own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.

In an era today that some have characterized as "the age of self-interest," utilitarianism is a powerful reminder that morality calls us to look beyond the self to the good of all.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent the position of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. We welcome your comments, suggestions, or alternative points of view.

This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V2 N1 (Winter 1989)

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Utilitarianism — Reflection On Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism And Deontology

Reflection on Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism and Deontology

• Categories: Deontology Utilitarianism

About this sample

Words: 1395 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 1395 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

• Geuras, D., & Garofalo, C. (2011). Practical ethics in public administration. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4.5 pages / 2114 words

2 pages / 1122 words

3 pages / 1419 words

5 pages / 2149 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Utilitarianism

Moral philosophy has long been a subject of profound debate and contemplation, with various ethical theories offering distinct perspectives on how we should make moral decisions. Two prominent ethical frameworks, utilitarianism [...]

Everyday, people make decisions on what they believe is the best choice that will produce the best outcome. However, too many people do not image of the consequences nor do they think about the principles of morals when carrying [...]

When it comes to ethical theories, two prominent schools of thought often come to mind: utilitarianism and consequentialism. While these terms may sound similar, they represent distinct approaches to moral decision-making. In [...]

Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism. Sen, A. (1999). The Possibility of Social Choice. The American Economic Review, 89(3), 349–378. Rawls, J. [...]

A man by the name of John was a technician at a nuclear power plant in the state of Ohio in the USA. During his time working at this power plant, a catastrophic freak accident occurred. During this accident John was present at [...]

The dilemma of whether or not the Death Penalty is ethical is major problem facing society today. The death penalty is given to those who commit crimes deemed by society and government as deserving the infliction of death with [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay Service Examples Philosophy Utilitarianism

A Critical Analysis of Utilitarianism

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Natural Law
• Utilitarianism

Ethics is the study of morality, Ethics is the moral principles governing a person’s or agent’s...

• Ethical Dilemma

Have you heard the news about the moral dilemma of self-driving car? It’s a car with an AI...

Abortion should remain legal in Australia. For many people, abortion is essentially a morality...

Autonomous vehicles also known as self-driving cars are highly popular around the world to advance...

• Business Ethics
• Jeremy Bentham

This is qualitative research that possesses the capacity to introduce the standard of...

There are many differences between utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. In Utilitarianism, our...

• Price Gouging

To begin with, the issue of fairness arises with companies’ attempt to gain an advantageous market...

• Capital Punishment
• Death Penalty

Capital punishment is the most disputable legitimate discipline forced by the Criminal Justice...

• Perspective

It is commonly acknowledged that the ethics of abortion have long been a source of discussion and...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

The Gilded Age: America’s Era of Contradictions and Social Transformation

This essay is about the Gilded Age, a transformative period in American history from the 1870s to the early 1900s marked by rapid industrialization and technological innovation. It highlights the era’s stark social disparities, with industrial titans like Carnegie and Rockefeller amassing wealth while many workers faced harsh conditions. The essay also touches on political corruption, reform efforts, and the cultural critique of societal issues by writers like Mark Twain.

How it works

Gilded Age, hugging from 1870 – ? to beginning 1900 – ?, presents an epoch, what yields to transformation, in American history, what is characterized by rapid industrialization, technological innovation, and by deep social disparity. Minted close Mark Twain, the “gilded” term causes the era of superficial bloom, what is covered by lying in founding of social tension. This period testified the increase of industrial titans like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, whose successes steamed between expansion of admissions between a rich elite and the masses, what militates.

Technological movements during the Gilded Age gave a kind new American life. Innovations for example telephone, open Oleksandr Graham Bell, and Foma Edison easy bulb communication, what revolutionized, and illuminated houses and cities, symbolizes a national march in the direction of contemporaneity. These innovations not only improved living standards but and put foundation for American future economic influence on a world phase.

However, the economic boom of the Gilded Age, unequal, spread. While manufacturers accumulated enormous riches, substantial portion of population, by the way immigrants and rural workers, heavy terms, what clashes, and economic instability. This disparity tucked in a fuel the increase of working motions for example Knights of labour Force and American Federation of labour Force, protecting for just salaries, better working terms, and rights for workers’ between industrial expansion.

Politically, close the Gilded Age characterized how a corruption, so and convert efforts. Municipal centers saw the increase of political machines and bosses, who owned power through guardianship and political deputies, what exemplified by figures like Tweed of William “Boss”. Without regard to that, an era testified motions of reform of progressive also, directed in addressing of social injustice and reduction of political corruption, putting foundation for future reforms in working rights and governmental responsibility.

In a civilized manner, the Gilded Age proposed on the shop-window of dynamic and developing the American identity. While a rich elite indulged in rich lifestyles, what typified Newport by villas and extravagant by social collections, authors and thinkers like, Mark Twain and Edith Wharton criticized moral ambiguity and social inequalities of time through their literature. Sharp works of Twain, by the way “Adventures of Finn of the Cowberry” exposed to the doubt, prevailing social norms and provided a critical comment on a race, identity, and to the search for a justice in America.

In conclusion, the Gilded Age was a period of profound contradictions and social transformation in American history. It represented a time of unprecedented industrial growth and technological progress alongside deepening social divisions and political turmoil. The enduring legacy of the Gilded Age resonates in America’s economic structures, social movements, and cultural narratives, offering valuable lessons as the nation continues to navigate the complexities of progress and equality.

Cite this page

The Gilded Age: America's Era of Contradictions and Social Transformation. (2024, Jun 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-gilded-age-americas-era-of-contradictions-and-social-transformation/

"The Gilded Age: America's Era of Contradictions and Social Transformation." PapersOwl.com , 28 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-gilded-age-americas-era-of-contradictions-and-social-transformation/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Gilded Age: America's Era of Contradictions and Social Transformation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-gilded-age-americas-era-of-contradictions-and-social-transformation/ [Accessed: 1 Jul. 2024]

"The Gilded Age: America's Era of Contradictions and Social Transformation." PapersOwl.com, Jun 28, 2024. Accessed July 1, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-gilded-age-americas-era-of-contradictions-and-social-transformation/

"The Gilded Age: America's Era of Contradictions and Social Transformation," PapersOwl.com , 28-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-gilded-age-americas-era-of-contradictions-and-social-transformation/. [Accessed: 1-Jul-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Gilded Age: America's Era of Contradictions and Social Transformation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-gilded-age-americas-era-of-contradictions-and-social-transformation/ [Accessed: 1-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers