从直观上讲，功利主义似乎是一种极具吸引力的哲学。它提供了许多其他哲学方法所缺乏的简单性，尤其是通过义务论思想家所青睐的道德规则的混合。它与民主政体所偏爱的多数主义是协调一致的。此外，功利主义为我们在没有宗教理由的情况下为什么要以某种方式行事提供了一个显而易见的答案。尽管如此，这一理论还是招致了大量批评。在实践层面上，功利主义被嘲笑为不可行的，甚至是荒谬的。有人认为，没有足够的方法来定义幸福，也没有任何合适的方法来量化幸福水平。另一些人认为，即使该理论可以在实践层面上发挥作用，其结果在道德上也是错误的。另一些人反对把人类的经验减少到追求快乐。各种批评太多详细和复杂的讨论在这里,我将讨论限制在两个特别流行的哲学文学批评:第一有关实际问题运用功利主义的概念和第二处理问题源自于功利主义分析的结果。
新西兰惠灵顿论文代写:功利主义的批评
Intuitively speaking, utilitarianism appears to be an extremely attractive philosophy. It offers a simplicity that many other philosophical approaches lack and in particular cuts through the mish mash of moral rules favoured by deontological thinkers. It is reconcilable with the majoritarianism favoured by democratic systems of government. Moreover, utilitarianism offers an obvious answer to the question of why we should act in a certain way in the absence of a religious justification.Despite this, the theory has attracted copious criticism. On a practical level, utilitarianism has been derided as unworkable, and even absurd. It has been argued that there is no adequate means of defining happiness, nor any suitable method for quantifying levels of happiness. Even if the theory can be made to work on a practical level, others argue, the results are morally wrong. Others object to the reduction of the human experience to the pursuit of pleasure.The various criticisms are too numerous and intricate to discuss in detail here and as such I will confine my discussion to two criticisms that are particularly prevalent in philosophical literature: the first relating to practical problems in applying the utilitarian concept and the second dealing with concerns arising from the results of utilitarian analysis.
