Want this question answered?
maybe
No, it focuses on opinions. If it is your opinion that intentions mean more than actions, then your relative morality does. If it is another's opinion that actions mean more than intentions, then that other's relative morality doesn't. Relative morality is just the variation in moral opinion from person to person, or from society to society on a larger scope. It doesn't give any values or demerits in and of itself.
Any form of government would be an alternative to Utilitarianism. You could have anything from Communism to a Democratic Republic all the way to an Oligarchy.
Utilitarianism is, according to Wikipedia, a theory in normative ethics that holds that the proper course of action are things that increase utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Usually, Conservatism sees the responsibility of such things as belonging to the individual, while Liberalism sees that responsibility as falling on society. By extension, utility would be based on what is necessary based on the above framework rather than based on ideals. Conservatism is more focused on ideals, whereas liberalism seems more focused on the challenges of life. Classical utilitarianism is essentially hedonism. Modern utilitarianism is a form a consequentialism. Consequentialism holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. That fits with the notion many have of liberalism that if something feels right, you should do it.
Happiness is a noun and doesn't have any tenses or participles.
I may not be the best person to answer this question, but from my understanding 'Utilitarianism' is a philosophical theory about what makes actions good or bad. The idea of Utilitarianism the right decision (in any dilemma) is the one that will create the most happiness. A famous example of this sort of thinking would be the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: though many people died in the explosion, the bombing stopped WWII and potentially saved even more lives (thus the bombing was a 'good decision' as it created more happiness by a greater number of people). Utilitarianism works in contrast to Deontology, 'Kantian' ethics, which state that there are absolute moral values that cannot be breached. Meaning that any action that does breach these actions "such as killing someone' cannot be considered good as it has breached some innate moral code. As I said before I'm not the best person to explain this, and these are definitely the sort of ideas that need a lot more room to explain. So if you find this interesting you may want to check out a library, or do a quick google search. Either will get you tons of results. Hope this helps :)
They can be classified as either atheist or agnostic.
Kant's ethical theory focuses on duty and moral obligation, emphasizing the importance of respecting individual rights and following moral principles regardless of consequences. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, prioritizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, often leading to trade-offs in individual rights. While both theories offer valuable insights into ethical decision-making, Kant's focus on duty provides a strong foundation for respecting human dignity and rights in moral dilemmas.
Yes. :)
Real love is caring about the happiness of another person without any thought or concern for themselves.
In my humble opinion…. The most selfish thing is …….. to give…… without expecting anything in return. Thus the most selfish thing is the selfless. Confusing, right…. Let me try to explain as much as I can What is a selfish act…..any act that we think will benefit us in anyway. What is the greatest benefit we are looking for… for the whole life? Isn't it the happiness/bliss, that we are searching for from birth to death…searching every where..in things..money…marriage..children….etc..the list goes on and on…. So the act to be the most selfish must give us the most happiness/bliss….
The belief system is flawed; It requires an input from you!