What is your confused Q for 2/22?

after reading the article twice I am still not a 100% sure what utilitarianism and what the author is trying to say about it

I have an idea of what utilitarianism is , but I am still not completely sure what it means after reading it a couple times

Im confused with what the author is trying to say utilitarianism is .

I had trouble with understanding the first paragraph.

What if the satisfaction of the majority isn't what is morally right to do?

I think I agree with the utilitarian principles, but how does a person all consider the greater number of people in every action they do?

can individuals base their happiness on the whole of society or self satisfaction?

In most cases, utilitarian principles benefit a majority of people, so why worry about the morality of a situation when numbers outweigh morals?

The story in the city of Omelas displays not only the city's desire for happiness but also their tremendous amount of greed, doesn't it?

What is the greatest happiness principle and is it achivable in life?

i am confused about utilitarianism is and what the author is trying to say about it.

I am still confused what is utilitarianism exactly and what is the authors take on it?

what is the lesson of Entsagen?

The passage seemed to get me confused. I dont get that happiness has to do with utilitarianism but the passage as a whole confuses me.

having read the passage I'm having trouble grasping his thoughts on utilitarianism what is it?

I'm still confused as to what this passage is trying to say about utilitarianism

what is the epicurean theory?

PRT3: how can utilitarianism & happiness be so broad when we are all different.

PRT2: would make someone else happy as well.

PRT1: how would we know, if something that made one person happy

How Utilitarianism is applied in capitalism countries were individualism is being promoted?

I don't understand how Utilitarianism promotes happiness of great number of persons when Utility focuses on each person.

Having read the passage twice, I still find myself very confused of what the writer is trying to make utilitarianism to be.

I don't understand what "an apology is due to the philosophical opponents of utilitarianism.." means. How does an apology fit into utilitarianism?

i read the passage but i still dont know, what is utilitarianism?

the passage tries to speak about morality but what does it mean?

I had trouble grasping the first paragraph what is it trying to say?

Do the the foundations of morals "utility" or the Greatest Happiness Principle can promote happiness or unhappiness if managed wrong?

can utility really be possible as happiness is just a moment feeling people get?

happiness is determined by comparison of two, comparing pleasure and possible pain, do you really have to choose?

can an immoral act cause utility? Can utility really be apart of everyday life?

does everyone have a different level of utility due to lifestyle or is based on the whole society?

is it saying as human beings we would not lower our status no matter how unhappy we are?

What exactly is the theory of utility? Is it saying that what makes you happy is good, but what makes you unhappy is bad? Who are the Epicureans? Is the

I think this passage is saying we as a society have the human need to feel happiness and certain sacrifices need to be made to bring about happiness.

Im confused if the same themes morals and utility held in the times of Jesus can apply to present day.

Is it fair to value only happiness ?

Won't there be situations when the happiness of the minority is more important than the happiness of the majority?