That's a utilitarian moral framework.

Is it a utilitarian object?

It's a utilitarian article, that's why.

Same with furniture, it's too utilitarian.

If you feel that way, that's a utilitarian choice.

Jeremy Bentham, the great utilitarian philosopher, once spiked this argument.

But too utilitarian? I mean is that the way you think of fashion?

How can we get away from the mouse and use our full bodies as a way of exploring aesthetic experiences, not necessarily utilitarian ones.

Then there is a utilitarian argument capital punishment deters many criminals from murder. Furthermore, killing murderers prevents recidivism if released from prison, they might kill again.

I was a ceramic designer for about 10 years, and just loved utilitarian form simple things that we use every day, little compositions of color and surface on form.

The third argument is also utilitarian, although of a lower quality the state saves money by killing murderers instead of keeping them in prison for life at the expense of the community.

Now, the reason for this, the reason that the fashion industry doesn't have any copyright protection is because the courts decided long ago that apparel is too utilitarian to qualify for copyright protection.

What I'm going to argue today is that because there's no copyright protection in the fashion industry, fashion designers have actually been able to elevate utilitarian design, things to cover our naked bodies, into something that we consider art.

The adoption process took, like, a matter of months, so it was a closed shop, you know, sealed deal, an industrious, utilitarian solution the government, the farmer, the adopting parents, the consumer, the mother, the earth, and the child, the crop.

Philosophies do not just give a little here and there, blurring over the difficult bits in the hope that everything will work out in the end. Imagine asking a Kantian to add just a bit of utilitarian calculation to the categorical imperative.

Moral philosophy has taken two very different approaches to this question. For some, the goal is to find universal principles from which to derive moral judgments Kant s categorical imperative, Bentham s utilitarian principle, and John Rawls s veil of ignorance are some of the best known examples.

8. Also encourages Member States to expand technical, vocational, craft and utilitarian science education to all sectors of society, especially to women and disadvantaged groups, and to promote their empowerment through the use of information and communications technologies to facilitate more equitable access to training and education on science and technology

Unlike today s public finance economists, Smith understood that we are not rational utilitarian calculators. Indeed, that is why we have collectively done a very bad job so far in dealing with the enormous rise in inequality between the industrial middle class and the plutocratic superrich that we have witnessed in the last generation.

But these are the benefits of high finance as they apply to the ideal world of economists that is, a world of rational utilitarian actors who are skilled calculators of expected utility under uncertainty, who are masters of dynamic programming, and who breathe stochastic calculus in their daily life. We do not live in such a world.

As a card carrying member of the economics profession, I have been trained to view the world from the perspective of the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, according to whom the purpose of public policy is to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Policies that do not abide by some variant of this utilitarian principle (as proposed by, say, John Rawls or Amartya Sen) are bound to be inefficient or unfair.