Arguments Against Utilitarianism

Libertarians reject Utilitarianism’s concerns for the total social well-being. While utilitarians are willing to restrict the liberty of some for the greater good, libertarians believe that justice consists solely of respect for individual property. If an individual isn’t doing something that interferes with anyone else’s liberty, then no person, group, or government should disturb he or she from living life as desired (not even if doing so would maximize social happiness). They completely disregard concern for an overall social well-being. Using a libertarian’s perspective, a state that taxes its better-off citizens to support the less fortunate ones violates their rights because they have not willingly chosen to do so. In that same context, a theory that forces capitalists to invest in people and natural capital is immoral. Nevertheless, libertarians encourage that people help those in need, as it is a good thing.

I have always been one to side with a utilitarian’s point of view, such as Mill and Bentham. The greatest happiness of the greatest number, or as cold as it may be, sacrificing the few for the good of the many. Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. I will give the best arguments against Utilitarianism, and show in my own opinion, why I think they are wrong.

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

The central claim of utilitarianism is that the good is happiness. Where happiness is a desire, and happiness is the only thing desirable as an end (in of itself). All other things are desirable as a medium to acquire that final happiness. The main belief of utilitarianism is to maximize the good in the world, which is pleasure and happiness whilst minimizing the bad, which is pain and unhappiness. Both pieces “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K LeGuin and "The Experience Machine" by Robert Nozick provides arguments against utilitarianism.

Calculating percentage and probability of happiness in utilitarianism might seem daunting, conflicting, somewhat useless, and bluntly absurd. In some situations, such as one described in the scenario above, application of utilitarianism principles might look illogical and contrary to traditional human values, such as the sanctity of life and disdain to murder. However, the ideas of utilitarianism leave room for interpretation, and with much consideration could be more valuable than they appear at first.

How is it then warranted according to utilitarianism?However, it is warranted according to its ability to promote future benefits to an individual or maximize the happiness of a community. Clearly, crimes tend to produce unhappiness, so in seeking to promote a state of affairs in which the balance of happiness over unhappiness is maximized, a utilitarian will be highly concerned with reducing crime. Traditionally, utilitarians have focused on three ways in which punishment can reduce crime. First, the threat of punishment can deter potential offenders. If an individual is tempted to commit a certain crime, but he knows that it is against the law and a punishment is attached to a conviction for breaking that law, then, generally speaking, that

The belief that morality is completely about “maximizing happiness” remains true to me from a certain point of view. If by “maximizing happiness” it is meant that we are supposed to maximize the happiness of all those around us and not just ourselves then yes, that statement would reflect my views of morality. However, when viewed through the scope of utilitarianism, the meaning of “maximizing happiness” becomes cloudy. While the theory of utilitarianism can also include taking actions that may maximize the pleasure, finances, or lack of suffering of a large group of people, it is not always the case. In most cases, the decisions that are made are often for selfish intentions. In my opinion, as long as our society embodies the “survival of

I too believe that utilitarianism has the most convincing arguments to support its claim as a theory. I tried to process, is this a model in which we base our society off of. I think we have a clash between egoism in the US, where we want the me before you mentality in our minds, though we act as though we want it to be putting others first. I think it goes back to the human condition, which makes it hard to accept egoism as a successful theory.

Critics of utilitarianism often claim that the theory is too permissive, or something that we ought to do because it is the obvious thing to do for maximizing happiness. Opponents of utilitarianism will argue this by explaining that what creates maximal happiness for some might also impose the complete opposite to others. An example of this is where ten people are in desperate need of organ transplants and we can find one person off the street to fulfill all of those needs. Thus, the obvious thing to achieve maximal happiness would be to kill the individual and give the organs to the ten, or the whole. Although this does seem to infringe upon the moral guidelines of what it is to live in accordance among one another. On the others hand

Utilitarianism is frankly something that cannot be brought up without argument. Mill provides a great deal of explanation for his philosophy, and even uses strong counter arguments throughout the piece. However, there is simply a nature around the position that stops progress towards Mill's true aim. It provides an algorithm in order to retain the most just outcome on any position, and this stops any argument to whether what you have done is good or bad, it brings up the problem that you begin to justify all of your actions. Whether you're confronted with an issue that has a clear good and bad decision, or one similar to the idea of the murderer with Kant, if others see the just action as wrong it is justifiable with Utilitarianism. It

In regard to Mill’s Proof of utility, N7 disputes claiming that it commits the fallacy of composition. He is not the first to do so. “Such allegations began to emerge in Mill’s lifetime, shortly after the publication of Utilitarianism, and persisted for well over a century.”(1) It is important to note however that “the tide has been turning in recent discussions.”(1) Necip Fikri Alican’s even wrote an entire book on this entitled, “Mill’s Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill’s Notorious Proof.” Several others have also rejected the claim of fallacy. “Hall and Popkin defend Mill against this accusation pointing out that he begins Chapter Four by asserting that "questions of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in the ordinary acceptation of the term" and that this is "common to all first principles." According to Hall and Popkin, therefore, Mill does not attempt to "establish that what people do desire is desirable but merely attempts to make the principles acceptable. "The type of "proof" Mill is offering "consists only of some considerations which, Mill thought, might induce an honest and reasonable man to accept utilitarianism."(2)

I think that the topic of Utilitarianism is interesting to me since I find myself using the greatest happiness principle throughout an everyday basis.Utilitarianism is defined as the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility.Utilitarianism is essentially whichever action creates the most happiness for the greatest number of people is the right answer. People have considered utilitarianism controversial since not everyone agrees that the greatest happiness principle leads to the right choice,but rather to the wrong decision. The way that we approach this issue could potentially have severe consequences, on issues like immigration reform,campus carry,etc, if not agreed upon with the use of the greatest happiness principle. In this argumentative paper, I will argue that using utilitarianism and the greatest happiness principle would lead to the to the right decision.

For quite some time now the question of whether humanitarian intervention is an unacceptable assault on sovereignty has been at the top of the list of priority questions for international relations professors. In 2004 Neil MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, Carolin J Thielking, a doctoral candidate in international relations, and Thomas G Weiss, the director of the Ralph Bunch Institute for International Studies, gathered together to review the question of whether anyone cares about humanitarian intervention anymore. Central to their argument was the ‘responsibility to protect’ idea, and the effect

Numerous circumstances require speedy choices. This is almost difficult to do as a utilitarian. Each choice must be figured to figure out who it will impact and it what ways it will impact them. Generally, the chance to settle on the genuinely adjust choice is lost amid this season of computation.

For our first debate in class, my group has been assigned to talk about the cons of the international community having the “responsibility to protect”. A state's choice of whether or not to intervene in other states that are potentially break human rights laws infringes on a state's sovereignty. Intervening, no matter how crucial it may seem at the moment, is illegal nonetheless. Intervention is defined “as coercive foreign involvement in the internal affairs of a state; violation, short of war, of a state’s sovereign rights; imposition that impairs a state’s policy independence” (Donnelly 254). If intervention is a violation of state sovereignty, and therefore illegal, states should not take intervention lightly. The “Responsibility to Protect” can also be clouded by political or personal interests of a state. While it might appear that the state is helping another state's citizens, interests could be clouded. Intervening in a state could possibly lead to production of war, which in turn can produce unwanted causalities and consequences for all states involved. Irregular intervention in humanitarian crises around the world can ultimately produce de-legitimization of human rights.