Natural Law Theory Vs Utilitarianism

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

The three principles of utilitarianism are “1. All ‘pleasures’ or benefits are not equal, 2. The system presumes that one can predict the consequences of one’s actions, and 3. There is little concern for individual rights” (Pollock,

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,

First, I would like to debate the utilitarian theory of justice. Certainly, the assumption would be that a practical approach to justice would produce a sensible result. However, I think that the term utilitarian is misleading because the major

The right of individual freedoms and the collective good for society as a whole, is an ethical dilemma that is debated time and time again. Many will agree that each individual has control over their own body and what is done to it or what goes into it. However, when it comes to the question of what is better for society, those same individuals will agree that individual rights are superseded by public good. (Leonard, 2009).

Utilitarianism is based off of the idea that actions are right if they are beneficial and support the majority. When a person is faced with a decision, he or she must think about the consequences in terms of pleasure versus pain. That person has a moral obligation to figure out which outcome is the better one. Majority of this paper will discuss act utilitarianism versus rule utilitarianism and different philosophical objections to each. Act utilitarianism is best described as actions that lead to the best consequence in that moment. For instance, a professor passes someone to get into medical school, even if he or she didn’t do all the work. The professor’s judgement is that the person would be a great doctor. Likewise, the student did

Universalism demands every human being to have basic rights and there are three pillars of universalism. These human rights theories have originated from multiple different theorists. Natural law is one of the three pillars of universalism that will be discussed in the course of this essay. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher who expanded on the philosophy of natural law. He believed in the concept of religion and morality, and presumed that natural law was derived because of the commandments of God. Furthermore, the objective of this essay will be to explain natural law and why I disagree with the theory.

Here I will layout each philosophers viewpoint and then highlight some of the differences between the two, as well as draw my own conclusion as to which method is more compatible with my own stance. Perhaps offer a personal view that may incorporate portions of both philosopher’s principles, or present my own perspective independent of either.

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that holds the morally right course of action in any given situation is the course of which yields the greatest balance of benefits over harms. More specifically, utilitarianism’s core idea is that the effects of an action determine whether actions are morally right or wrong. Created with the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), Utilitarianism began in England in the 19th Century. Bentham and Mill built their system of Utilitarianism on ancient hedonism (pursuing physical pleasure and avoiding physical pain). Although both of these philosophers agreed on the basic principals of Utilitarianism they disagreed on what exactly hedonism is.

John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism by stating how a standardized system in which people’s actions may be judged to differentiate between right and wrong has been minimal in progress. He expresses the misconception with the way utility is understood by the general populous and other philosophers. The struggle to lay the foundations in what constitutes as right and wrong dates longer back than 2000 years ago.

Lyons, D. (2001). Utilitarianism. In L. C. Becker, & C. B. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from

Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

Utilitarianism may have its strengths in the sense that it is considering consequences of each situation and making a decision that is most beneficial to the majority. It is based on consequences, as outlined in HDM (p.69), every situation will be different entailing different facts, which will determine the best situation. By measuring the consequences, the most beneficial outcome can be identified. No act can be entirely right or wrong. The idea of democracy also in HDM (p.69), is a good use of utilitarianism, society will choose who they find most suitable to decide for the city, province, or country. Subsequently, maximizing the good for all. This ethical theory can promote happiness, by deciding what is going to be most beneficial and weighing your options, one can choose what makes them most happy and is suitable to their situation.