In this essay, I will talk about the theory of classical utilitarianism. My objection will be about how classical utilitarianism ignores justice and moral rights, and I will argue how this can undermine the theory. I will then discuss how this theory cannot be saved from this objection.
Classical utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism where actions are judged only by the consequences of the action (act based). According to Hodgson (1967), the act is only right if it was to have the best consequences for any alternative acts open to you. Utilitarianism is a popular form of consequentialism. Utilitarian’s believe that the consequence of the action must maximise utility, and by maximizing utility, your action will maximise
…show more content…
This means there is also a small amount of guessing involving to come up with what would be the best possible outcome.
An objection to classical utilitarianism is how it ignores justice and moral rights. According to Allison (1990, p.38), ‘Utilitarianism fails to provide adequate basis for justice because of its indifference to the pattern of distribution of goods and its goal of improving the aggregate good of all no matter how badly some individuals may do, it may sometimes legitimately augment considerations of justice as the satisfaction of needs.’ Philosophers such as Robert Nozick who came up with ‘the entitlement theory of justice’ also have similar arguments, ‘that satisfying some people’s needs violates other people’s rights.’ (Allison, 1990, p.39). So, for example, there is a story that has made an appearance in the newspaper this year about a female tourist being gang raped by five homeless rapists in India. If we were to look at this from a Deontological theorist, this act is wrong because raping someone is an unjust act to do. However, from a classical utilitarian perspective, this act will be the right thing to do because when adding up the amount of happiness and pleasure the rapists would be getting in comparison to the pain the female tourist would feel, 5:1. However, in saying this, the utilitarian may object to this saying it is not right in saying that they will agree that this would be the right act to do. For example,
Utilitarianism is clearly a demanding theory. The theory can sometimes fail to live up to expectations, if the demands of the theory have not been maximised for the sum total of welfare in the universe. When there is singular distress some hardships cannot be alleviated, providing that performing an alternative action cannot do even more good. John Mackie argued utilitarianism as an “ethics of fantasy”. A theory that is so demanding must turn out to be counterproductive. If all requirements were to be respected, morality as such would have to be given up. It would be more reasonable; to stick to a morality that imposes less harsh requirements on us. (Tannsjo, p32)
Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.
The modern theory of utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism--"the view that normative properties depend only on consequences;" that is to say, in other words,
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,
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
Sheehy, Paul. "Doing the Right Thing (Part II): Challenges to Utilitarianism." The Richmond Journal of Philosophy. Richmond Journal, Mar. 2008.
in that it holds that the RIGHT action (in any given situation) is the action WHICH HAS
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.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because the premise of its idea it is that the results of
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, as explained by the philosopher Mill. Given several choices, a utilitarian would pick the morally correct choice by using the Greatest Happiness Principle (487). By looking at whether the consequences of an action will produce the greater happiness for the greater number of people than another action would, one can
The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.
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).