Utilitarianism Can Not Be Defended Against The Injustice Objection

Consequentialism is determining whether actions are justified based on the consequences of the action. Singer’s approach of utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism, is deepened by arguing that the consequences of the action for all life that is able to perceive pleasure or pain must be taken into account in determining whether the action is right or wrong. Deontology takes a different approach to how actions are determined just. According to Regan’s view, an action is not considered right or wrong based on the consequence of the action, but on the action itself, referring to “moral rules and duties” (p.29). Regan focuses on the intrinsic value that pertains to animals and argues that since they have intrinsic value it is morally wrong

Making the most of the advantages of policies does not assure equality or examine moral questions which people value greater than other consequences. Nevertheless, utilitarianism offers a basis for public policy.

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

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 final case depicts a group of minority. It is not universal if groups get treated differently because others have a vendetta against that particular group. Act utilitarianism would say the minority group counts less because there aren’t as many. Yet rule utilitarianism would state the same rules must be followed by everyone, in order to make every group equal. Likewise, people of the majority have a moral obligation to allow minorities to experience the same pleasure and fairness in society.

In this reading “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” Bernard Williams discusses Utilitarianism: actions that produce moral good and how personal integrity is more affected than justice. Williams also discusses Consequentialism and uses two examples of negative responsibility to justify his reasoning.

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 has some positive aspects and some problems within the theory, like any theory. There are ways to try to improve it by creating act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. J.J.C. Smart of La Trobe University evaluates the difference between the two and their inevitability. He also inspects how consequentialism is going to hurt the theory of utilitarianism. Also, Rawls is going to propose a solution to this problem. His theory, Justice as Fairness, seeks to have everyone be seen as an equal in the world. Although this could solve a few of utilitarianism’s problems, it also creates new ones. First, utilitarianism is the belief that an act is morally just if the outcome benefits the majority of people, providing utility. In theory, utilitarianism is inherently great, therefore there should be little debate on whether an action is morally acceptable if it benefited the most amount of people. In broad situations this is suitable, but there are a few times where utilitarianism is immoral. This includes tyranny of the majority, impersonality, and the fact that it is reliant on the results that take place from an action, not the intentions of the action.

Chapter 5 of Utilitarianism contains Mill’s response to the objection that justice is not based on utility. In his introduction Mill claims that an incomplete understanding of the idea and sentiment of justice, not a mistaken interpretation of utility, leads people to believe justice is inconsistent with utility. Chapter 5 gives an analysis of justice, its ideas and its sentiment, with Mill concluding that when properly understood, justice is consistent with and subordinate to utility, rather than opposed to it. In this paper I will argue that amidst Mill’s response to the initial objection, his argument lacks clarity and an objective analysis as to exactly why justice is based on utility.

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

1. Utilitarians believe that “one should so act as to promote the greatest happiness (pleasure) of the greatest number of people” (Angeles 326). However, within the utilitarian community there are major splits in how we are to determine which action brings us the greatest amounts of pleasure. Today I will be focusing on two ways to determine which actions bring the greatest amount of pleasure to a situation: act and rule utilitarianism. I will define both act and rule utilitarianism, give a situation where both can be applied, and respond to an objection of utilitarianism. I will also be discussing why I believe act utilitarianism helps more people than rule utilitarianism, in turn, becoming ‘superior’ to rule utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is the argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.

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.

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.

A significant weakness of utilitarianism is that an individual may always find themselves in the position of the majority, ultimately their happiness is