What Are The 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.

In order to support the right answer to crucial moral problems, certain philosophers use theory. Theory is an abstract statement formulated to predict, explain, or describe the relationships among concepts or events. Theory is developed and tested by observations and research, using factual data. I’m currently studying the following theories: Intuitionism, Egoism, Utilitarianism, Divine Command Theory, Virtue Ethics, Cultural Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Ethics of Caring, Kantian Ethics and Social Contract Theory. I’ve read each one of them and have noticed their flaws. I was impressed with utilitarianism, which shows the most logically believed theory. I have no doubt utilitarianism is the best moral theory. I chose to defend utilitarianism because it has a major influence on the types of assessment methods. As a health care giver, I believe utilitarianism will be useful in deontological concerns and to evaluate alternative solutions in the health care system. Giving an overall explanation of utilitarianism, defining and contracting act utilitarian and rule utilitarian, and listing some reasons will prove that utilitarianism is the best theory yet.

When an individual says that Utilitarianism is a good ethical theory because it justifies conventional moral wisdom they believe that because this theory maintains conservative principles and only has minimal mistakes, there is a valid purpose to favor this theory over any other theory that is presented. Utilitarianism does not support the notion of popular judgment but when comparing the other theories, utilitarianism does have fewer conflicts than any other theory. In other words although utilitarianism flaws in certain areas, it is the most precise in vindicating conventional moral wisdom. And so, when an individual claims that Utilitarianism is a good ethical theory, they are basing it upon it being successful to closely attain or preserve traditional ideologies.

(6)You should not kill an innocent (friendless but healthy) person EVEN IF by doing so (and giving his organs to several others) you could increase net happiness.

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.

Among the most glaring problems that I see with Utilitarianism is its inclusion of animals under the umbrella that blankets this theory. It seems irrefutable that there exists an inordinate number of cases where the consequence that is against the best interest of an animal is favorable to humans, yet that dictating action is one that has been continually taken and condoned by the general public. This is a fundamental challenge, as the Utilitarian philosophy decrees that the pleasure and pain experienced by all individuals, including animals, has equal worth and must be considered when determining the net benefit of an action’s consequences.

Utlitiarianism It is a form of consequentialism and it states that actions are morally right or wrong depending on their outcome and effect. The only effect of a particular action that is relevant, are the good and bad results produced. Early utilitarian thinkers like John Gay and Richard Cumberland believed that promoting human happiness was approved by God. A person's salvation and her their eternal happiness depended on their conformity to God's will. Jeremy Bentham was influenced by Hobbes' account of human nature and Hume's account of social utility.

The Marriot commercial depicts several scenes where people are helping others in one fashion or another in an attempt to have the viewer believe we all need to treat each other as we want to be treated. However, the golden rule seems offers a Kantian or Utilitarian approach to how we should act towards one another. Upon closer examination, the golden rule is redundant when considering other given moralities. Generally speaking, there is a moral consensus that we should not harm, mistreat, or inflict injustice on one another. Another facet of the golden rule is to treat people fair and be helpful.

As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which

Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of utilitarianism is the fact that it is such a simplistic and straightforward belief system. The central focus to maximize pleasure and happiness avoids confusion and manipulation of utilitarianism. Calculating whether an action is right or wrong is as easy as calculating how much pleasure an pain will result from the action. If the action produces the most

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).

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.

Before I discuss the theory of utilitarianism, it is imperative to explain and understand what it is. Utilitarianism is a moral theory, or a doctrine explaining why certain actions are right or wrong. It is the idea that moral

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.