Act utilitarianism is a theory of ethics stating that any act of a person is morally right only if it promotes the best possible results and creates the greatest good for the majority. In such a way, the overall well being should serve as the major factor considered before performing a certain action. Following the act utilitarianism theory, the difference between good and bad acts comes from the results and consequences of a particular action. The achievement of outcomes beneficial for most people will be viewed as a good act, and, on the contrary, poor results will be associated with the wrong acts.
This framework was studied by John Mill and Jeremy Bentham, who offered their own visions, called rule and act utilitarianism correspondingly. The central difference between these two theories is that Bentham assumed that only the results of an act are significant and should be considered, while Mill stated that consequences resulting from following a certain rule of conduct should be taken into account when determining the nature of an action. These divergences promoted the emergence of two different visions of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is also often criticized by other thinkers and scientists. Thus, one of the central objections states that the paradigm is too demanding as people should be ready to make significant sacrifices to ensure a greater good is generated. Additionally, it might approve actions that were wrong but contributed to some positive results. In such a way, I think that utilitarianism is a good theory as promoting people’s well-being by specific acts is the desired purpose. However, it is too idealistic and detached from reality as people cannot measure all their actions by using this paradigm as it would make them experience severe moral suffering.