Introduction
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that encourages activities that increase happiness and discourages actions that decrease it. Utilitarian philosophy aims to enhance society while making social, economic, or political decisions. British philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are often credited with popularizing the utilitarian school of moral theory in the 18th and 19th centuries. In utilitarianism, actions are right when they enhance happiness and bad when they cause unhappiness or decrease satisfaction for everyone involved—not just the player. You demonstrate utilitarianism at work when you do something for the benefit of your coworkers while doing it for your help (Levin, 2019). Traditions of Utilitarianism have evolved throughout free democracies, demonstrating both diversity and the ability to expand on their essential principles.
Question and Thesis Statement
What is “a big amount of good” according to the definition you just gave? How do you define happiness, and how do you measure it? How does the law get done?
It is not uncommon for policymakers in Western democracies today to advocate for free markets and some government intervention in the private lives of citizens to protect their security. It is impossible to agree on how many laws and regulations a society should have. Still, political and economic policies should always be geared toward improving the lives of as many people as possible (Amer, 2019). Many politicians would try to find a remedy if an approach focused on aid or action results in economic inequality or other negative implications for the poor. Contrary to popular belief, activities are either good or bad depending on whether or not they lead to happiness, according to the practical school of thought. Because of its greater harm than its might, moral judgments are often taken. This paper aims to critically analyze and demonstrate utilitarianism theory by identifying why it should not be used when making ethical decisions because its massive disadvantages outweigh its strengths.
Reasons that Support the Thesis Statement
Inequality
Utilitarianism holds that any decisions that benefit the majority/race are ethical, even if they come at the expense of marginalized people. If we apply utilitarianism to this situation, the outcome’s good may be determined just by the amount of welfare provided; it makes no difference how that welfare is distributed throughout the participants. Because the amount of well-being is more significant than inequality than equality, utilitarianism recommends an unequal effect (Levin, 2019). In contrast to utilitarianism, some philosophers believe that a fair distribution of social equality is a sufficient argument to choose this outcome. Distribution fairness is just as important as total well-being in this view. Utilitarians, it is alleged, overlook equality as a crucial ethical consideration. First, it is crucial to indicate that our staff knows that equality is a significant guiding concept in our daily actions. Equality is a concept that aid workers hold dear because of its practical benefits rather than because they believe it is crucial.
Many people devote their time and resources to improving the lives of the world’s most vulnerable populations to build an equal world for everyone. Employees are particularly concerned about equity because many assets reflect diminishing resources. When it comes to money or clothing, the more you have, the more you get from it. This compelling argument favors requiring workers to exercise equal care when distributing commodities (Levin, 2019). We can boost our overall well-being by redistributing wealth from those who have it to those who do not go because of lower consumer expenditure. It is possible that a society’s inequality would deteriorate over time, leading to civil unrest and even violence—one further argument in favor of more equitable income distribution among the populace.
The initial utilitarian answer to a mental examination may be to accept the concept of murdering Chuck by elaborating that utilitarianism does not mean that a physician should kill him because of his organs. Opponents of Utilitarianism argue that the doctor in Transplant who kills Chuck will achieve more significant results. It would be a shame if this occurrence were made public by the hospital administration and the general public. People would be scared to visit the doctor. As a result, many people can die or suffer from significant health issues due to not being diagnosed or treated by their doctors. There’s no need, according to utilitarianism, for a doctor to execute Chuck if doing so doesn’t improve their situation. Even if we accept that this is a rare scenario where murdering Chuck can genuinely lead to a highly favorable outcome (other than unforeseen repercussions), it is difficult to imagine how a doctor could be sure of this.
Utilitarianism can either criticize or allow for rare instances in which, with unexpected change, risky behavior can be considerably improved. It’s a general argument against utilitarianism in a wide variety of situations. As a result of such “contradictory examples,” we are led to believe that a risky act (such as murdering an innocent person) has an unexpectedly positive outcome. However, an agent in a real-world setting frequently lacks the necessary tools to minimize the normal probability of disaster. As a result, committing an act that would normally be catastrophic would be unacceptable. An unacceptable carelessness would put a doctor in danger of severe injury or death to save only a few lives. 3 Avoiding these dangers will increase the number of expected participants. 4 Utilitarianism suggests that we stay away from actions that violate people’s rights.
The unpredictability of the future
It would be reasonable to impose the death penalty even for minor offenses since this would save taxpayers money on future jail expenses. A murderer’s freedom would be beneficial if they could kill another assassin, who could kill even more people, transforming the former assassin into a savior. Human actions have a long-term impact on the natural world that has never been witnessed before. We need moral theory to guide us to this new reality. When faced with a new situation, utilitarianism has an advantage because it does not represent an optimistic interdependence or stability and is open to learning about the future. Put another way; utilitarianism is much like Rawlsian libertarianism, which restricts restrictions only when happy encounters are real.) Lawmakers must first ask the correct question while discussing the future. It’s a big no-no to figure out how people in the future will live and then try to copy their actions. This is a good science fiction story, but it is not a moral philosophy or a practical ethical system. We are unable to predict the future. Even if we obtain it, the code would most likely be too odd and difficult to understand for it to be of any value. Another common blunder is to wonder which code will produce the best outcomes no matter how far in the future it is followed.
An important feature of Mill’s Utilitarianism is his faith in empiricism and growth in morals. This is based on the premise that a single set of moral principles will be transmitted down through the generations. This is a rare occurrence. Contradicts the continuing effort to maximize resources. There is no contradiction here between moral development and a damaged future. A mill isn’t the person who aspires to remain blissfully unaware of societal change. His position is that future generations will know more about us than we know about ourselves; thus, examining future principles could lead to erroneous conclusions. By establishing a uniform code of behavior, resource workers should at the very least avoid a lack of moral development in their first thought. It would be reasonable to impose the death penalty even for minor offenses since this would save taxpayers money on future jail expenses. A murderer’s freedom would be beneficial if he could kill another assassin, who might kill even more people, thereby transforming himself into a hero.
Immeasurability
However, happiness and pleasure cannot be quantified using utilitarianism. It’s hard to estimate how much agony and suffering can be spared if certain things are done. The idea of maximizing individual preferences is similarly fraught with difficulty. Personal needs might have various time frames for requirements: some are geared toward immediate gratification, while others are focused on long-term aspirations. Popular workers talk about things near and far as ways to increase contentment. As Richard Brandt indicated, there are doubts about whether this concept can be grasped (Scarre, 2020). When we reach a certain point in life, our wants and needs shift, and we may no longer want things that were once important to us when we were younger. Our desires may evolve throughout time. For example, Brandt cites the heroic protest of a religious skeptic who refused to allow a cleric to serve in his place.
An essential flaw in the anti-happy ideology is that it fails to consider that individuals are more content when they have the freedom and authority to make their own choices. This is why Harsanyi calls it a “major mistake” when people call for others to do what he thinks they should (Scarre, 2020). As Brandt continues, he calls for moral occurrences with evidence that we care and that people receive what they want or love because we care about their happiness rather than their misery (Scarre, 2020). Helping people attain their goals only makes sense because doing so will make them happier. The things we cherish show us what makes a person happy, and people are content when they can receive what they desire and have it delivered to them.
Counter Arguments and Responses to Them
Neutrality
Because of its emphasis on objectivity, utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that favors a select few’s interests at everyone else’s expense. One’s loved ones are more essential than strangers; therefore, neutrality may appear beneficial at first glance. If a parent has two other children to feed, it is more moral to starve their child. Utilitarianism’s emphasis on neutrality is another driver. Decisions should be made with the “eye of God” in mind; everyone should be treated equally. In the instance of George, we can see that he must conduct an unbiased assessment of the circumstance (Levin, 2019). He shouldn’t choose his own or his family’s safety over the safety of those who chemical or biological weapons could harm on the other side of the world. When making a decision, George needs to put his family’s opposition to chemical and environmental warfare, as well as his opposition to chemical and biological warfare, to one side and make a decision that benefits everyone. We could begin by looking at neutrality. The utilitarians will see this as a positive, but it can be viewed as a flaw in the theory’s foundations. Since everyone is treated equally under utilitarianism, the value of interpersonal connections is diminished. The following utilitarianism may necessitate ignoring others in our immediate vicinity.
A hypothetical situation would be one in which, like George, George’s wife and children were enmeshed in chemical or environmental warfare. George, according to utilitarianism, ought to disregard the feelings and interests of others around him and do whatever action will lead to the best outcome possible. However, it doesn’t appear to be the case in this instance. There should be more importance placed on the interests of the George family than on the goods and wants of those unrelated to George. Although the utilitarians will treat everyone equally, this does not imply that they will treat everyone equally. Let’s look at another Williams example.
Simplicity
Every action can be summed up in a straightforward premise known as “act utilitarianism.” In our view, the consequences are morally significant, and we all prefer the desired experience rather than the unpleasant one. This principle is logical. It is a good social system because utilitarianism blends global principles with a straightforward approach. As a group, we may weigh any decision’s benefits and drawbacks. It allows us to develop our system for determining what is morally and ethically correct. Each human society should follow these guidelines (Levin, 2019). Typically, in a democracy, a law or representative is elected when the majority of the votes cast are cast in favor of the action. It’s regarded as a fair way to measure the various interests that people have in their lives
Conclusion
According to the theory of utilitarianism, there are ethical norms that must be followed. As a result, they overlook the other virtues that favor the few. Biased: It selects only those items viewed as bringing happiness to a specific group of individuals. Some things don’t benefit the minority, but most things benefit everyone. What may be helpful to one individual may not have the same impact on another. As a result of this effort, the transcript of this statement is now available online. When my business partner and I kill a competitor, our competitive advantage will allow us to make a significant profit, which will make us pleased. The theory is further complicated because these principles differ from society to society. The rights that some people in a community take for granted may not be clear to others. As a result, policies fluctuate from one community to the next because they alter the cultural beliefs and values that people hold dear. To put it another way, utilitarianism takes a more practical approach to life. Modern society is governed by its principles.
Using this method, you may accurately measure your level of happiness. Seeing anything beautiful has a purpose that helps you feel fulfilled. We can conclude that an action is good if a person feels good about it. The motion must be improper if it is little or no satisfaction gained as a result. As a result, we can only use vision to judge whether or not a given behavior is correct or wrong. Qualitative theory can convey satisfaction, greater satisfaction, and displeasure to express quality or quality. In this case, the idea of utilitarianism has more flaws than advantages.
References
Amer, A. B. (2019). Understanding the ethical theories in medical practice. Open Journal of Nursing, 9(02), 188.
Levin, N. (2019). Introduction to Ethics An Open Educational Resource. California: Far Press. Web.
Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. London and New York: Routledge. Web.