Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
shortcomings of utilitarianism
essays on utilitarianism
utilitarianism: for and against
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: shortcomings of utilitarianism
The Extent to Which Utilitarianism is Considered Inadequate as a Means of Solving Moral Dilemmas
Jeremy Bentham who first popularised utilitarianism theorised that it
was a principle that supported the majority’s happiness. After
arriving at this, he decided to introduce the hedonic principle to
measure the quantity of pleasure. This however still left many
questions unanswered and so his disciple J.S.Mill came about a
qualitative theory. Though an amendment has been made, there still
lies the following criticism.
The first major inadequacy is the fact is that it leads to an end
justifies the means mentality. The hedonic calculus implied this
mentality in that it based its conditions on the outcome of actions,
which it assumed to be good. These actions however might have a bad
outcome. For example, the Germans voted for Adolph Hitler because they
thought it will do them good, but if it were so, then Hitler could
justify the Holocaust because the end was to purify the human race or
Stalin could justify his slaughter of millions because he was trying
to achieve a communist utopia.
Secondly, is the fact that J.S.Mill put the decision of considering
whether an action is good or bad in the hands of those he termed
competent judges. These were those who were intellectually capable
experiencing lower and higher pleasures of the mind. He believed that
this competent judge would have chosen the higher pleasures. This may
be of his own opinion because he was an upper class, highly respected,
intelligent, Victorian gentleman and practised a lot of social
differentiation, which may have been of great influence in his
principle. In his times, some actions might have been considered of
higher pleasure to those so-called competent judges and might have
been morally wrong. For example, public execution, which was
absolutely acceptable in those years but truly barbaric.
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: Explanation And Study of Criticisms The dictionary definition of Utilitarianism is: 'The doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principal of conduct.' When making a moral decision, we should look at the outcome of an action. Whatever brings the greatest happiness to the most people is the morally 'right' decision. It is a consequentialist principal where the majority rules.
Utilitarianism is an ethical study often associated with “politics of interest” because the ideas of utilitarianism are set on maximizing utility and efficiency. This idea focuses on individualism and aggregating what is best for society as a whole, specifically the economic aspect of society. Deontology is an ethical study that is almost the complete opposite of utilitarian beliefs. Deontology is an ethical study often associated with “politics of conscious” because it approaches issues with the idea of right vs. wrong on mind. This ethical viewpoint is rooted in fulfilling God’s laws and focuses on equal rights. An ethical dilemma case that revolves around the utilitarianism view is The Yellowstone National Park case. The controversy in
Utilitarianism wants to create a simple yet rational formula for what is right that works almost without exception. The most critical objection that is imposed on utilitarianism is that despite its simple principle (seeking greater happiness), it is not easy at all to determine what greater happiness is in different situations. In fact, there might be many “greater happiness” factors in a particular situation. Utilitarianism responds to this objection by stating that human race has lived enough to predict the consequence of different behaviors. However, I do not believe that utilitarianism’s response adequately address this objection. Humans are referred as rational beings in utilitarianism, but in fact, humans are both emotional and rational. We cannot expect humans to act as if they are smart computer programs that can decide based on a database. In practice, different people will not only have different interpretation about greater happiness, but also they cannot ignore their
In this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is a weak argument. According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain (Mill, 114). At first glance the Utility perspective seems logical, however it often conflicts with justice and morality. I will begin by presenting the idea that good consequences do not always determine the right thing to do. Then I will provide the counterargument that utilitarians can bite the bullet. Next I will explain that Utilitarianism is too demanding for anyone to live by, and finally provide the counterarguments from the Utilitarianism perspective.
Utilitarianism is a standard, a means of identifying whether actions are good or bad depending on the end result. John Stuart Mill has a simple way of looking at how we try to attain happiness and limit pain, in his essay he breaks it up into multiple parts, like what makes an action good or bad, the Greatest Happiness Principle, the person’s mind as he weighs if the happiness is worth the pain, and why one happiness is prefered over the other. I believe that Utilitarianism is flawed, it is difficult to use in larger scales and even has hiccups on the personal level.
Space does not take into consideration a point by point study of utilitarianism here. Suffice it to say that the greater part of good rationalists and scholars have thought that it was faulty. One primary issue is that utilitarianism if received, legitimizes as ethically proper things that are obviously corrupt. For instance, utilitarianism can be utilized to legitimize rebuffing an innocent man or oppressing a little gathering of individuals if such acts create a boost of results. Be that as it may, these demonstrations are unmistakably indecent paying little respect to how productive they may be for the best number. For this and different reasons, many masterminds have upheld the second sort of good hypothesis, deontological morals. Deontological morals are with regards to Scripture, customary good law, and instincts from judgment skills. "Deontological" originates from the Greek word on which signifies "restricting obligation (Johnson,
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
Utilitarianism requires that society be rightly ordered and should achieve justice though the various social institutions present in the society, by working to achieve the maximum possible aggregate utility. This idea has seen application in various fields such as social...
Defined as a doctrine in which actions that are morally good should be actions that promote happiness, utilitarianism is mainly concerned with "the greatest happiness", or "the greatest good for the greatest number”. However, it is clear that daily life often confronts us with situations in which applies individualism. Based on this fact, can we really use the concept of utilitarianism as a basis for morality? For a better understanding, we should know what are the utilitarian principles and how are they apply.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
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 constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
A disadvantage of utilitarianism is that it fails to acknowledge the rights of each person, thus advocating injustice acts. People can suffer from immediate consequences of an action fulfilled by being “utilitarian”. Utilitarianism ignores the importance of moral obligation. It is still our duty to decide upon a wrong or right act and not take in consideration the amount of good or evil it produces. Lastly, moral dilemmas only happen because either quality or quantity of “good” or “pleasure” is in doubt. A person deciding whether to do a moral act has to take in consideration the maximization of happiness and pleasure to the
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and defended by James Mill. The theory says, that all the activities should be directed towards the accomplishment of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is impractical and very unrealistic because, it refuses to focus on the individuals values, morals, and happiness. Utilitarianism endorse risking ones life for the sake of other is not and in fact it rewards such behavior. Utilitarianism mentions that if the outcome of the one persons death saves many lives then therefore it is obligated to do so.