Arguments Against Utilitarianism

On Utilitarianism

In this essay, I will be addressing and evaluating the responses to the arguments against utilitarianism. I will raise the charge that utilitarianism entails injustice, that it is too demanding, and lastly that it greatly reduces real choice. These three objections are successful in that utilitarian responses do not hold up to scrutiny. I conclude that the objections against utilitarianism are fair and that the theory faces many deficiencies.

In The Principle of Utility Bentham argues that the aim of each action should be the greatest happiness of the greatest number (Rachels 2015). There are several forms of utilitarianism. Classical utilitarianism is hedonistic meaning that is concerned with the amount of happiness produced by a course of action. A hedonistic approach to happiness suggests that it consists in maximizing pleasure and minimizing

Each person's happiness counts for the same amount. The general form of the theory is consequentialist or concerned with the outcomes of each action. It is also maximizing, that is the more happiness the better. It is quantitative and assumes that happiness can be measured. Lastly, the general form of the utilitarianism defines happiness in terms of satisfied preferences. The claim that “utilitarianism entails manifold injustice, disintegrated lives, and decisions that are not decisions at all” is a fair assessment. These three objections to utilitarianism are difficult to overcome. One of the issues with utilitarianism as a theory is that it creates manifold injustice. In terms of justice toward others, the theory requires the sacrifice of the minority interests, and perhaps their rights as well, to those of the majority. This usage of