Utilitarianism is a theory of moral philosophy (ethics). The key to the utilitarian theory is that human behavior should help people achieve the pursuit of “maximum happiness”.
In conclusion, there is three principles in utilitarianism, hedonism, equality principle, and consequentialism, which we discussed in class. Utilitarianism believes that people should make the behavior maximizes the good. The good’s maximum must rely on the sum of the feelings on bitterness and joy of each individual involved in this behavior. Each person’s happiness counts the same. In other words, each individual is considered to have the same weight. Compare to other common ethics, utilitarianism does not consider the motivation and means of human behavior, but only considers the effect of the result which that behavior can contribute to the maximum happiness value.
In fact, there are a lot of dispute about utilitarianism, which is against utilitarianism. First of all, it is too demanding. Demanding us to always give to others. According to utilitarian replies, it does not oppose self-sacrifice, but opposes self-sacrifice itself as a good thing. The only self-sacrifice in favor is made for the happiness of others or some means that are able to benefit their well-being. It is possible that the overall utility and efficacy of society is increasing as the interests of a small number of people are harmed. Utilitarianism is defined as a collectivist that emphasizes universal welfare, so it is bound to infringe on individual rights. However, it is asking too much of people to be always motivated to promote the general happiness. Utilitarianism does not seriously consider how to distribute benefits and welfare in a society. Actually, the utilitarian principle is reasonable for individuals but cannot be extended to the whole society. Utilitarianism may violate human rights and lead to serious injustice in the distribution of social benefits. If there is no corresponding human basis, any ethics cannot be done by most people, then it will become a plausible moral theory.
127 our experts are availableright now
In addition, actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences based on the consequentialism. People may oppose it due to justice and rights. As the examples we talked in class, throwing an innocent person in jail to prevent a riot runs counter to our ideal of justice. Peeping Tom that does not get caught is against our ideal of a right to privacy. That behavior can be allowed which relies on utilitarianism, because of the better outcomes and no negative consequences. The best utilitarian reply to these objections is utilitarianism and moral common sense will not conflict, such as peeping Tom’s will be caught. However, this principle focuses on the evaluation of the consequences of behavior instead of the act itself. Utilitarianism justifies the action by its purpose, but ignores ethics sometimes. Morally, the behavior is justified depends on whether the behavior has harmed the interests of society while achieving its purpose or not. Thus, ethical issues cannot be reduced to the issue of ultimate value. It is effective to change Act-Utilitarianism to Rule-Utilitarianism to avoid the conflict. As the definition, “an act is right, if it is allowed by a set of rules conformity to which would maximally promote general happiness”. There is no doubt that pursues the maximum interests of individuals or collective without breaking the morals.
In my opinion, utilitarianism cannot be used as a moral criterion. The biggest flaw of utilitarianism is, placing too much emphasis on collective values rather than individual values. But utilitarianism is currently the most effective ethical theory for public policy decisions. It is nevertheless true that no one lives without a utilitarian drive.
