The Pros And Cons Of Utilitarianism

The utilitarianism theory holds that an action is moral if it produces the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people that are affected by the consequences of the action DeGeorge 44). Jeremy Bentham believed that one should measure the intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, or purity and their opposites when evaluating for each person that is affected (DeGeorge 46). For example, a consequence that gives a more desirable quality like pleasure would be favored, just like if one would receive a good immediately rather than at a later time, the sooner would be favored. To know whether the action produces the absolute greatest good, one must compare it with alternative actions as well. To determine whether an action is moral or not, one should calculate the action and its opposite. An action is moral if it produces more good than harm and its opposite produces more harm than good. Utilitarianism should also be interpreted as requiring one to choose the best action among good actions. For example, if two actions produce the same amount of good, then they are both moral and either may be done (DeGeorge 47).
There are two versions of utilitarianism, act and rule utilitarianism. Although they oppose each other, they are consistent with the utilitarian principle that was just explained. Act utilitarianism holds that what is believed to be morally right or wrong is based on consequence. When deciding which action results in the most good, it is dependent on whomever or whatever will benefit the most from it. Then, rule utilitarianism is dependent on moral rules. It is a more definite theory because an action can be decided as morally right or wrong dependent on the consequence of the moral rule. Those that follow this ve...

... middle of paper ...

...products on animals. The conflict is that even though the public is strongly against testing on animals, manufacturers are required by trade standards and consumer protection laws to show that their merchandise is not toxic and dangerous to public health, especially when it is in large quantities for shipping (“Testing Cosmetics on Animals” pars. 3).
A utilitarian approach to solve this dilemma is to use in vitro screens. Manufacturers can still test for irritation to the skin or eye, dermal and airway sensitivity, endocrine disruption, and others to determine risk. The use of this mechanism would make the public happy because they are not using animals and the trade standards and consumer protection laws would still be met. Thus, in vitro screens are the utilitarian answer to providing the most happiness to the most people ("Testing Cosmetics on Animals” pars. 7).