The Pros And Cons Of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is best implemented as a tool for leaders and decision makers. It can provide simple, fast solutions when applied to a variety of problems. When used as a supplement to analyze issues and reactions, it can provide a clearer answer. However, when used alone, there are flaws that arise in certain circumstances. Other forms of moral judgment should be consulted in some serious cases. Examples of utilitarian ethics show that it is best applied in times of difficulty, where the amount of suffering, loss, or damage must be kept at minimum.

Julia Markovits, an Ethics Professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describes the basis of utilitarianism by saying, “Actions are morally permissible if and only if they produce at least as much net happiness as any other available action” (Markovits). Thus explains the true “utility” in utilitarianism: maximize happiness. A utilitarian solution is “the one that produces the greatest balance of happiness over suffering” (Markovits). With this seemingly simple objective, a major

If the child doesn’t steal the candy, he may or may not be less happy. Utilitarianism tells us that in order to produce the most happiness, it is correct for the child to steal and be happy, as long as the storeowner does not suffer. Does this make the act correct? Most would say no, since children should not be taught to steal. The long term, secondary result from the candy store may not only be the temporary happiness, but the idea that stealing is acceptable. This could lead to further trouble in the child’s life. Thirdly, if the child got a cavity from the candy, it would certainly cause the opposite of happiness for him. The unknowns that occur after the initial result prove that pure utilitarianism comes with consequences that may be unforeseen at decision