UTILITARIANISM’S DOWNFALL: THE PROBLEM OF INJUSTICE 903834351 Utilitarianism’s Downfall: The Problem of Injustice Utilitarianism has several concerns, but perhaps the most disturbing concern is the problem of injustice. Imagine a world where you are sometimes required to kill an innocent person. At certain times, utilitarianism requires that we commit serious injustices in order to maximize well-being. In this paper, I will argue that because utilitarianism requires us to commit these injustices, it cannot be accepted as a good moral theory. The theory of utilitarianism can be described as the combined theories of consequentialism, to do as much good as possible, and hedonism, the only thing that is intrinsically good is happiness. Together, …show more content…
This premise states that the correct moral theory will never require us to commit serious injustices. Utilitarians object to this by saying it is sometimes okay to ignore justice if an act is optimific; while it is important to have justice, well-being is the most important outcome. Utilitarians say that in cases of exemplary punishment where several lives were saved and only one taken, we should view this as the right option. My response is that this objection seems to make the utilitarian’s procedural method inconsistent. At times, justice is to be ignored and sometimes considered. While utilitarians respond by saying “when the results are optimific, injustice is to be ignored,” they do not say exactly which injustices should be ignored or how to count the amount of well-being produced. How do we measure if the well-being outweighs the injustice? It is as if a game has been left for us to play, but no rules are given. Utilitarianism gives us a procedure, but they do not include the measurements. This seems inconsistent, and therefore utilitarians now need a new procedure to tell us how to measure out well-being and injustice. Once we can do this, then we can determine if an injustice ought to be
The Utilitarianism is the theory which fund the morality on the utility, and affirms that the true utilitity for and individual can't not always get along with the general utility. The utilitarianism fixes as a starting point the thought which recognize that one of the condition of human nature is to think firstly about his own interests: the morality consists in recognize that the utile of the single coincide with the utile of the others. Historically the Utilitarianism found himself in the English philosophy. The term ''utilitarianism'' was used for the first time by J. Bentham, and with that he designed the fundamental character of his own philosophic system. Bentham affirms also the need of all the utilitarian philosophies to create the ethic as an exact science: a rigorous calculus on the quantitative difference of the pleasures. The Utilitarianism broaden also in the juridical and political field, with the proposition of radical reforms. It was then the ce...
The problem with Utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, it is that Utilitarianism is so fixated on generating the most happiness that the need to take into account the morality of the individual actions that constitute the result is essentially eradicated. In so doing, the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting the general welfare is brought about, which in turn, renders Utilitarianism an inadequate ethical
In defining utilitarianism, J.S. Mill counters the popular belief that this theory only deals with the pleasure yielded by actions of individuals by stating that, "the theory of utility... [is] not something to be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure... together with exemption from pain" (596). He goes on to argue that the foundation of this principle lies in the fact that an individual's action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to "produce the reverse of happiness" (597). For example, an enemy forcibly entered your village with the intent on killing every woman and child in town if no one turned over the sniper that took some of their men out. If you tell them who the sniper is, no harm will be done to the women and children, but since the sniper is long gone, you decide to tell the enemy that the town bum is the sniper. Since you judge his life to be of least worth in all of the village in terms of future goodness, would it be right to send him to his death? The answer is yes, this act would be the right act as it would promote the happiness in the rest of the village because his life isn't worth the hundreds of lives of women and children (Paraphrased from Joyce, ...
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 was long thought to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice, the concept of being punished for crimes committed. Under closer examination, it is revealed that Utilitarianism and Retributive Justice do not clash. According to Mill, the concept of justice is actually derived from utility. When an individual's moral rights are violated, it is a natural tendency to want to retaliate against the violator. The retaliation ensures that such an act would not happen again. By protecting individuals from the violation of rights, punishment contributes to an overall increase of utility in society. In Utilitarianism, Mill writes that "a person may possibly not need the benefits of others, but he always needs that they should not do him hurt" (Mill 89). This protection allows individuals to follow their own pursuits more effectively, without fear, and ultimately with more utility. At the same time, Mill also argues that certain cases exist where an individual has a moral duty to do an action that would be considered unjust under normal circumstances; however, due to the action drastically increasing utility, the action is allowed to be done and does not violate the Principle of Retributive Justice. An act that would be considered "wrong" in a normal situation can be "right" in other situations. One such example is the case of Robin Hood. Robin Hood is a fictional character who steals material goods and money from very rich individuals and redistributes those items to the very poor. He is not punished for his crimes, and is hailed as a hero for his deeds. While the case of Robin Hood might seem to violate the Principle of Retributive Justice because he receives no retribution for his actions, under closer consideration, this...
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 is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those people who reject this moral theory will say utilitarianism does not grant human life enough value compared to that of a pig. Mill gives an effective response and states that humans can and are the only ones that experiences higher pleasures and qualities of life, which make a human's life better than a pig's life.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human’s natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
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 a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible
Utilitarianism can be described as an ethical theory that states if the consequences of an action