Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory keeping that moral actions are based on the maximization of overall felicity. defined as the Utility Principle. Mill and Bentham’s utilitarianism makes a plausible and convincing statement. though non everyone agrees with it. Bernard Williams writes Utilitarianism: For and Against the theory. In understanding with Williams. I have formed my ain thought experiment to rebut utilitarianism and will be taking an analytic attack to the public-service corporation rule.
By these two. I will demo that utilitarianism is an incoherent philosophy neglecting to see the value of an person and guilty of unsuitably imputing computation to moral actions. Before I began. I would wish specify two popular signifiers of utilitarianism: Act-utilitarianism and Rule-Utilitarianism. Rule-Utilitarianism is a position held by philosopher John-Stuart Mill. which is the position that the public-service corporation rule is applied to a certain set of regulations. For illustration. see you are a leader of a new state. In set uping this state. you want to do certain your citizens are happy throughout clip.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
Therefore. the inquiry becomes: what set of regulations would you follow to do this possible? Now. the job with rule-utilitarianism is that it calls into inquiry how effectual it is to follow a peculiar regulation in general. As we can see. rule-utilitarianism runs into some jobs itself ; unluckily. the geographic expedition of its jobs does non suit the range of the paper. I will pass the balance of the paper reviewing Act-Utilitarianism: the position that what determines a moral action is the result. that is. the individual action merely. To convey out the force of my claim. I must acknowledge. utilitarianism gets a few things right.
Utilitarianism succeeds in: ( 1 ) Consideration of the pleasance and hurting of persons ( 2 ) Not leting persons to set their personal feelings or relationships in front of others ( 3 ) Trying to supply an nonsubjective and quantitative method for doing moral determinations. It is of import to see the pleasance and hurting of every person in that it causes us to reflect our moral intuitions. It forces us to analyze each individual and ask: is what I am making morally right?
Further. non leting personal feelings or relationships in determination devising shows the importance of nonpartisanship in determination devising. By making that. you are forced to look at the nonsubjective facts or state of affairs. whereas a personal prejudice could do a skewed determination doing which may non be the best determination in hindsight. Finally. by using a quantitative method for doing moral determinations. Utilitarianism revives the general attitude towards moralss. It is excessively frequently. that in doctrine and in other subjects. moralss is merely casted out as being merely one’s personal feelings.
With utilizing mathematical computation in determination devising. utilitarianism Fosters rational determination devising in that it is impossible for you to set your ain prejudice Forth and creates an nonsubjective history of moralss. To exemplify the effectivity of utilitarianism: Suppose your best friend and coworker. Erin. is bust and bluish greens some money from your foreman in order to purchase nutrient. Later. your foreman finds out that he has a important sum of money losing from his billfold.
Knowing he surely did non pass the money. he so realizes that the merely plausible account of his losing money is theft. He so asks five of his employees ( yourself included ) if they had taken or heard some money losing. Naturally. the employees say no. though we know Erin took it. In his fury. he threatens to fire three of the employees at random if person does non squeal. The three coworkers who did non take anything are contending amongst themselves. faulting each other on stealing money. even though. they did non make it. You know Erin took it. though she begs you to maintain quiet. In this state of affairs. a useful would keep the public-service corporation rule.
Granted. there may be personal feelings involved ; you know Erin is financially in problem and she is your best friend. the personal connexion would non play a function in your determination devising. If you turn in Erin for the action she did. you have an 80 % opportunity of maintaining your occupation and those around you. Now. if you choose non to state. you run the hazard of perchance being fired for something you did non make. so at the lower limit. 60 % of the people will be fired. go forthing merely two.
So. being a good useful. you turn in your broke friend. Now. even though her purpose was a baronial one ( seeking to feed her hungry girl ) . utilizing useful based decision-making. you have ( a ) non allowed your personal feelings to acquire involved even though you know she needs it and her purpose was to feed herself. ( B ) have employed an nonsubjective determination utilizing useful concretion and ( degree Celsius ) saved 4 peoples occupations and fiscal stableness without running the hazard of turning in the incorrect individual.
Though. in so far as Utilitarianism is. at the surface degree. a baronial philosophy seeking to account for every person in doing determinations. it is of import to raise some expostulations against the philosophy in as being a coherent system of moralss.
The Utility rule serves as a guideline in finding which actions are the most moral that which we should execute. Harmonizing to Utilitarians. we are morally obligated to see all possible effects of an action and pick the one which has the best effects. “Best. ” as defined by the public-service corporation rule: Always produce the greatest sum of felicity for the greatest figure of people ( Mill 78 ) . From this rule. we can reason that moral felicity is entirely dependent on each individual being given equal consideration. While that seems sensible. when we look a small closer. we find a agape hole.
When we say “the greatest figure. ” what do we truly intend? Do we intend the greatest sum of people happy? Do we intend the greatest mean sum of people happy? Which one is it? To exemplify this confusion. see five friends seeking to make up one’s mind which film to travel see ; let’s typify it as A and B. In add-on. each individual will stand for one felicity point ( HP ) . Suppose three of them already have their Black Marias set on seeing A. So. watching A will ensue in three people happy with two being upset. bing 1 overall HP.
The lone other pick. B. will ensue in two happy campers and three disquieted motion-picture fans. ensuing in a -1HP. Bing good utilitarians. we decide to take A. go forthing us positive in happiness points. Suppose we discover that the three people desiring to watch A are still merrily willing to see B ; should B hold been the better pick? If we see B. two will be enraptured and the other three still happy. This. in consequence. will raise the greatest figure of people and the greatest sum of felicity. turn outing to be the better determination. With the overall entire sum of felicity increased. it is clip to see the film.
Suppose A is within walking distance. whereas B is non. If they see A. all five can travel. plus their kids. ensuing in a greater addition of the overall sum of felicity. Sounds good. though things get messy in making the math. The two people non desiring to see A stand for a -2 in HP’s. So while the overall felicity is greater. the mean felicity is now decreased. This is an EXAMPLE OF HOW THE AVERAGE HAPPINESS AND THE OVERALL HAPPINESS MAY DIFFER1. ACCORDING TO THE useful rule. one must give each individual equal consideration in finding felicity.
As we can see. seeking to cipher each possible effect for an action can acquire confusing and boring. Furthermore. non merely does the useful rule battle when seeking to cipher the best effect of each action. but begs the inquiry: what is the value of one’s life? Imagine a adult male who can non see felicity. His tempers switch from hurting to apathy. due to a neurological lack. Besides. he is isolated on an uninhabited island. While the adult male is clearly unhappy. he does non desire to decease.
His ground: he would instead be alive so dead. Is it morally right to kill 1 Mathematical dislocation for farther elucidation: 10 people in total= 10 HP 2 People non desiring to see A= -2 HP 10-2= 8HP= 80 % mean felicity. Entire sum of felicity is greater than earlier. Entire mean sum is decreased him? In sing the public-service corporation rule. his life has no felicity. Further. he can non make any felicity for himself and there are no other people around to profit from him ; he merely has the possibility of hurting. Therefore. killing him would ensue in less aggregative hurting for him. From this. the useful would hold to state that this is the right class of action.
This seems counterintuitive. What that useful is neglecting to disregard is the right to the man’s life. Even if his life has no value or felicity. he has still expressed his desire to populate. In doing the determination to kill him anyhow. the useful is puting no value on the man’s life ; the useful is playing God in stating that the morally right thing to make would be put him out of his wretchedness. What I have shown is that utilitarianism strips a individual from their unity by using this type of “moral math” in make up one’s minding the most morally merely determination.
To cipher the result of a state of affairs that is derived from a rule specifying morally right actions as whichever state of affairs has more people ignores the fact that as worlds have a personal relation with the universe. That is. that every individual has a set of alone feelings toward others and the universe we live in. These feelings help determine our moral compass and give us an individuality which aids us in assisting doing moral determinations. Looking back at the adult male on the island. the public-service corporation rule was at the forefront–tipping the proverbial graduated table towards the largest figure and how they could profit. while disregarding the moral value of the person.
In reasoning. Utilitarianism is a baronial theory at its Southern Cross. but its criterion for finding morally right actions as defined by the public-service corporation rule forces a individual to be acted upon instead than to move. Mentions: Gendler. Tamar. Susanna Siegel. and Steven M. Cahn. “Selections From Utilitarianism” by John-Stuart Mill. The Elementss of Doctrine: Readings from past and Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008. 498-511. Print J. J. C. Smart. Bernard Williams Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1973. Print.
