Utilitariansim: Strengths and Limitations

Utilitarianism- Journal Questions (Formative Assessment)

1a) What are the strengths of Utilitarianism?

1b) Utilitarianism has several limitations. Identify two limitations and suggest improvements to Utilitarianism that enable it to avoid these limitations.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory: it holds that we ought to act in whatever way has the best consequences (i.e. the greatest "utility"). For most utilitarians, this means maximising the good and minimising the bad. Utilitarianism works on the fundamental assumption that we should always try to make as many people as possible as happy as possible (The Greatest Happiness Principle). Despite sometimes being unable to account for such fundamental moral concept as justice, rights, or freedom, Utilitarianism does have its strengths.

Firstly, Utilitarianism is an objective theory: it is a practical method for calculating how one should act regardless of personal confusion. If one has a difficult decision to make, Utilitarianism is a simple principle that can be applied to make that decision, or solve conflicts of self-interest. Conveniently, utilitarianism uses a common denominator Ð'- pleasure or happiness Ð'- to which consequences of actions are reduced. This allows for a calculation, so to speak, to be performed, and one's moral duty to be determined, regardless of how complex and challenging the actual case is.

For example, an underage boy considers going to a party where he knows there will be alcohol

and he will probably get drunk. The utilitarian would weigh the happiness of himself, his friends, his family members and relatives, and those who hear about the case. Also, he would consider the fact that he might get caught, and thus also calculate the relative pleasure garnered from his going to the party. Utilitarianism is quite straightforward to apply Ð'- with the exception of vagueness regarding calculation and ways of counting intensity and permanence of pleasures (a common argument being that there is no definite way or unit to measure emotions), the method is not difficult to understand.

Secondly, Utilitarianism could be considered a theory that encourages unselfish acts. Utilitarianism requires a benevolent attitude toward one's fellow man. Being concerned only with one's own happiness would not maximize happiness in society, so the utilitarian would not have a tendency to perform selfish acts.

Take this case study: A man has an extra $150. He considers taking the family to Disneyland because he knows where to get some discount tickets and it would be fun, mostly for his two boys but to a lesser degree fun for his wife and himself. Also, he considers putting the money into a college fund for both boys. He could also buy the oldest boy a bike, yet this would cause his younger son jealousy and resentment, and hence he would feel guilt from causing these feelings. Neither would be happy if he got them both used bikes. Thus, the utilitarian's ulitimate moral principle would be benovelence, which is surely a good thing in today's competitive society. Utilitarianism also upholds the moral concept of equality to some extent.

Lastly, Utilitarianism is consistent with many ethical positions human beings have. Unlike most other ethical theories, Utilitarianism has the apparent advantage that it includes in its compass not only rational Ð'- i.e. human beings, but all sentient beings (those that can experience pain and pleasure). Thus, utilitarian ethicists do not leave out animals and hence cruelty toward animals can be consistently condemned by utilitarian theory. Also, Utilitarianism is agreeable to some ethical positions from other traditions, for example, Christianity, which holds that human beings should love, benefit, and avoid harm to other human beings, and thus have a end product of happiness in this life and the rewards of heaven in the afterlife.

Moving on, as I have mentioned in the beginning, there are some weaknesses to Utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism can tell us to do things that seem (by other standard) immoral, torture being one example. Take this scenario: terrorists have hidden a bomb in a crowded public place, the location of which is unknown. One of the terrorists has been captured- if one decides to torture the terrorist, one could find the location of the bomb, disarm it, and save thousands of innocent lives. Thus, using the concept of Consequentialist Utilitarianism, one would be justified in torturing the terrorist. The terrorist experiences discomfort (i.e. not pleasure), versus the pleasure we have garnered in the members of the public. The pleasure gained by the public far outweighs the negative pleasure experienced by the terrorist.

Taken by itself, Utilitarianism can justify actions that non-utilitarians would usually condemn. Some utilitarians have even maintained that in certain