A Critical Examination of Utilitarianism as a Moral

Principle

Importance of Utilitarianism in Ethics:- 

One of the most significant moral ideas is Utilitarianism. For utilitarianism, the

ethical duty is to be discovered during an assessment of the consequences of an
action. ... More specifically, utilitarianism finds moral value in those actions which
maximize overall pleasure – the happiness of the largest number of people.
Utilitarianism is an effort to answer the practical question “What ought a person to
do?” The answer is that a person ought to act to maximize happiness or pleasure
and to minimize unhappiness or pain. Utilitarian’s follow the following steps to
make decisions: First, recognize different alternative courses of action available to
us. Second, ask who will be affected by each action and what advantages or harms
order be derived from each. In other words, do the cost-benefit judgment of each
alternative action. Third, take the action that will provide the greatest advantage
and the least hurt/pain. The right action is the one that gives the greatest good for
the largest number of people. Utilitarianism claims to be a theory that invites
common sense. It is surely a matter of common sense that if we want to achieve
moral acts moving people, we should want to make them happy. For utilitarianism,
it does not matter at all whether we expect to make people happy. As said already,
utilitarianism is a consequentiality system; it pays notice to results; all that matters
is that the issue of our action redounds to the greatest possible satisfaction of the
greatest possible number. A strange conclusion of this is that we are deemed to
have done something moral even if our goals for helping the largest possible
number of people are not at all moral; even if they are self-interested. The concept
of individual freedom guaranteed by laws puts the race of heaven by that person’s
definition in his or her own hands. I don’t find it a reasonable expectation that a
small group or single individual can provide that for others. Moreover, I find it
destructive to have a community that puts that expectation on others. Utilitarianism
is a failure as narrative ethics. People don't act in the way that utilitarianism says
they should. Instead, a mixture of evolutionary theory and game theory offers a
reasonable answer for ethical behavior. However, utilitarianism seems to be
attractive as an idea of unselfishness. Some wish to signal unselfishness as part of
their virtue signaling strategy. Ethical philosophers, school leaders, beauty contest
participants, and single people appear to be among those looking for this type of
kindness super stimulus. Utilitarianism offers a powerful vision of moral life, one
that promises to reduce or eliminate moral disagreement. If we can agree that the
idea of morality is to make the world a better place and if we can scientifically
assess the various possible courses of action to determine which will have the
greatest positive effect then we can provide a scientific answer to the question of
what we ought to do. This is significant because it takes into kindness the value of
a community over the importance of an individual. It proposes the serious question
of living your life within the community while exploring special pleasure. There
are ethical difficulties that follow this line of thinking. The utilitarian includes all
of the good and bad produced by the act, whether rising after the act has been
performed or during its performance. If the difference in the consequences of
alternative acts is not great, some utilitarian’s do not regard the choice between
them as a moral issue. According to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right
or wrong only if the consequences are of such significance that a person would
wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in a
preferred manner. Utilitarianism has so far been conferred as a highly abstract
philosophical concept, as an attempt to give a very general account of the nature of
moral thinking. Some attempt has been made to describe some of the principal
answers given by various utilitarian’s to two of the necessary questions with which
they are confronted. Utilitarianism is now frequently used as a projective course,
expecting something like ‘using a person as a means to an end or even more
serious. Same as some kind of ethical dystopia.
 
Description: 
History of utilitarianism:
The elements of utilitarianism are drawn back to the Epicureanism of the supporters of
Greek philosopher Epicurus. It could move argued that David Hume and Edmund
Burke did proto utilitarian’s. Though it is a particular school of spirit, it is attributed to
the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). He found pain and pleasure to
be the only intrinsic values in the world and he derived the rule of utility; which claims
the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Bentham, himself connected
the elements of the theory to Joseph Priestly (1733-1804) who was the founder of
utilitarianism in England. Later John Stuart Mill argued that cultural, intellectual, and
spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure as valued by a
competent judge. The classical utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill influenced many
other more moral philosophers and the development of different types of
consequentialism. 
Utilitarianism is a collection of philosophical positions. It has five major
characteristics: 
1. Universalism: Universalism means that morality is universal, that the same
moral standards apply to all people and all situations. These standards define what
the same is for me and you, regardless of who we are. A vital consequence of this
view is that the utility of all people is important and is assumed to be equally
important. 2. Consequentialism: Utilitarianism is the consequences of the action.
For utilitarians it is the real-world results of something that are good or bad; not
something intrinsic to the action itself. Like telling a lie would be bad if it
produced bad consequences. It wouldn’t be wrong just because it is a lie. This view
is quite controversial. 3. Welfarism: This view says that good consequences are
those which increase the well-being of specific people. This well-being is
subjective. The exact view of welfare varies but is always something like
happiness, the satisfaction of performances, attainment of goals, or something else
like what. What is good is the welfare of people and the welfare of people depends
on whether each person as an individual is living a good life from their perspective.
4. Aggregation: Utilitarianism is an aggregative philosophy, which means that its
conception of individual goods allows them to be summed up into a single measure
of the overall good. Aggregation is controversial because many people believe that
the welfare of different people cannot even in principle be compared. 5.
Maximization: Utilitarianism is the most popular maximizing philosophy. It says
that, whatever is good, it is best to have as much of that good as possible. It brings
out the highest level of welfare. All philosophers are not maximizing. Some
inconsequential philosophers say that it is not right to do something bad even if
that will reduce the total amount of bad things in the world. For all those
characteristics, utilitarianism is best described as the ethical philosophy; says the
morality of actions is proportional solely to how effectively their consequences
maximize utility. The utility is the welfare of individual people and one person’s
utility is as important as another’s. 
There are mainly two types of utilitarianism. 
 Rule utilitarianism: It claims that the most important means of creating the
greater good for humanity is to have a moral code with rules of conduct clearly
understood. These moral rules can’t but lead to the maximum amount of happiness,
productivity, and utility for the maximum number of people. For example, murder
is wrong because it leads to reduced utility and reduced happiness in society. 
 Act utilitarianism: It is the theory of ethics that states that a person’s act is
morally right and only if it makes the best possible results in that specific situation.
According to act utilitarianism, if the lethal injection promoted overall well-being
at least as much as any act the doctor could have performed then it was right. 

Criticisms for utilitarianism: 

Here should stay shown that explaining also including an agreement in some
people is hard. Not only in culture yet further in the system. Guardians note that
this much difficulty does successfully won in everyday life. This complex struggle
of utilitarianism is that the fun of a sadist should display the demand of an altruist;
although protectors have countered that sadists make comparatively less so their
active impact would remain insignificant also that this damage endured by others
would compensate any joy revealed with the sadist. Extra thought; determinism
means both true or false. If this is true, later we have no natural choice beyond our
progress; if it is false then the results from our lives stay variable. Utilitarianism
becomes been criticized for only seeing at the results of actions, not at the wishes
or purposes which move them, which several people think necessary. 
A critical analysis (strength and weakness): Utilitarianism is importantly a moral
theory. The first premise of the theory is hedonism, a psychological theory. By
hedonism, the main aim of life is the accomplishment of the greatest joy. As per
this theory, the estimation of an act is to be surveyed based on the joy and agony
which it gives. It has strength and weakness like: 

Strength:
 1.Act utilitarianism is practical and directs on the importance of action. 
2.Satisfaction is an essential part of decision-making as it is the principal purpose
in life for several people. 
3.Here system tells everyone is similar careless of emotional or familiar
attachments.
4.This theory follows that the greatest happiness for the largest number. 
5.Bentham gave people a way to include happiness through the hedonic calculus. 
Weakness :
1.Utilitarianism explores the prediction of the consequences of an impossible act. 
2.Remarkable characters deserve Bentham performed the naturalistic fallacy of
receiving an ought from an is. 
3.Utilitarianism fails to objectify that we have certain duties and obligations to
others. 
4.Satisfaction is subjective. Because someone gains happiness in shopping and
someone finds happiness in murder. 
5.Through utilizing the hedonic analysis to calculate the greatest happiness for the
greatest number is impractical. 

Conclusion:

The two key ideas in utilitarian reason—happiness and importance—are problematic.

Whereas deontology assigns the moral value on something essential on the cause of
his/her plans utilitarianism assigns moral direction toward something external to the
means the action’s outcomes in terms of pleasure produced. For deontologists, the
end never supports the means; for utilitarian’s, the end always explains the centers.
Note that both methods are based on a policy. For Kant, the principle is certainly
important and for Mill, it is the principle of utility. Every final principle in general
law is to help the good or natural and in understanding theory, it is to do what is in
our interest. But maybe all of these methods are too formal and accurate. Does there
any ideas of moral duty that are less reliant on objective, abstract, moral principles
and more contingent upon individual, concrete, personal experience? This is on such
a theory that we now turn. 
This fundamental weakness of utilitarian ethics is that it is difficult to manage in
the workplace. Characters are involved to adjust to themselves before others,
getting it challenging to practice utilitarianism. Anyways, besides hard work and
determination, anyone can generate the type of working environment that all desire
for themselves. While applying utilitarianism, we need to make decisions based on
a holistic view of the satisfaction gained and suffering ended. We should make so
with a strong decision to the higher pleasures and long term happiness.
Utilitarianism help leads us to a systematic way that will better society most
definitely, free of ideological dogmas. By trying to address the root cause of
difficulties of our community; also taking the way that overcomes the greatest pain
across the whole of the community, we can make progress to the quality of life for
all citizens equitably without irrational dogmas.

References:
 1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy
2. https://lawbhoomi.com/theory-of-utilitarianism-a-critical-analysis/
3. https://karlgroves.com/2017/09/02/applying-utilitarianism
4. https://futureofworking.com/workplace-example-of-utilitarianism-ethics/