The merits and draw backs of utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

The merits and draw backs of utilitarianism EssayWhat is utilitarianism? The enormousest favourable of the sterling(prenominal) number. Simple. Or is it? In whatever real situation, there ar many people involved they will entirely be bear upon in different slipway there is no reason why the greatest number should call for the greatest good.What is usually meant in practice by that slogan is something like the following procedure for choosing among two or more actions.1. take in at the put in of life after each action. Look in particular at the level of gladness of each somebody in the various situations. 2. cast up up, somehow, those levels of pleasure in each case.3. Compare the results. The one, which leads to the maximum total happiness, is the ( morally) justifiedly one.The thing to notice just ab issue this is that it actually involves a lot of quite separate principles. I think it is fair to say that they are all part of the idea of utilitarianism. Someone who accepts some of them and not others may reasonably be called a utilitarian, even if they would see the procedure above as a vague outline.* Actions, as such, commence no moral value. What matters is their instal on the state of the earth.* In fact, the scarcely aspect of the state of the world that has any direct moral significance is the happiness or misery of people.* In particular, only individuals matter. The only relevance of the state of a family is the effect it has on the individuals.* All people are, ethically speaking, equal, in all situations. One persons happiness is precisely as important as anothers.* It is possible to measure happiness, in the adoptful sense, on some sort of running(a) scale.* It is possible to add up different peoples degrees of happiness, producing a substantive total happiness.There is at least one important issue, which I havent addressed so ut roughly You have to pick out the entire future of the universe in order to fuck off you r decision. I shall consider the practical difficulties of this later there is also a theoretical issue we are presumably ask to add up the total measuring stick of happiness in a persons entire lifetime. So we need some sort of calculus for happinessUtilitarianism has the awkward property of seeming entirely obvious to its proponents, and all the way wrong to its opponents.There are no ethical first principles, which are hold on by e rattlingone. On the other hand, there is a striking level of agreement about what is actually right and wrong. Of course, there are disagreements. But there is something pretty remnant to an agreement that (in most cases) murder, lying, rape and thievery are great(p), and that (in most cases) generosity, healing, truthfulness and loyalty are good.One obvious thing that these spotlights have in common is that most of the universally agreed good things make people happy, and most of the universally agreed bad things make people sad.Furthermore, th e actions usually reckoned to be the worst are often the ones that cause the most suffering. Rape, for instance, which causes lasting psychological trauma as well as involving physical injury, is generally reckoned to be morally much worse than theft.So, utilitarianism seems to do a pretty good job of giving the right answers. It seems make up to me that, all else being equal, something that makes me happy is better than something which doesnt. After all, thats one way in which I make decisions (although I wouldnt in such cases call them moral decisions). Since it seems plausible that all people are ethically equal, this means that anything that makes anyone happy is better than something which does not. This seems to lead naturally to something very like utilitarianism.However, what Ive explained as utilitarianism has a abominable problem it does not support ethical points in certain cases.For instance, suppose that I could, by putting my grandmother through excruciates, reliev e a large number of people from one minutes toothache. No matter how small the amount of suffering from which each person is lifted of, and no matter how great the amount I cause to my grandmother, if the number of people is large enough then the total amount of suffering in the world will be decreased in this manner. Therefore I ought to torture my grandmother. This seems to me, unacceptable. This I see as a major weakness in utilitarianism.Of course, there are ways round this problem. For instance, we could model happiness and misery with a number system, containing values higher and lower in the sense that no multiple of one was as big as the other.So, we can get somewhat that particular problem. But, there are others, though I wouldnt claim any of them as an actual rejection of utilitarianism. I shall take the utilitarian principles I listed above, and describe some objections to them.* Actions, as such, have no moral value. What matters is their effect on the state of the worl d.Is this truly convincing? It doesnt seem so to me. If I kill someone, isnt there something very bad about that, even if the killing turns out to be right in terms of maximising utility? I think most people would agree that a killing of this sort would be evil.In fact, the only aspect of life that has any direct moral significance is the happiness or misery of people.Suppose I tell a lie about you to a friend of mine, who has never had and never will have any sort of interaction with you, and swear him to secrecy, this makes no difference whatsoever to your future happiness. Does that make it OK? It seems clear to me that it doesnt.Isnt there, in fact, something basically good about truth and bad about falsehood?Suppose I get enormous satisfaction from causing you minor but genuine unpleasantness. Does that mean that its right for me to do so?* In particular, only individuals matter. The only relevance of the state of a family is the effect it has on the individuals.* All people are, ethically speaking, equal, in all situations. One persons happiness is precisely as important as anothers.What about criminals? If someone is in the process of raping your wife, do you really have to consider their well being as carefully as your wifes in deciding how to go about stopping them?* It is possible to measure happiness, in the required sense, on some sort of linear scale.* It is possible to add up different peoples degrees of happiness, producing a meaningful total happiness.Is it obvious that different sorts of happiness are not easy to measure? How do you compare, the contentment person A has from knowing that his bullion in the bank is earning him piles of interest for his retirement, the wonder person B feels on looking at the starry sky, the thrill person C has when listening to her favourite piece of music, person Ds frolic of an evening listening to a stand-up comic, and so on? And how do you weigh those up against person Ps toothache, person Qs unhappy mar riage? I dont know thats for sure.Lets pretend that all those problems are resolved, and that I believe that utilitarianism is correct. I now have a decision to make for instance, I have to define whether to cycle home in the dark without lights or to be late home. This is a trivial pillow slip it should be easy to work it out. Not easy at all. I have to work out the entire future of the whole universe, to work out exactly how happy each person is in each case and for how long, and add it all up. Good griefIn practice, what the utilitarian recommends is entirely different. I should make guesses as to the likely effects of the actions Im considering, estimate the ends levels of happiness, and do the best I can at adding them up in my head. Anything more is impossible, and in any case I cant be charge for things I cant predict.Id now like to suggest that there are merits to utilitarianism, despite its drawbacks.The first point is one Ive made already utilitarianism does a pretty g ood job of giving answers to ethical questions. nearly of us are capable of guessing what will happen if and imagining others responses to situations.Also considering the greatest good of the greatest number can be an effective way of defeating prejudices and selfishness. This ethical harmony is, after all, quite close to such principles as Do to others as you would have them do to you and Love your neighbour as yourself.Lastly, I think any theory of ethics has to acknowledge that happiness and suffering are in themselves good and bad. This is why utilitarianism does as well as it does. But clearly happiness and suffering, pain and pleasure, arent the whole story.