Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism

Name:

Course:

Instructor:

Date due:

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism holds that an action is right if it guarantees and maximizes the happiness of all those it affects otherwise such an action is wrong. Bringing happiness should be the greatest goal of our actions (Mill, 1861).Utilitarianism hold that we are have a universal outlook of things when taking any action without taking into account our narrow and selfish interests or those of those that are close to us. Critics have argued that this moral view is very demanding because it often calls upon people to make massive personal sacrifices for the greater good of the universe.

No action is right in itself but according to the degree of happiness it brings. Happiness is comparative (great, greater, greatest) thus an action that leads to greatest happiness, out of all of possible actions that could have done is morally right. Utilitarianism is about the greatest happiness for as many people as possible. For instance, here is a thought experiment dilemma; A runway trolley is hurtling down towards five people who will be killed if nothing is done to stop or divert the trolley. However, the only alternative is to hit the switch to turn the trolley to another course that will in turn kill one person but the five would be saved. Should five people be saved at the expense of one? Moore, Clark and Kane (2008).

Most people will agree with the utilitarian action that the best thing to do maximize happiness is to hit the switch and save five people although one person would have to pay the ultimate price. This is in line with the utilitarian principle of the greatest happiness which holds that an action is right according to the proportion it tends to promote happiness and wrong according to the proportion it tends to promote the reverse

Now consider this example, you are standing on a footbridge with a bulky man overlooking a railway, a trolley is hurtling down towards ten men tied down and it will kill them if you don’t do anything about it. There is no time to go down the railway and untie the ten men but if you push the stranger standing next to you, his body will stop the trolley.Unlike the first the first example where most people would agree and readily push the switch to save five people, it is not as easy for anyone to hurl a fat man down to stop the trolley. It will be indeed be morally wrong to sacrifice a man, ignoring his screams and pleas for mercy because you are focused on maximizing happiness.

In my view these two examples critiques utilitarianism and proves how flawed this kind of thinking can be. One concern is that both examples assume that one has perfect information about outcomes. This is a flawed way of looking at things because in most cases life doesn’t pan out that way. We never have full information about anything we do. In most cases we act with half the information we need thus it would be disastrous to decide to end another person’s life to save others when you are not sure if the information upon which you are basing your information is complete and truthful.

Another critique of these kind of thinking and action is that it justifies bad policy. We have some high profile examples where some people were sacrificed for the sake of the greatest happy of many. For instance in the ancient Roman Empire, slave were used as gladiators forced to fight each other to death in the arenas for the entertainment of many other Romans. It gave many Romans lots of pleasure thus under the Utilitarianism such an action is considered morally right because it the pleasure created is more than the pain caused.

Another example is when President Truman ordered that atomic bombs to be dropped on Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to end the Second World War. The intention was to sacrifice a few non-combatants to save many others from the effects of war but what he never thought of is the long term effect of his actions.

In my view utilitarianism has many flaws and it is not an adequate moral theory. For instance: According to Bartels and Pizzaro (2011) people with antisocial tendencies are dispositions are the most likely to make utilitarian judgements .It is ironical that people who care the least about others would again be the ones who are more concerned about the greater good and happiness of humanity. Some antisocial people, driven by some antisocial forces within may an utilitarian judgement and it may appear that they were doing it for greater good but when that was never the intention. Such people are driven and controlled by a desire to harm others and not concerned about the greater good of humanity.

Utilitarianism also hold that my happiness doesn’t matter and it should not be taken into account when I am about to take an action. But rather I need to think of the proportion of happiness that my action will bring to many others. I consider that kind of thinking flawed because what it doesn’t say is that I am responsible for my actions. Utilitarianism says it is morally right to hurl the fat man down on the railway track so that I can save ten people but what isn’t considered is that I will be responsible for killing an innocent man and I may have to live with that the rest of my life.

Reference

Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1), 154-161.

Moore, A. B., Clark, B. A., & Kane, M. J. (2008). Who Shalt Not Kill? Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity, Executive Control, and Moral Judgment. Psychological Science, 19(6), 549-557.

Mill, J. S. (1861/2004). Utilitarianism and other essays. Penguin Books