Sterling Harwoods Objections to Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Sterling Harwood’s Objections to Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that happiness is the only intrinsic good. It argues that the value of any human act is only determined by its contribution in the general usefulness, contentment, and pleasures of human beings. This implies that its aim is to appraise the ethical value of human action based on happiness. Whatsoever creates the greatest part contentment in many people is the ethical course of action. A number of critiques of utilitarianism arise. However, the strongest criticisms are those in the article of “Eleven Objections of Utilitarianism” by Sterling Harwood. Harwood’s eleven objections are that Utilitarianism is excessively demanding, it abolishes supererogation, it is unjust, it fails to take promises seriously enough. Average and total Utilitarianism reveals irrationalities, rule-Utilitarianism is disjointed, it obliges people to move in the knowledge machine, and it exaggerates people’s responsibilities to animals. It pander to chauvinist and sadists, it makes social contrasts of utility, it is also is very secretive among others. Harwood applies his objections to the twelve accounts of Utilitarianism, which include aim, action, rule, standard, totality, self-indulgent, eudemonistic, wellbeing, preference-satisfaction, felt-satisfaction, unenthusiastic, and perfect utilitarianism. Therefore, as much Sterling finds several his objections compelling, this essay will select three of his objections and develop a rebuttal to them from the utilitarian perspective. Objection of excessive demands According to this objection, utilitarianism demands too much from human beings when argued from a real life situation. Harwood’s objects the utilitarianism opinion, which demands individuals to save the life of five strangers rather than that of their loved ones. This implies that people should give up nearly everything to assist those in need. For instance, one person should sacrifice his or her life for the sake of three or more people to survive. The person will make more people happy at the expense of his or her happiness; this may be applicable to cases of healthiness or wealth. Utilitarianism maintains that a person ought to act in a manner that increases universal happiness even though the action does not make him happy. This action reveals how unrealistic the demands of utilitarianism are towards human nature. For utilitarianism, sacrificing a single person to save many is justifiable because it is ambitious of figures. Utilitarianism seems to coincide with religion, like utilitarianism, religion asks people to sacrifice their lives for the sake of their friends benefit. However, Harwood objects these demands by saying that it is impossible to detach an individual’s life for the sake of others, this discredits utilitarianism viewpoint (McElwee 457). Objection of Unjust According to Harwood, utilitarianism is unfair and it is the truth. Justice cannot be compared with cheerfulness or contentment in the world. Actually, actions of justice may probably result in resentment, disputes, as well as hostility amongst communities. For instance, if the marginal people in a community are greatly singled out, and they happen to be satisfied with it due to the many benefits it brings them, then that is good according to utilitarianism. Therefore, no protests should be made because they will lead to chaos among the majority and the marginal. Likewise, utilitarianism is concerned with numbers; therefore, the utmost contentment is when the highest numeral of people is satisfied. This indicates that the decisions to be made are usually unfair and do not do justice to those who are justifiable; for example, a scientist who kills his son prior to finding the cure out the cure for cancer. Utilitarianism will permit the scientist to carry on with the discovery of the cure before he is jailed. This is because if he finds the cure for the illness, the life of several patients will be achieved (McElwee 461). On the contrary, according to utilitarianisms, the life of the murdered son is defenseless. However, Harwood presents his defensive mechanism by criticizing the utilitarianisms. He argues that an ethical principle that protects every human right and the imaginable predicaments has to be developed. He says that despite the fact that the incident appears impractical, there is a high possibility that it happens in future. To him if they do not happen, then there is no need for people to think about them. Another manner in which utilitarianism reveal their unjust acts is whereby they permit ill treatment of others in society, for example, through the encouragement of slavery. For example, one slave serving five people at the same time is injustice; this is for the reason that the number of people outnumbers the slave; however, to utilitarianism, slavery should not be eliminated. Objection to experience machine Harwood's objection to utilitarianism based on the disagreement that utilitarianism requires people to go through the experience machine and spend their complete lives in there. It is argued that people should spend their entire lives in the experience machine because it is entitled to utmost pleasures. People questions Harwood’s response saying that it is humorous and triggers reality. They argue that a life spent in experience machine is unrealistic and degrades people’s lives making it more invaluable. This is because for utilitarianism, the entire good is obtained if one is satisfied and happy, and it places no intrinsic worth on reality, truth, and knowledge that are crucial features of life, but are not present in the machine. Additionally, it is as if a life spent in a machine creating happiness will be to some extent self-centered and unproductive. Thus, if one spends the entire life in a machine, there is a possibility they will not meet somebody they care for and then have children in order to maintain the evolution of human race. Conversely, Harwood’s objection to the experience machine is not true; for instance, on earth, there are hustles that make one to struggle to make ends meet. This implies that there is much displeasure as well as happiness because one has to go through this life experience. Nevertheless, other people go through more struggles than others do; thus, they end up committing suicide in order to put an end to their discomfort and anguish. Therefore, for one who is experiencing discomfort and anguish finds it valuable to spend his or her entire life in a machine as compared to the one who values happiness. He or she will find it unrealistic to enter the machine. Therefore, as much as life experience in the machine maybe unrealistic to those who value happiness, it is equally realistic to those who find life to be full of discomfort and anguish, thus, Harwood’s objection may be bogus (McElwee 465). Conclusion Utilitarianism is condemned due to its failure of containing intrinsic ethical significance. Therefore, utilitarianisms take full advantage of the effectiveness that they produce. Furthermore, the utilitarian theory argues that whenever decisions are made, there might be a contradiction. They also maintain that contentment is their main concern since it is intrinsically good. Therefore, if flouting of an oath will result in greater contentment, then there is no wrong of flouting that oath. Alternatively, some of Harwood objections are illogical, and he concurs with the fact saying that it is because of the intuitive human behavior. However, some philosophers do not agree with his reasoning because some of his objections put utilitarianism against commonsense morals. This is because they feel that human behaviors are capable of changing with time to accomplish their ultimate goals of life. Therefore, they propose that whenever creating the ideal ethical theories for human race, these objections should be considered. In addition to that, they propose that human beings should adopt satisfactorily or some new accounts of utilitarianism. Work Cited McElwee, Brian. "Impartial Reasons, Moral Demands." Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 14.4 (2011): 457-466. Read More