Uncovering the Principles of Morality through Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Philosophy Uncovering the Principles of Morality through Utilitarianism There are certain events in life that an individual needs to decide what the right thing to do is. For most people, they tend to listen to their conscience as their guide. Some situations call for making tough decisions wherein both options seem to be the right thing to choose. This is where the purposes of morality can be an individual’s guide in making the correct decision. The three of the purposes of morality as mentioned by Pojman and Fieser in the book entitled, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, are to promote human flourishing, to improve human suffering and to resolve conflicts of interest justly. One type of consequentialist ethics is Utilitarianism, which aims to meet the said purposes of morality. Utilitarianism is a universal and dominant version of teleological ethics which calls for the maximization of goodness in society—that is, the greatest goodness for the greatest number—and not merely the good of the agent (Pojman & Fieser 102). Classic Utilitarianism One of the earliest examples of utilitarian reasoning as cited by Pojman and Fieser is found in Sophocles’ Antigone where King Creon was faced with a tragic task of sacrificing his beloved niece named Antigone, who has violated the law by performing funeral rites over her brother, Polynices (102). In this situation, King Creon believed that it is necessary to sacrifice one person rather than expose his society to the dangers of rebelliousness regardless of the person’s innocence or social standing (Pojman & Fieser 102). As a formal ethical theory, the foundation of utilitarianism was built on by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who said that pleasure is the goal that nature has ordained for individuals; it is also the standard by which people judge everything as good (Pojman & Fieser 103). This view explains that rightness and wrongness are determined by pleasure or pain that something produces. With this theory, many other philosophers were inspired to focus on the notion of general happiness which stresses that the happiness of the majority must be considered over individual happiness. An example of this is the theory of Francis Hutcheson which stated that the action that is best is the action that produces the greatest happiness of the greatest numbers (Pojman & Fieser 103). David Hume was the one who introduced the term utility to describe the pleasing consequences of actions as they affect people (Pojman & Fieser 103). The classical expressions of utilitarianism are discussed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to Jeremy Bentham, there are two main features of utilitarianism and these are the consequentialist principle and the utility principle. The consequentialist principle states that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow from it; it is the end, not the means that counts, the end then justifies the means (Pojman & Fieser 103). On the other hand, the utility or hedonist principle states that the only thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state like pleasure, happiness and welfare; it views pleasure as the sole good and pain as the only evil (Pojman & Fieser 103). Act-and-Rule Utilitarianism According to Act-Utilitarianism, an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative (Pojman & Fieser 103). Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, individuals must first consider the possible outcomes of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what they believe will give them the most pleasure. On the other hand, the Rule-Utilitarianism stated that an act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative (Pojman & Fieser 103). This asserts that the best chance of maximizing utility is by following the set of rules most likely to give us our desired results and because morality is a social and public institution, individuals need to coordinate our actions with others so that they can have reliable expectations about other people’s behavior (Pojman & Fieser 103). The rule utilitarian begins by looking at possible rules of action. To know whether a rule should be obeyed, the outcome of constantly following that certain rule is considered. If continuous observance of the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, that said rule must then be obeyed at all times. The variation between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequential calculation—specific to a case or generalized to rules and also to achieve the greater good for the greater number of people. Rule utilitarianism has been disapproved for supporting general rules that, in some particular situations, obviously decrease happiness if obeyed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a noble principle, but it could make self-defense against mean aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians mentioned, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness, one example is self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules pointless. Rule utilitarians gave emphasis that rules in the legal system like laws that regulate such situations are not pointless. Self-defense is legally defended, while murder is not. However, within rule utilitarianism there is a difference between the sternness and totalitarianism of this specific branch of utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an unqualified theory, which encloses firm rules that apply for all people and all the time and may never be broken. On the contrary, Weak Rule utilitarianism, which says that although rules should be based on previous examples that benefit society, it is possible, under particular situations, to do what provides the greatest happiness and to not follow that rule. Conclusion Morality aims to achieve what will be good for the human persons. First, it encourages human success like with utilitarianism; it aims to promote what is good for human society. However, utilitarianism does not focus on what would give success to the human person as an individual. If a certain thing would give success to the person but the society would not benefit from it, utilitarians believe that this should not be followed. Morality also aims to decrease human suffering. Utilitarianism fulfills this again as a whole by saying that whatever will cause harm to the human society as a whole should be disregarded or should be removed. For example, if building a factory in a specific place would cause harm to the health of a community in general then the plan of building a factory must not be continued. However, it fails to attend to what would benefit the person as an individual. For example, as mentioned previously, if someone breaks a rule for a good reason and if most individuals of the society strictly follow the classic version of utilitarianism, that one person who violated a particular rule even because he believes it is the right thing to do and in fact, it is indeed the right thing would be condemned by the majority for not strictly following the beliefs and ways of their community. Lastly, morality aims to resolve conflicts of interest justly. In some aspects of utilitarianism, this purpose of morality is fulfilled like in the case of a modified Rule-Utilitarianism. It is a rule to never kill a human being but if killing someone was because an individual had to defend himself then it can be allowed for that event and that person who committed that might not be condemned. Here it is clear that the conflict of strict observance of the rule of not killing any human being and the justified reason why an individual had to do it was settled fairly. Utilitarianism therefore, is able to fulfill the goals of morality in certain aspects in the sense that its founding principle of achieving the common good is beneficial however, it still needs modification for it failed to uphold the entire essence of morality for it aims to achieve happiness whatever means possible even if it would mean hurting someone along the way. Works Cited: Pojman, Louis P. and James Fieser. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Boston, USA: Cengage Learning, 2011. Read More