The Ultimate Sanction of the Principle of Utility - Essay Example

Outline Introduction About Utilitarianism Body The ultimate sanction of the principle of Utility Connection between Justice and Utility Can Utilitarianism doctrine be proofed? Flaws of Utilitarianism Conclusion My view on the Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Introduction In every day’s activities and responsibility, each and every individual has to make decisions that can either be short-term or long-term. The option and the responsibility of having to make daily critical decisions are referred what is known as a moral doctrine. Utilitarianism, an example of an ethical theory, is very difficult to understand. Despite the fact that many people perceive utilitarianism as an attractive and way of life to some, in the real sense it has got some major faults(Baggini and Southwell). Utilitarianism, a moral theory, explicitlyconditions thatany action did willingly or any decision made by an individual if it meets the requirements for standard utility then it is morally right. It is from the definition of Utilitarianism that it is clear that a Utilitarian can do something if and only if the outcomes give more pleasure or less pain for all individuals involved. Utilitarianism has two theories that hedonism and eudaimonism, despite the fact that its definition is similar to that of consequentialism. Hedonism theory claims that the only things with core value in life are avoiding pain and having thepleasure(Singer). On the other hand,eudaimonism theory argues that the only key value in life is happiness and is greater than pleasure. The ultimate sanction of the principle of Utility Any moral philosophy should try to answer questions such as; what motives are to obey, what is its sanction? What the source of obligation is and does it derive its binding force? However, many philosophies assume the questions are hence ignoring the shape of an objection to the Utilitarian morality. The sanctions around Utilitarianism or the principle of utility are either external or internal. External sanctions include things like thehope of favour and the fear of displeasure from God or other people. It can also include the love, sympathy to God and human beings and the way God wants His will done irrespective of a person’s selfish consequences. All the external sanctions for observance are connected to the Utilitarian morality and are considered very powerful. The motives that refer to fellow human beings should have a basis of moral obligation but not just the general happiness or the human desires of pleasure. The defectivecharacter of the human beingswhich is attributedto their actions does not deny them their desires. In order to get and maintain their hopes, they end up condemning all conducts of others in favour of themselves by which they think that they are promoting their happiness. In the religious point of view, if men have faith in their actions and thattheir motives are according to the will and goodness of God, then for those who think that but from the conduciveness to general happiness must believe that it is also what God approves.The external rewards and punishments either from God or fellow colleagues are enough to empower the Utilitarian morality. The internal sanctions help cultivate moral natures to rising from the most impossible and severe cases (West). Connection between Justice and Utility The issue of justice has posed as a great obstacle to the ethical theory Utilitarianism because of the criterion of determining what is right and what is wrong (Mill). The feeling of justice is bestowed on humans by nature; it does not refer to any legitimate promptings. It is considered an act of injustice by the law depriving any person their personal property, right or any other thing that they own. It thus becomes clear that it is illegal to violate the rights and privileges of another person. A person may suffer from deprivation of rights because of the existence of a bad law. When such a scenario happens the opinions concerning the justice or injustice differ. Some hold to the point that there exists no law, however, harsh that is to be disobeyed by any citizen (Miller). The people who hold on to such opinions are the persons defend it bases their argument on the fact that the law is necessary and is to the benefit and favour of the mankind. However, there exists another different type of persons who believe that any law term as bad may be disobeyed even though not agreed has been unlawful. Despite the fact, that there are different opinions concerning justice, it is evident that there are unfair laws. The unjust laws are not the primary objectives ofjustice. However, this gives other individuals an opportunity to create and impose another unjust law. Can Utilitarianism doctrine be proofed? According to Utilitarianism, the questions asked are not subject to admit any proof according to the ordinary acceptation of the term. According to the Utilitarianism theory of moral ethics, the only desired outcome is happiness. Therefore, the doctrine is subject to questions such as, what conditions are there to be fulfilled in the doctrine in order to obtain happiness? It is difficult to proof the doctrine because for a proof to be valid and for people to believe it has to be something visible. (Miller).The only way to proof the doctrine is through sound for people to hear and listen backed up by other sources of experience. A person can only be convinced of the existence of the doctrine if what the principle states in theory and practice are achieved at the end of the situation. A person can only desire their happiness and believe that they can attain it but cannot be given any reasons for wishing happiness. In many occasions, happiness has proofed to be the outcome of many conducts and as one of the standards of ethics. However, it has not yet proofed to be a sole criterion. From the doctrine, people only desire happiness and can do anything they can just to fulfil the desire of happiness. They do all their things to attain happiness by the same rule. People, therefore,desire other things thatare put into a general term pleasure. For instance, people desire the extinction of vice but the dominance of virtue, which, in other words, can be termed as less pain and need for pleasure. The desire of both happiness and virtual is not collective but is rather a fact. To some extend Utilitarianism doctrine suppresses the thought that people desire virtue. The theory claims that virtue is desirable just like happiness, but the desire should be independent. Flaws of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism has some faults even though to many individuals it appears very attractive and friendly. One of the foremostimperfections of this moral theory is the failure to put into consideration the motive and actions involved during the time of decision-making. The theory only focusseson the outcomes of the decision but not the reason behind the decision. In any decision being made the most important and fundamental aspects are the actions and motiveswhich the theory consequentialist theories completely ignores(Stephen). For instance, a Utilitarian might consider the act of killing a homeless person as right and justified, arguing that it would hurt fewer people but benefit many. In order to justify the action, the Utilitarian may say that the homeless person are just but an annoyance and eyesores in the city. In addition, the homeless also abuse drugs and consume the taxpayers’ dollars in the funding of the homeless. According to Utilitarianism theory, the Utilitarian act of killing the homeless would be right because many people would benefit from the death. In my point of concern, the killing of the homeless person because they are a burden to the society is no justified reason and is not morally right. The act is wrong, according to me, even though the theory says that if the benefits of an action are many then the action is justified. With the trend of the Utilitarianism theory of moral code, there will come a time when all what people usually see as evil acts will be justified and be morally accepted.(Mukerji 397-312). Conclusion In the case of Mill’s Utilitarianism, a pure Utilitarian should make a decision that does not in any way affect the other fellow person and that the act is moral and justified. For instance in the case where the Utilitarian had to take life so as to provide a better life cannot be quantitatively measured hence the action can never be justified under the laws outlined by the theory of morality of Utilitarianism(Mill).According to Mill’s Utilitarianism, he says that a person is capable of making decisions that are one hundred percent accurate. It is, however, impossible to make such decisions because it cannot be measuredthe value of the pleasures and benefits acquired from the act practically. A person should decide on their own and find for the appropriate decisions and come to the best conclusions. I believe that Utilitarianism will never be accepted globally not practised because of the idea that decisions can be a hundred percent accurate. It is also difficult to grade it as a moral standard because each and every individual has their understanding and interpretation concerning the value of happiness and pleasures. Justice should always be the point of consideration whenever one is making a decision or when taking an action on anything. Human beings should be driven not by the desires to satisfy their pleasures but the character of sanctions. The highest virtue that a man can ever possess is the ability to forgo happiness for others to have a better life of thebenefit. The Utilitarianism doctrine only aims at the desire of happiness, it thus means that whatever is desired should in the result to happiness(Caesar). The persons who desire virtue only do so as to satisfy their consciousness of achieving pleasure, because if they do not get the pleasure it will result in consciousness pain. Hence the upholding of the Utilitarianism doctrine. Happiness cannot be measured since different people have different definitions and what they term as happiness. What one person finds as happiness might not be happiness to the next person. References Baggini, J., & Southwell, G. (2012). Philosophy: Key Themes. Palgrave Macmillan. Brink, D. O. (2013). Mills progressive principles. Oxford University Press. Brown, D. G. (2010). Mill’s moral theory: Ongoing revisionism. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 9(1), 5-45. Caesar, I. (2009). Why We Should Not Be Unhappy about Happiness via Aristotle (Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York). Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Broadview Press, 2010. Miller, Dale. John Stuart Mill. Polity, 2010. Mukerji, N. (2013). Utilitarianism. In Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics (pp. 297-312). Springer Netherlands. Singer, P. (Ed.). (2013). A companion to ethics. John Wiley & Sons. Stephen, L. (2011). The English Utilitarians (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press. West, Henry, ed. The Blackwell guide to Mills utilitarianism. John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Read More