Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Strength and Weakness of Utilitarianisms Name Institution Introduction Utilitarianism is one of the significant theories that concerns itself with actions that increase the happiness of the performer, as well as recipients of that action. During the 19th century, English economist such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bethan conceived that an action is right when it consequences is happiness for a greater number of people (Sheng, 2004). This theory has generated significant debate among philosophers considering that some critics disagree with the emphasis of the theory on happiness. Through the work of Mill and Bentham, it is essential for an action to create happiness and for the greatest number of people. For instance, government’s effort to provide healthcare that leads to happiness to majority of people is a right action (Hope, Savulescu & Hendrick, 2008). However, an action that leads to happiness for a greater number of people is wrong. These are the basic tenets of the utilitarianism theory, which has shaped ethical perspective in various disciplines. Largely, the utilitarianism theory provides answers to the question of “what ought a man do?” The answer according to the utilitarianism theory is on how best consequences provide happiness among people. The utilitarianism theory has a widespread application in many disciplines, but this has not prevented critics from pointing at some weaknesses of the theory. Nonetheless, the theory has some strengths, which point to its use. Basic Concept of the Utilitarianism Theory When discussing the theory of utilitarianism, the good and bad consequences are essential in informing the analysis of this theory. The consequences of an action could occur during the performance of an activity or its performance. Proponents of the utilitarianism theory, such as Mill agree that an action is morally right when if the consequences of the action compel a performer to act in a preferred manner. It is not by persuasion of exhortation that an individual perform an action, but because one is compelled to act in a given manner. An important aspect of the utilitarianism theory is the intrinsic value of an action. The main emphasis of the utilitarianism theory is the intrinsic value of action. This is the value of an action and does present a different implication from its consequences. Rather than focus on the consequences of an action to evaluate the actual value, the main emphasis is the intrinsic value of an action (Braybrooke, 2004). For this case, Mill and Bentham conceived happiness and pains as essential attributes that come into consideration when evaluating the worth of an action. In the first case, an action is morally right if it creates happiness, which is a universal value (Peter & Vardy, 2012). On the other hand, the lack of happiness is pain, which is a disvalue. Proponents of this theory, thus, strive to achieve value through actions that bring happiness rather than pain. These fundamental underpinning are essential in understanding the relation between weaknesses and strengths of the utilitarianism ethical theory. Weakness of Utilitarianism theory Several weakness mark the utilitarianism theory, despite it being a popular theory. The first weakness of the theory rests on the problem of motive. Critics argue that utilitarianism theory does not offer a plausible explanation of the motive behind moral actions. There is no doubt Mill and Bentham argued that a moral action should be one with the greatest happiness to many people (West, & Dawson, 2005). However, the duo do not offer an explanation why a performer should maximize pleasure through an action. The difficulty in defining the concept of happiness, presents a challenge to the application of this theory (Matzo & Sherman, 2010). This is because this theory encourages a performer to perform an action while failing to take into consideration the happiness of other people who are recipients of the actions and its consequences (Kizza, 2010). Because this theory disregard the desire of others to achieve happiness from an action, this factor remain a weakness, critics have raised in questioning the idea of achieving greatness happiness in the expense of other people. The issue of motive is also another weakness that undermines the strength of the utilitarianism theory. In ethics, the motive of an action comes into question considering that wrong motives could also lead to positive outcomes. This implies that the utilitarianism theory does not offer a robust way of limiting actors from using wrong motives to achieve a common good. For instance, the utilitarianism theory does not offer a robust approach to ending injustices such as economic exploitation where the motive of a business entity is make significant efforts (Shaw, 2011). By neglecting the role of motive in controlling the action of others, the utilitarianism theory fails to prevent consequences resulting from action of people with bad motives. That utilitarianism theory does not touch on the issue of motive; this seems to be a weakness of the theory in addressing ethical issues. Another challenge of utilitarianism theory is its emphasis on happiness, which is difficult to quantify. The principle driving force for all moral actions, according to utilitarianism theory, is happiness, but this attribute is not quantifiable (Fieldman, 2010). This challenge implies that a performer cannot regulate his or her action because it is possible to measure the level of happiness achieved at any point (Timmons, 2002). Further, the emphasis on happiness brings about a controversy whether happiness is a qualitative or a quantitative component. Given that the exact measure of happiness difficult to measure or quantity, there are cases where this theory presents challenges when conflicting interest are at hands. Critics of utilitarianism theory argue that this ethical framework undermine the call of duty when individuals choose to do a common good rather than executing their duty. There are times when a performer opts to implement an action for a common good with interest of generating happiness to others, but refraining from implementing what is dutiful (Crimmins, 2011). A classic example is lawyer who refuse to execute, but opts to distribute the wealth of his client to the needy. While the action of the lawyer seems rightful, the lawyer has the right to implement the will because it is a duty to his client. The focus of utilitarianism theory on immediate consequences implies that one’s action could lead to further consequences. When individuals apply the utilitarianism theory, they may have little concern for the future where their actions could have outcomes with far reaching implications (Marlin, 2002). For instance, a performer may opt for an action striving to achieve the greatest happiness in the immediate time. However, the same action could cause other cascading consequences in the future that could affect the recipients of the action in a plethora of ways. Strengths of Utilitarianism theory The most significant strength of the utilitarianism theory is if emphasis on happiness, which contributes to making the world a better place. There is no doubt happiness is one of the critical elements that makes people find reasons to live each day of the lives. As a result, the utilitarianism theory’s focus on promoting actions that create most happiness have a positive impact on shaping society. Miller and Bentham agree that moral actions are those whose outcome create the highest satisfaction (Bhargava, 2008). Consequently, individuals who subscribe to this notion will have their actions contribute to making a world a better place. For instance, a millionaire who spends his inheritance in buying gifts promotes happiness in society, as the recipients of the gifts will derive satisfaction from the action. This is case even when the millionaire fails to honor his father’s heed to use his riches wisely. Another strength of the utilitarianism theory is its practicality and usefulness in society. As a theory that defines moral action as those that promote the greatest happiness in society, it offers a framework of solve issues in a practical and useful way. An illustration is how governments spend funds on issue of national importance. More often than not, governments spends their fund on projects that bring most happiness to communities (MacKinnon, 2012). This explains why government would focus on expenditure such as health, which promotes the greatest happiness to communities that will benefit from health care services. Where there are few resources, this theory offers a robust and practical way government can spend their money with the intention of producing the highest level of satisfaction. The flexibility of the utilitarianism theory is another reason that makes the theory exemplary in giving people an opportunity to do any action, as long as it brings out the greatest happiness. There are more than one ethical theory and each of them offers a different focus. On the condition of utilitarianism theory, a moral action is one that brings greatest happiness, which gives people an opportunity to enjoy whatever happiness they desire (Hinman, 2007). The theory does not limit the level of happiness, but it gives leeway for people to strive for whatever level of happiness they find worthy (Shafer-Landau, 2012). In society, people find happiness in different way. Consequently, the utilitarianism theory gives people flexibility in choosing the most appropriate method, as people just need to do actions that meet their criteria for happiness. As compared to other theories of ethics, the utilitarianism theory is easy to apply and offers requires intuition to implement the theory. The basis requirement of an ethical theory is whether it bring happiness among people. This implies that individuals who practice this theory just need to consider if their action bring happiness or not. In a straightforward manner, one should desist from an action when it consequences will upset people (Devettere, 2009). This simple application of the theory makes the utilitarianism theory easy to apply, as intuition is all that someone need. With actions, that no one gets hurt or upset, individuals have the choice of executing the action as the utilitarianism theory underline this action as moral. Proponents of this theory argue that it provides equality to many people. When considering the criterion for making an action morally right, the only condition is happiness. This implies that that everyone has a right to carry an action that advances general happiness. This implies that the utilitarianism theory provides individuals with equal weight to a utility (Weinstein, 2007). An instance where this theory finds use is voting where a higher number of people can choose to implement a decision overturning the benefit of the minority. This is the case even when the outcome of the action does not bring general happiness to some few. The fact that equality is a central component of the utilitarianism theory make it strong and a solution to many issue facing society every day. That utilitarianism theory promote impartiality is a strength for this theory as compared to other theories such as the deontological school of thought. The ease of demonstration of the utilitarianism theory makes this ethical theory accepted and government use it to promote happiness (Hepburn, 2001). The utilitarianism theory is an exemplary theory because it focus on visible consequences on an action. When working with ethical theories, it make sense to highlight benefits that are intangible or realistic in some ways. In the application of the utilitarianism theory, individuals can easily make the right decisions by relating their actions and the outcomes, which are visible and bring about happiness or sadness (Morgan, 2005). When choosing to implement a given action, the decision of the performer rests on the visible output that justify whether an action is morally right or not. The emphasis of the theory on tangible benefits make the ethical theory a strong framework for deciding on ethical issues. Conclusion Ethical theories, such the utilitarianism theory, have significant influence on what society define as morally acceptable. A theory Miler and Bentham advanced, the utilitarianism theory define a moral action as one that leads to general happiness. This theory has several strengths as well as weaknesses. The theory is weak because it does not probe the motive of a doer nor does it consider the rights of other people. The theory is also weak because it emphasis on happiness, an attribute that varies with individuals. It also encourages people to shy from duty in pursuit of happiness. Its strengths are its focus for happiness, enhancement of fairness, practicality, and flexibly in defining happiness. Despite the challenges of this theory, the utilitarianism theory is widely in use because of its benefits such as fairness, practicality, and focus on actions, which offer a plausible means to evaluate actions. References Bhargava, R. (2008). Political Theory. Pearson Longman. Braybrooke, D. (2004). Utilitarianism: Restorations, repairs, renovations: variations on Bentham's master-idea that disputes about social policy should be settled by statistical evidence about the comparative consequences for those affected. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press. Crimmins, J. E. (2011). Utilitarian philosophy and politics: Bentham's later years. London: Continuum. Devettere, R. J. (2009). Practical Decision Making in Health Care Ethics: Cases and Concepts. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Feldman, F. (2010). What is this thing called happiness?. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hepburn, S. (2001). Australian Principles of Property Law. New York: Routledge. Hinman, L. M. (2007). Ethics. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth. Hope, R. A., Savulescu, J., & Hendrick, J. (2008). Medical ethics and law: The core curriculum. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier. Kizza, J. M. (2010). Ethical and social issues in the information age. London: Springer. MacKinnon, B. (2012). Ethics: Theory and contemporary issues, concise edition. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Marlin, R. (2002). Propaganda and the ethics of persuasion. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press. Matzo, M., & Sherman, D. W. (2010). Palliative care nursing: Quality care to the end of life. New York: Springer Pub. Co. Morgan, M. L. (2005). Classics of moral and political theory. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co. Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Shaw, W. H. (2011). Business ethics. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Sheng, Q. (2004). A defense of utilitarianism. Lanham, Md: University Press of America. Timmons, M. (2002). Moral theory: An introduction. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Vardy, P., & Fowler, C. (2012). The puzzle of ethics and moral philosophy. London: SCM. Weinstein, D. (2007). Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, H. R. & Dawson Books. (2005). The Blackwell guide to Mill's utilitarianism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Read More

Proponents of this theory, thus, strive to achieve value through actions that bring happiness rather than pain. These fundamental underpinning are essential in understanding the relation between weaknesses and strengths of the utilitarianism ethical theory. Weakness of Utilitarianism theory Several weakness mark the utilitarianism theory, despite it being a popular theory. The first weakness of the theory rests on the problem of motive. Critics argue that utilitarianism theory does not offer a plausible explanation of the motive behind moral actions.

There is no doubt Mill and Bentham argued that a moral action should be one with the greatest happiness to many people (West, & Dawson, 2005). However, the duo do not offer an explanation why a performer should maximize pleasure through an action. The difficulty in defining the concept of happiness, presents a challenge to the application of this theory (Matzo & Sherman, 2010). This is because this theory encourages a performer to perform an action while failing to take into consideration the happiness of other people who are recipients of the actions and its consequences (Kizza, 2010).

Because this theory disregard the desire of others to achieve happiness from an action, this factor remain a weakness, critics have raised in questioning the idea of achieving greatness happiness in the expense of other people. The issue of motive is also another weakness that undermines the strength of the utilitarianism theory. In ethics, the motive of an action comes into question considering that wrong motives could also lead to positive outcomes. This implies that the utilitarianism theory does not offer a robust way of limiting actors from using wrong motives to achieve a common good.

For instance, the utilitarianism theory does not offer a robust approach to ending injustices such as economic exploitation where the motive of a business entity is make significant efforts (Shaw, 2011). By neglecting the role of motive in controlling the action of others, the utilitarianism theory fails to prevent consequences resulting from action of people with bad motives. That utilitarianism theory does not touch on the issue of motive; this seems to be a weakness of the theory in addressing ethical issues.

Another challenge of utilitarianism theory is its emphasis on happiness, which is difficult to quantify. The principle driving force for all moral actions, according to utilitarianism theory, is happiness, but this attribute is not quantifiable (Fieldman, 2010). This challenge implies that a performer cannot regulate his or her action because it is possible to measure the level of happiness achieved at any point (Timmons, 2002). Further, the emphasis on happiness brings about a controversy whether happiness is a qualitative or a quantitative component.

Given that the exact measure of happiness difficult to measure or quantity, there are cases where this theory presents challenges when conflicting interest are at hands. Critics of utilitarianism theory argue that this ethical framework undermine the call of duty when individuals choose to do a common good rather than executing their duty. There are times when a performer opts to implement an action for a common good with interest of generating happiness to others, but refraining from implementing what is dutiful (Crimmins, 2011).

A classic example is lawyer who refuse to execute, but opts to distribute the wealth of his client to the needy. While the action of the lawyer seems rightful, the lawyer has the right to implement the will because it is a duty to his client. The focus of utilitarianism theory on immediate consequences implies that one’s action could lead to further consequences. When individuals apply the utilitarianism theory, they may have little concern for the future where their actions could have outcomes with far reaching implications (Marlin, 2002).

For instance, a performer may opt for an action striving to achieve the greatest happiness in the immediate time.

Read More