Utilitarianism: Unnecessary suffering - Term Paper Example

Name Professor Course Date Objections to Utilitarianism Introduction Utilitarianism often guides our courses of actions, often unavoidably. The need to live in communities makes it necessary for people to make decisions whose consequences not only favor them, but also the other people upon whom they depend on a daily basis. In his article, Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism, Sterling Hardwood takes different positions on different criticisms upon which utilitarianism has often been subjected. Through the arguments he presents, Hardwood makes it clear that while some forms of utilitarianism cater for the interests of all, some fail to do so as effectively as they should. He thus defends the arguments presented by the forms of utilitarianism he finds satisfactory while objecting those he is displeased with. While agreeing and disagreeing with the different objections to utilitarianism, he presents various examples towards making his arguments plausible. This essay seeks to identify the objections Hardwood finds to be valid before using utilitarian conceptions to develop a rebuttal for them. One of the most important points in Hardwood’s article is that act-utilitarianism, despite being subject to criticism, is very conceivable. He starkly contrasts this proposition with the argument that rule-utilitarianism should be rejected in favor of act-criticism which has its own strengths while providing flexibility. The author finds verity in the objection that rule-utilitarianism is incoherent or redundant. Here, Hardwood seemingly assumes that it is possible for humans to observe the requirements of act-utilitarianism, with or without rules. He is convinced that rules are only reminders that are not necessary for someone to know what is right for bringing about satisfaction. While considering the concepts and conditions bound by rule utilitarianism, it is important to remember that this form of utilitarianism applies best to large numbers of people, often in a community setting. The redundancy mentioned in Hardwood’s article is not only important for increasing clarity while making it easy to abide by laws, but also for specifying exceptional cases that ought to be taken into account. This is important for people living in a society, whose individual interests differ, and where the safety and freedom for all has to be protected. In the case that utilitarian rules rebuke murder, it is necessary to specify that a difference exists between murder and manslaughter. Given that some people barely survive in dangerous situations where they are subjected by enemies to death, it is important for the law to consider the need for these people to protect themselves. This goes a long way in protecting the feelings of securities for such people while providing strict conditions for such individuals so that they do not find killing as a good way out of danger. Without rules, the majority of people constituting communities would never really feel safe. They would be in constant fear that potential wrongdoers are only guided by the appropriateness of their actions and not the law. This example provides an explanation on the importance of rule-utilitarianism and the reason behind its perceived redundancy. It is clear that for modern societies, in which safety constitutes among the most important issues, that rule-utilitarianism is indispensable. Another argument that Hardwood finds appealing is that utilitarianism requires us to enter the experience machine. He develops the argument with the supposition that humans are capable of creating an experience machine with the sole purpose of providing self-satisfaction for the user. In this case, the satisfaction of this individual is more important than the reality of the world and the morals he ought to live with. This, he argues, is the basis upon which utilitarianism is founded. Utilitarianism, he states, “leaves no room to place intrinsic value on truth, knowledge, or reality” (p. 195). While attempting to show the lack of importance with which humans associate their lives in the pursuit of satisfaction, Hardwood contradicts the reality of the illustration he provides. Earlier in the argument, the author stipulates that the “virtual reality” technology is already being used for flight simulators to train pilots. This suggests that the need to address problems provides an importance basis for developing new technologies. In the case of flight simulators, the idea of using technology to make excellent pilots is likely to cause satisfaction to the entire society as every member stands to benefit if accidents are minimized. Contrary to Hardwood’s supposition that utilitarianism places no intrinsic value on the truth and reality, his own example is evidence that the philosophy is interested in improving the reality with which people have to live. Further evidence that utilitarianism places value on reality, truth, and knowledge can be seen in the utilitarian insistence on cyber ethics. Considering social media as a virtual community, the need to respect other members of the community is still taken into account. This explains why those that subject others to cyber bullying stand the risk of being punished by law. Given that such law is founded on the concept of utilitarianism, it is quite evident that the pleasure derived from virtual reality is important, but that the safety of cyber users is equally significant. Contrary to Hardwood’s argument, truth and reality is thus pertinent in regard to utilitarianism. The conception that utilitarianism overstates human’s duties to animals finds favor in Hardwood’s article. Here, Hardwood conceives that the number of animals is too physically large that humans are incapable of satisfying them psychologically. This argument presents in a fallacious way, based on the fact that the interests of animals stipulated by utilitarianism are not necessary synonymous with the psychological happiness often experienced by humans. Hardwood tends to disregard the concept of utilitarianism as the philosophy behind environmental sustainability, which often guides the approach with which humans relate with the natural environment. Sustainability encourages, among other factors, the use of appropriate farming methods towards guaranteeing a safe environment for the natural environment to thrive (Lundmark 115). More specifically, as it applies to the case of animals, ethical thinking, guided by utilitarian thinking discourages unnecessary suffering of animals, protection of animals in the way of dangers of poaching, among other factors. Lundmark also finds that “animal species like mammals and birds are capable of experiencing distress, and are therefore capable of suffering” (114). The argument that utilitarianism overstates human’s duties to animals only indicates the lack of a proper understanding into the importance of safeguarding a biologically-diverse environment that humans also need. Poaching is a real problem in the Twenty First Century as more and more animal species get in way of the danger of extinction. Contrary to the ideals of utilitarianism, poachers, particularly in Africa, snare such endangered species as elephants and rhinos for ivory which is then received by a ready market overseas. As Kirsten Schmidt indicates, “the act of violating countries’ laws by killing a source of tourist attraction while lessening the number of endangered animals presents as immoral” (p. 159) . On a much lighter note, exposing a domestic cat to suffering by failing to feed it appropriately is indicative of the failure to accomplish one’s obligation as a pet owner. While these two cases might be different in magnitude, they present some of the obligations humans have in safeguarding the welfare of animals. The argument that utilitarianism advocates for the psychological feelings of happiness on animals is therefore ignorant. Hardwood fails to present a convincing argument that would otherwise prove that utilitarianism wildly overstates the welfare of animals. It is without the concepts of utilitarianism that humans would harm the environment, oblivious of the dangers to which they subject animals. Conclusion Utilitarianism provides important guidelines that facilitate efficient living, not only for individuals but also for societies at large. Different forms of utilitarianism prove to be more ideal than some, depending on the context in which they are applied. This factor accounts for the different objections to which utilitarianism is subjected. However, as seen in this paper, some of the opinions presented by Hardwood lack sufficient backing to quantify them as ideally appropriate. The failure to consider different aspects of utilitarianism also deems some of the authors’ arguments invalid. Work cited Lundmark, F., C. Berg, and H. Röcklinsberg. "‘Unnecessary suffering’as a concept in animal welfare legislation and standards." The ethics of consumption. Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2013. 114-119. Retrieved from; http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_18#page-1 Pojman, Louis P, and Peter Tramel. Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 2009. Print. Schmidt, Kirsten. "Concepts of animal welfare in relation to positions in animal ethics." Acta biotheoretica 59.2 (2011): 153-171. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10441-011-9128-y#page-1 Read More