An Analysis of Act Utilitarianism: Strengths and Weaknesses

Utilitarianism, a moral theory developed by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, aims to provide a rational and modern approach to ethics that aligns with the evolving needs of society. Bentham's theory, known as Act Utilitarianism, evaluates actions based on their consequences and their impact on happiness. This essay explores the strengths and weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism, shedding light on its implications for moral decision-making.

Strengths of Act Utilitarianism

One of the notable strengths of Act Utilitarianism is its emphasis on considering the consequences and the overall happiness generated by an action.

Act Utilitarianism falls under the category of teleological theories, where the morality of actions is determined by their outcomes. For instance, if one were to splash cold water on someone to wake them up for school, this action is deemed morally good because it leads to positive consequences. The person who was awakened can attend school, gain knowledge, and experience happiness as a result.

Another significant strength of Act Utilitarianism is its commitment to the principle of "the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified writer

Proficient in: Philosophical Theories

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

" In situations where tough decisions must be made, Act Utilitarians advocate for actions that maximize overall well-being, even if they entail some level of discomfort or harm to a minority. For example, if a situation required torturing an individual to obtain vital information about a potential threat, an Act Utilitarian would argue that this action is justifiable because it serves the greater good by preventing harm to a larger number of people.

Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism

Despite its strengths, Act Utilitarianism is not without its weaknesses.

One notable concern is that it can, in certain circumstances, endorse actions that prioritize cruel or sadistic pleasure as long as they outweigh the accompanying pain. This means that, in the eyes of Act Utilitarianism, an action such as ten sadists torturing one child for their pleasure could be considered morally acceptable if it results in greater overall pleasure. This raises ethical dilemmas and questions the morality of actions that cause suffering.

Another weakness of Act Utilitarianism is its reliance on consequences to determine the moral worth of an action, sometimes overlooking the intentions behind the action. For instance, if an individual performs a morally virtuous act with good intentions but unknowingly triggers negative consequences, Act Utilitarianism would still deem the action morally wrong due to its focus on the unfavorable outcome. This can lead to moral judgments that seem counterintuitive and unfair, as intentions are disregarded in favor of consequences.

Furthermore, Act Utilitarianism encounters challenges when dealing with scenarios where the hedonic calculus, a method used to quantify pleasure and pain, is impractical or infeasible. In complex situations involving multiple factors and individuals, the precise calculation of pleasure and pain becomes arduous. Take, for example, a situation where a man named John, a typically calm individual, learns that his daughter was raped by another man named Max. In his anguish, John takes matters into his own hands and kills Max. The pain experienced by both families and the pleasure derived from John's retribution would be exceedingly difficult to quantify accurately through the hedonic calculus, rendering Act Utilitarianism less applicable in such circumstances.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Act Utilitarianism, as proposed by Jeremy Bentham, offers a moral framework that prioritizes the consequences and overall happiness generated by actions. While it has strengths, such as its consideration of consequences and commitment to the greater good, it also suffers from significant weaknesses. These weaknesses, including the potential endorsement of sadistic pleasure, the neglect of intentions, and the challenges in applying the hedonic calculus, raise ethical concerns and limit the theory's practicality in complex moral decision-making scenarios.

Ultimately, Act Utilitarianism's weaknesses appear to outweigh its strengths, casting doubt on its ability to provide comprehensive and morally sound guidance in the diverse range of ethical dilemmas that individuals and societies encounter.