An Examination of Darwell's Objections to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, posits that the morality of an action is determined by its overall consequences, specifically the maximization of happiness or the minimization of suffering. However, Darwell's objections to Utilitarianism shed light on potential conflicts with moral common sense. In this essay, we will delve into three particular case studies presented by Darwell, analyzing how they challenge the validity of Utilitarianism. These objections revolve around "promise keeping," "the moral asymmetry of harm and benefit," and "distributive justice," revealing the limitations of Act Utilitarianism and highlighting the strengths of Rule Utilitarianism.

The Conflict of "Promise Keeping" with Act Utilitarianism

Darwell's first objection to Utilitarianism centers on the concept of "promise keeping." Act Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of individual actions, can sometimes lead to morally questionable outcomes. This objection arises from the conflict between Utilitarianism and the moral imperative of keeping promises.

Consider a scenario where an individual has made a promise to their late father to continue the family business after his passing.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified writer

Proficient in: Justice

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Upon inheriting a multi-million dollar enterprise, Act Utilitarianism might suggest that selling the company and donating the proceeds to a children's charity is the morally superior choice. After all, from a strict Utilitarian perspective, the deceased father's happiness is no longer relevant, and maximizing the well-being of numerous children appears to outweigh the fulfillment of a personal promise. However, this view contradicts the common moral intuition that promises should be honored.

Rule Utilitarianism, on the other hand, adheres to a set of rules designed to maximize overall happiness.

In this case, one such rule could be to uphold promises made to loved ones. By following this rule, the happiness derived from keeping one's word is preserved, aligning more closely with common moral sense.

The Moral Asymmetry of Harm and Benefit

The second case study presented by Darwell addresses "the moral asymmetry of harm and benefit." Act Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences for individual well-being, sometimes leading to morally questionable outcomes. In this objection, Darwell highlights the ethical dilemma arising from the potential justification of harming one person to benefit a greater number.

Imagine a scenario in which five homeless individuals encounter a wealthy passerby who could potentially improve their lives. From an Act Utilitarian perspective, it might be argued that the homeless individuals could justify harming the wealthy person to obtain his resources, as the overall happiness gained by the five would ostensibly outweigh the suffering of the one. This calculus is deeply unsettling to our moral intuitions, as it suggests that sacrificing one innocent life for the benefit of others can be justified.

Rule Utilitarianism rejects such extreme actions, as it operates under the principle of adhering to a set of rules that maximize overall happiness. In this case, Rule Utilitarianism would not condone a rule that allows for the killing of an innocent individual to benefit others. This approach aligns more closely with our common moral sense, emphasizing the importance of not causing harm to achieve benefits.

The Imperative of Distributive Justice

Darwell's third objection to Utilitarianism pertains to "distributive justice." Act Utilitarianism holds that the distribution of happiness does not matter as long as the overall net total of happiness is maximized. However, this perspective conflicts with our moral intuition that happiness should be distributed fairly and justly among individuals.

Society places great importance on how individuals are treated and the fairness of this treatment. Rule Utilitarianism recognizes the significance of just and equal treatment, as rules are established to maximize overall happiness. It opposes a rule that permits the unjust distribution of happiness because it understands that living in a society where one person's happiness is sacrificed for the benefit of others is undesirable.

Evaluation and Conclusion

In considering Darwell's objections to Utilitarianism, it becomes evident that Rule Utilitarianism aligns more closely with common moral sense than Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism's focus on individual actions without regard for established moral principles can lead to ethically dubious outcomes, as seen in the scenarios of promise keeping, the moral asymmetry of harm and benefit, and distributive justice.

Rule Utilitarianism, by adhering to a set of rules designed to maximize overall happiness, offers a more reliable ethical framework that respects common moral intuitions. It acknowledges the importance of keeping promises, rejects extreme actions that harm one for the benefit of many, and upholds the principles of distributive justice.

In conclusion, Darwell's objections serve as valuable critiques of Utilitarianism, highlighting the limitations of Act Utilitarianism while showcasing the ethical strengths of Rule Utilitarianism. While Utilitarianism seeks to maximize overall happiness, it must be tempered by the recognition of moral principles and common sense, which Rule Utilitarianism strives to achieve.