Utilitarianism: An Analysis of Its Application in Moral Decision-Making

Utilitarianism is a prominent ethical theory that gained prominence through the work of its greatest advocate, Jeremy Bentham. This theory asserts that the morality of an action is determined by the total consequences it produces. Unlike other ethical frameworks, Utilitarianism places primary emphasis on the overall impact of an action on everyone affected by it, rather than the intentions of the individual performing the action. Central to this philosophy is the belief that happiness is the ultimate goal of human existence and serves as the criterion for determining right from wrong.

In simple terms, an action is considered right if its consequences lead to happiness and wrong if they cause pain or diminish happiness. The core principle of Utilitarianism is to maximize happiness for the greatest number of individuals.

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill: Pioneers of Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham and his disciple John Stuart Mill are recognized as the two most prominent proponents of Utilitarianism. Bentham is renowned for popularizing the traditional version of the theory known as Act Utilitarianism.

Get quality help now

writer-marian

Verified writer

Proficient in: Ethics

4.8 (309)

“ Writer-marian did a very good job with my paper, she got straight to the point, she made it clear and organized ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

While Mill studied under Bentham, he began to develop his own perspective on Utilitarianism, which is now referred to as Rule Utilitarianism.

Act Utilitarianism: Focus on Consequences

Bentham, a staunch advocate of the principle "the greatest good for the greatest number," referred to this concept as the principle of utility. Here, "utility" signifies an action's ability to generate happiness, not its practicality. Act Utilitarianism is primarily concerned with maximizing utility to the greatest extent possible.

In Act Utilitarianism, the primary focus is on the consequences of actions.

The motivations and intentions behind an action are of secondary importance in determining its moral correctness. What truly matters is the outcome of the specific act when assessing its moral rightness. For example, if an individual commits a seemingly cold-blooded murder, but unknowingly prevents the spread of a deadly disease, ultimately sparing thousands from suffering, Act Utilitarianism would deem this act morally right. It is important to note that Act Utilitarianism does not establish universal or absolute rules. The morality of each action must be evaluated individually, based on its consequences.

Act Utilitarianism also considers both the potential for happiness and unhappiness. The principle of utility strives to strike a balance between these two factors. If one action generates more happiness but also more unhappiness, while another action results in slightly less happiness but significantly less unhappiness, the latter is considered the morally superior choice. This may seem contradictory to the goal of maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number, but in reality, the increased happiness in the first action is offset by the greater unhappiness, making the second action morally preferable.

One crucial aspect of Act Utilitarianism is its unwavering focus on the consequences of individual actions. It is only by evaluating the favorable or unfavorable outcomes of each action that one can determine its moral status. While honesty may lead to the greatest happiness in the majority of cases, Act Utilitarianism does not categorically declare it as morally correct, as there may be rare instances where dishonesty produces greater overall happiness. This key feature distinguishes Act Utilitarianism from Rule Utilitarianism, where the latter relies on general rules and principles.

Rule Utilitarianism: Embracing General Rules and Principles

Rule Utilitarianism, rooted in the same hedonistic foundation as Act Utilitarianism, upholds pleasure and happiness as the sole intrinsic goods, guiding moral decision-making to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Although both forms of Utilitarianism share a hedonistic basis, they differ significantly in their approaches.

Rule Utilitarianism represents a formulation of Utilitarianism where individuals follow established rules and principles that are grounded in Utilitarian reasoning. These rules are formulated based on the belief that if everyone adheres to them, society as a whole will experience the greatest benefit. Instead of assessing the morality of an action based on its consequences, Rule Utilitarianism asserts that the morally correct action is the one aligned with a rule that produces the best overall outcomes when consistently followed.

Consider a simple example to illustrate the distinction between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Suppose a friend asks for your opinion on a new haircut. If you believe her new haircut looks unappealing, Act Utilitarianism would suggest that you should lie to spare her feelings. By lying and telling your friend that her haircut looks good, you would prevent her from experiencing pain and contribute to the happiness of the person who cut her hair. According to Act Utilitarianism, this act is morally correct. In contrast, Rule Utilitarianism would advocate a different course of action.

From a Utilitarian perspective, a rule against lying could be established. If everyone consistently told the truth, it might benefit society in the long run. Thus, Rule Utilitarianism would recommend being honest with your friend, even if it initially causes her discomfort. Eventually, she may decide to get a different haircut that brings her greater happiness. In the eyes of Rule Utilitarianism, being honest and risking hurt feelings is the morally correct choice.

Let's explore two more examples to underscore the differences between these two Utilitarian theories. According to Act Utilitarianism, it would seem appropriate to entirely forgo watching television in favor of engaging in charity work, as the time spent watching television could potentially bring greater happiness to those in need. However, Rule Utilitarianism disagrees; a rule prohibiting all leisure activities is not socially beneficial, and individuals are not obligated to abandon leisure for the sake of charity.

Similarly, Rule Utilitarianism could condemn slavery as morally wrong, as a general rule against slavery might be deemed more socially beneficial. However, according to Act Utilitarianism, slavery could be considered morally right if it resulted in greater overall happiness for the slave owner than unhappiness for the enslaved individual.

Let's delve into a well-known moral dilemma to further illustrate the distinctions. Imagine a doctor with five patients in desperate need of organ transplants to survive. A healthy individual enters the doctor's practice, presenting only a minor cough. However, this individual possesses all the necessary organs to save the five dying patients. Act Utilitarianism would suggest that the doctor should sacrifice the healthy individual to save the five patients, as this action maximizes overall happiness. In contrast, Rule Utilitarianism would maintain that innocent individuals should never be intentionally harmed, and the doctor should prioritize treating the cough while exploring other avenues to save the five patients.

Utilitarianism's Utility in Moral Decision-Making

Utilitarianism appears to offer a compelling framework for achieving a harmonious and ideal world. The notion that actions leading to happiness are inherently good is difficult to dispute. Striving to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people seems to be an admirable goal. If everyone were to consistently make decisions that maximize happiness, society as a whole could potentially experience prolonged periods of contentment. However, the real world is far from perfect, and it is evident that Utilitarianism is not universally applied in people's lives.

While Utilitarianism may appear to be a flawless theory in principle, its practical application often raises significant concerns. It sometimes seems to justify actions that intuitively feel morally wrong. For instance, consider an individual who derives immense pleasure from torturing their grandmother. If the pleasure outweighs the pain she experiences, Utilitarianism would deem this act morally right, which many find absurd.

Moreover, Utilitarianism can present issues even in less extreme cases, such as determining appropriate punishments for crimes. Take the example of a murderer who unintentionally kills a person carrying a deadly disease. According to Utilitarianism, this act would be considered morally right, and the murderer would be exempt from punishment since the action prevented greater suffering. This outcome may seem illogical, as most people would argue that murder should always be treated with the same severity, regardless of the circumstances.

One of the most significant challenges posed by Utilitarianism is its tendency to neglect the concept of justice and the potential to justify punishing innocent individuals. For instance, consider a classroom where students consistently arrive late. The teacher decides to make an example of the next student who arrives late to instill discipline in the class. If the next student to arrive late has a perfect record of punctuality until that point, they will still be punished under Utilitarianism because it serves the greater good by improving discipline in the entire class. However, punishing the innocent in this manner raises questions about justice. Similarly, for the murderer who prevented the spread of disease, there is no concept of justice or accountability for wrongdoing.

Utilitarianism's lack of consideration for intent is another critical issue. Intent often plays a crucial role in differentiating between actions, such as murder and manslaughter. Under Utilitarianism, the murderer who intentionally kills a young girl may be considered more morally correct than an individual who accidentally causes the death of an entire family while driving on icy roads, even though their intent was not harmful. This failure to account for intent is a significant limitation.

The Role of Utilitarianism in Moral Decision-Making

Despite its limitations, Utilitarianism can still be a valuable tool in making moral decisions. It offers several essential insights that can guide ethical choices.

One of its strengths lies in discouraging self-interest. Utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of considering the well-being of the wider community and evaluating actions based on their overall consequences. When making moral decisions, it is crucial to prioritize the greater good over individual self-interest.

The fundamental idea of striving to benefit the greatest number of people while maximizing happiness is a powerful concept in moral decision-making. This approach is particularly relevant in fields like medicine, where resources are limited, and choices must be made about whom to save.

However, applying Utilitarianism in practice presents practical challenges. Comparing happiness levels objectively is complex, as it is difficult to quantify and measure individual happiness accurately. Predicting the consequences of actions with certainty is also problematic. Furthermore, achieving a completely selfless perspective, free from personal interests, remains a challenging task.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Utilitarianism is a thought-provoking ethical theory that offers valuable insights into moral decision-making. While it may appear theoretically flawless, its practical application raises significant concerns. Utilitarianism's ability to justify actions that seem intrinsically wrong and its neglect of justice and intent are notable limitations. Nevertheless, the emphasis on promoting the greater good and prioritizing the happiness of the majority remains valuable.

Utilitarianism can be a useful framework for certain moral decisions, but it should not be applied without consideration of our innate sense of right and wrong. There are situations where Utilitarianism aligns with our moral intuitions, but its universal application may contradict our deeply held beliefs. Ultimately, it is our inherent desire to do good that guides us in moral dilemmas, and Utilitarianism should be considered as one tool among many in our ethical toolkit.