Act Utilitarianism: Term Definition

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Strengths of the theory
Weaknesses of the theory
Is the theory good?
Is current American utilitarianism
References:

Abstract

In deciding the right correct course of action to undertake, various theories have been formulated to assist the best policies to implement in society. For instance, act utilitarianism forms one of the theories where the right actions are determined by the amount of joy or happiness and pain they generate for society. The theory advocates for the course of action that generates a larger amount of pleasure for the majority of the people in society. However, the theory has little regard for the general laws already operational in the society.

Many people perform most of their actions in search of true happiness and to ease pain in their lives. Therefore, the theory seems to favor many people especially the ones that value happiness and hate pain in their lives. However, pleasure is very subjective as it differs from one individual to another; hence the pleasure of a criminal is different from that of an upright man. The theory has its own negative and positive effects on society if it is taken as the main base to be applied to determine the ethically correct course of action to undertake.

Therefore, the paper would like to investigate the strengths and the weaknesses of the theory and whether it is good to be applied in society in determining the correct policies or courses of action to be undertaken. In addition, the paper investigates whether the theory is being applied in the United States considering that the country is considerate of its citizens’ welfare and happiness. With this investigative research, the paper will give a well-elaborated description of the theory to determine its usefulness in society and whether it is being applied to formulate policies.

Introduction

Act utilitarianism refers to the theory of the moral code that affirms that the ethically correct action is the one that generates the most quantity of joy or happiness to a large group of people in society. The theory does not put into consideration the already formulated laws and regulations rather advocates that the agency assesses each individual situation.

According to the theory, the importance of the penalty of a given action is of great significance when deciding whether the act is ethically correct or not hence determine the actions’ that should be permitted in society. The theory advocates for actions that bring a large amount of pleasure and little pain to the majority of the people or rather the course of actions that maximize happiness and minimize pain by considering the consequences from each action undertaken to determine the one that is ethically correct.

The theory was first formulated by Jeremy Bentham who advocated that an ethically correct course of action is the one that generates the most quantity of happiness to the majority of the people. Later, the theory was further formulated by john Stuart mill who even included the quality of happiness for ethically correct action. When faced with a certain situation, the utilitarian’s should consider all the alternatives available to them no matter how they are in order to avoid making the wrong decision. Secondly, an individual should calculate the amount of happiness arising from each option or the number of people whose pleasures or joy are fulfilled.

Thirdly, determine the option that produces the greatest happiness to a large number of people and then choose that option as it satisfies the interest of the largest number of people. Act utilitarianism only considers the penalties of a single action rather than a large number of actions. It holds to the belief that nothing is wrong or right rather the pleasure or pain from each option is the one that makes them either ethically correct or wrong.

Strengths of the theory

The theory has several strengths that include it focuses on the course of actions that bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people; therefore it is concerned with the well-being of the majority of people on how well their interests are satisfied and fulfilled. Considering that happiness is very crucial in peoples’ lives and the majority of people mostly consider doing things or acts that bring the greatest joy in their lives. Hence, the theory if put in operation would do away with those options that cause pain to people making the majority happy and filled with joy.

Secondly, it considers the consequences of each act to determine the good and the bad options that should or not be applied in society. For instance, the acts that cause pain or harm people are done away with to give way for the ones that generate the greatest happiness. In simple terms, the theory is concerned with how much utility each option generates for society. Some actions generate more pain or harm to people than others, therefore considering the consequences of each act makes the society live happily together. The theory considers the options that maximize happiness to the greatest number of people while minimizing the hurt or pain it causes to the people.

Thirdly, the theory supports the notion that you treat other people in society as you would like them to treat you hence encouraging people to be good to each other and avoid harming others mainly because no one would like to be hurt by others. This makes people care for each other and be good people. In addition, the theory supports democracy as it advocates for the pleasure or happiness of the majority making people live in harmony and peace. The theory attempts to make people live happily and in togetherness by advocating for the acts that make the majority happy, thereby making perform the acts that generate happiness to the majority.

Weaknesses of the theory

On the other hand, the theory has a number of weaknesses that include its complicated to forecast the penalties of each act. The theory advocates considering all the penalties of each act however it is hard to know all the penalties with certainty, therefore there is a chance that some options will be left out or accepted based on failure to know all the consequences of each act hence they may not be the good or bad options.

The theory considers that nothing is wrong or right making it possible to substantiate every action as being the good one. For instance, the theory advocates for the acts that generate the greatest happiness to the majority of people however this notion may be misused to accept wrong options. For example, if nine men rape a single woman, then in terms of pleasure and pain, the pleasure of the nine men outdoes the pain of that single woman who is raped. Making rape a good act to accept in society as it brings happiness to the greatest number of people.

Happiness is very subjective as it differs from one individual to another. Therefore, whatever makes me happy might not give pleasure to someone else. In addition, it is complicated to clearly define what constitutes pleasure hence it justifies any criminal activity as being a pleasure. The majority pleasure may be causing pain to the minority yet the theory will go for the acts that generate the greatest happiness without considering their impacts on the minority.

In addition, it is difficult to measure or calculate pleasure; therefore many people just give predictions of how much pleasure they would obtain from an act making the values biased for any decision making.

Furthermore, an individual maximum of pleasure may be different from the others. Therefore, some may reach their maximum and would want no more of the pleasure but due to the pressure of the majority who have not reached their maximum, and then the act may remain ethically despite the majority being offended.

Still many issues of the theory concerning pleasure remain undefined. For instance, the duration of measuring or calculating is not defined, is it calculated daily, monthly, or annually. In addition, the sample to be used is not well established i.e. do you calculate pleasure for the whole country, district, or village. Therefore, pleasure is subjective in many fields hence should not be used as the basis for formulating policies.

The theory mainly focuses on the happiness of the majority while ignoring the welfare of the minorities even in cases where an act might be harmful to the minority. Therefore, the theory is ignorant of the minority leaving no protection for them. Just because an act generates pleasure for the majority does not mean that the welfare or happiness of the minority should be ignored under any circumstances. Hence, the theory is not realistic as it follows the demands of the multitude while ignoring the interests of the minority.

The theory considers all people to be equal without focusing on various relationships that exist between various individuals. For instance, the relationship in a family where there are a father, mother, and children who are not equal as some are dependent on others and not allowed to perform certain acts whether they are pleasurable to the majority or not. The theory also ignores the fact that people are not equal in society, people are different hence their pleasures differ from one individual to another.

Is the theory good?

The theory is not good enough mainly because it is easier to justify any criminal activities as long as they bring the greatest pleasure to the greatest majority, therefore where the criminal acts generate the greatest pleasure to the majority they can be justified as being the ethically correct behavior. Therefore, there is a big possibility that the acts that will be approved as being ethically right are criminal acts only that they affect the minority negatively while they favor the pleasures of the majority.

In addition, it is difficult to calculate how much pleasure we obtain from an act making pleasure subjective or dependable on other factors hence making our justification of the ethically correct act biased. This implies that the use of pleasure to know the ethically correct acts is wrong making the theory become wrong and biased. Therefore, despite the theory enhancing the overall well-being of the majority, democracy, and happiness, its weaknesses are greater than its strengths making it not a good theory. Hence, the theory is not a good one but this does not mean that the theory is totally worthless as it enhances good virtues in society.

Is current American utilitarianism

Current America can be described as being partly utilitarianism mainly because of its emphasis on the well-being of its citizens as well as its promotion of democracy in the country. On the other hand, it is not totally utilitarianism because it does not always follow the opinion of the majority as there are some acts performed under political influence. For instance, the country in most cases uses the opinion of its senators or parliament that may not necessarily represent the interests of the majority.

In addition, not all acts are approved according to the amount of happiness that they generate to the majority rather some policies are formulated depending on many other factors such as economic factors, environmental, etc, while others are made without consulting the citizens. Therefore, current America cannot be regarded as total utilitarianism because it does not embrace utilitarianism entirely in its policies formulation and implementation.

On the other hand, America has never been totally utilitarian however it embraces most of the theory features where it values the happiness of its citizens and usually consults its citizens before undertaking most of its actions or formulating its policies. However, some of its policies have been formulated without considering the citizen’s opinions or happiness. Therefore America has never been totally utilitarian rather it values most of the theory features.

References:

Jacques P. Theroux& Keith W. Krasemann (2003) Ethics Theory and Practice 9th Edition, McGraw-Hill publishers, London.

John Stuart Mill, (1998) Utilitarianism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

John Hospers (1997), Utilitarianism in An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis, 4th edition, London: Rout ledge publishers.

Smart J.J.C. &Bernard Williams (1973) Utilitarianism: For & against, (An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics) and (A critique of utilitarianism) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richard Norman (1998) The Moral Philosophers: An Introduction to Ethics (2nd edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simon Blackburn (Ed.) (1996), Utilitarianism in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Click Here To Order Now!