Category: Utilitarianism

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 utilitarians 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 citizens 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.

Sanders claims that that there are two serious objections to the philosophy of utilitarianism. The first is that application of utilitarian approach fails the respect of rights of a certain individual. Utilitarian logic takes into account only the interests of the majority, ignoring the struggles of the person sacrificed. The suffering, humiliation and death of a random innocent human is a weak excuse to the emotional benefit and well-being of the society.

The example is torturing deliberately guiltless relative as a blackmail to get a vitally important information from the criminal. The second objection is that it is almost impossible to find the global currency that can measure and thus unify the pleasure and benefit, acceptable all over the world. The utilitarianism weights preferences without judging them (Sandel 41). However, it is impossible to transfer moral benefits into a single currency and not to lose something important on the way.

It is a big dilemma considering what is more valuable: grieve and suffering of the family upon smokers early death or the monetary benefits the government gains on the amount of the smoked cigarettes, lifetime healthcare, and the cost saved on smokers not-gained pension and non-staying in the house for elderly people.

Which criticism of utilitarianism does John Stuart Mills notion of higher pleasures address? How successful is Mills notion in improving Benthams utilitarianism?

A British philosopher John Stewart Mill, a proponent of the theory of utilitarianism, proposed a gradation of pleasures, stating that some of them are better than others. Unlike Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, who stated all kinds of pleasure as equivalent, Mill proposed to divide pleasures qualitatively. The moral and intellectual pleasures were considered to be highest pleasures, and the experiences, that caused satisfaction of flesh were considered to be lower pleasures.

Comparing contentment and happiness, Mill argued that happiness is better, and thus, should value higher, as more preferable. Applying this approach, he argued that being an unsatisfied human, is preferable than being a satisfied animal, and being an unsatisfied wise man is better than being a satisfied fool. Mill provided the definition between higher and lower pleasures, as people who experienced both of them prefer the former one.

In contrast, the Benthams point is that experiencing all kinds of pleasure is good, disregarding what aspect of individuals personality they affect. Mill also separates the judgment and identification of pleasures, depending on the social and intellectual class of people, preferring the certain kind of pleasure. According to him, people who have never experienced higher pleasures tend to choose lower, simple pleasures.

For instance, an unskilled worker or peasant, who have never visited an opera house, doubts the very idea of pleasure, an opera can bring. Mills idea is also that educated and noble individuals bring more use and benefit to the society through fulfilling their pleasures as these pleasures tend to be higher, in spite people who tend to lower, individual pleasures, thus providing the society with minor benefits through their activity.

Mills assumption on higher and lower pleasures deepens and improves Benthams theory as it provides selectivity to the socially approved pleasures. Considering this statement makes possible choosing what kinds of pleasures might be worth some individual sacrifices.

From this point of view, the example of throwing Christians to lions, provided in Sandels Justice: Whats the Right Thing to Do? is highly immoral as death and suffering of a few innocent does not bring any vital or intellectual pleasures to the majority of people. The pleasures of the majority, in that case, are considered as lower.

Works Cited

Sandel, Michael. Justice: Whats the Right Thing to Do? New York, NY: Macmillan, 2009. Print.

Introduction

Utilitarianism is a principle that promotes actions fostering pleasure or happiness in activities that can cause harm or unhappiness. Utilitarianism was directed towards promoting political decisions and economic and societal betterment. Utilitarianism is generally based on three notable principles. Notably, pleasure and happiness are the only things that encourage good value; the best deals in leadership serve as instrumental value. These instrumental values promote oneself to becoming a better person, for instance, being a teacher; these are not values just because the person has a profession in teaching, but because they value it. This brings pleasure and happiness since it promotes beauty and knowledge. People appreciate beauty since it brings pleasure. This makes most utilitarians more passionate about what they do to become happy.

Principles of utilitarianism

Consequently, actions are right insofar since they foster happiness. This principle argues that the more pleasure the affected activities produce, the better efforts one portrays. However, the guide is provocative since its consequentialism decides the military actions. This is because most people have different motives behind their actions (Thomas, 2018). For instance, working for charity only motivates compassion and a sense of being in a duty. In addition, everyones happiness usually counts equally. Joy is generally contained in a simple and valuable manner. However, this differs from one person to another depending on how they take and do things. This makes the principle more progressive since it is decided based on quality. The government usually passes policies that benefit everyone equally; for this reason, utilitarianism is greatly moved due to the just rulings.

The historical context of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism was traced back to be originated from epicureanism of the Greek philosophers. The philosopher argues that the accomplishment of the goal of solving the cases of stress must be based on an individuals pleasure and actions that promote happiness (Abumere, 2019). For instance, Bentham argues that the chain of pleasure and pain is usually based on the instinct value worldwide.

Assumptions of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is usually based on three underlying assumptions; for instance, the individuals main goal is a pleasure. Consequently, the specific utility in oneself satisfaction is achieved by attaining the greatest level of happiness (Feng et al., 2022). This is based on the benefits and advantages that one acquires. The actions that an individual does are usually assumed to induce pleasure. Time is generally used as a determinant of individuals satisfaction since it measures the level of individuals happiness in the future. Based on this assumption, the discounting time value is usually categorized as the individuals standardized preference. Commitment to truth is typically used as a mechanism that pushes people to feel comfortable believing in a value that gives more understanding of extreme utilitarianism.

Conclusion

The understanding of utilitarianism usually impacts a knowledge of the human beings sense of feeling towards being happy. This is generally based on the actions they typically take as their passion. The principles of utilitarianism have been placed as the basis that promotes the feeling of belonging in society and even shapes the type of leadership that one may portray; individuals actions may make people see value in themselves, thus making the people feel comfortable when they interact with others. The level of happiness is sometimes based on the benefits and advantages that one may have and be ready to share.

References

Abumere, F. A. (2019). Utilitarianism. Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics.

Feng, T., Ke, S., & McMillan, A. (2022). Utilitarianism and social discounting with countably many generations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 98, 102576.

Thomas, D. (2018). Gritty, sensible, and practicalthe only model?: Special educational needs initial teacher training and professional development. In rethinking special needs in mainstream schools (pp. 110-120). Routledge.

Introduction

Philosophers of different eras had various points of view on happiness, the meaning of life, morality, and justice. Their concepts were formulated under the influence of general moral principles and traditions of their time; nevertheless, sometimes even philosophical theories with a common underlying idea were divided into several branches. Utilitarianism is one such concept, since it includes several forms that differ from each other significantly, such as act, rule, and general utilitarianism, where the last one lies in between two others (Mondal, p. 15). However, the main difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that the first allows ignoring the rules for the common good, and the second prohibits any violation of them.

Main body

Many philosophers have created various concepts on morality and rightfulness for people trying to understand the truth, and utilitarianism is one of them. Utilitarianism emerged as a systematic theory at the end of the eighteenth century with the philosophical works of Jeremy Bentham, who created the greatest happiness of the greatest number formulation of the principle of utilitarianism (Lazari-Radek and Singer, p. 4). This phrase means that sense of any persons life is actions that can bring the most significant benefit and joy to the most considerable number of people. For example, a man can spend a huge fortune himself and bring joy only for one person, but it is better if he donates it to charity and brings happiness to many people in need. Scientists such as John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, and others also discussed supplemented this concept in their way (Lazari-Radek and Singer, p. 13). However, the principal basis of utilitarianism expresses itself in the statement that if everyone lives by this rule, then the whole humanity will be happy.

Nevertheless, the formulation has several flaws that cause disputes and controversy, for example, methods of achieving happiness. The main question of utilitarianism is whether a person could violate general principles and laws to bring the greatest benefit to more people. As an answer to this question, philosophers created three forms of utilitarianism with a different attitude to the rules, morality, and their violation (Mondal, p. 15). Act and rule utilitarianism have opposite views on this issue, while general utilitarianism can be called an intermediate link between the two forms. General utilitarianism claims that if some action is right for one person in a particular situation, then it will be right for everyone else in the same condition (Mondal 15). For this reason, one can see that general utilitarianism permits a violation of the rules but also asks whether such an act may have good consequences.

Act utilitarianism is a more extreme manifestation of breaking the rules for the common good. The followers of this principle are sure that ultimately, only the consequences that actions brought to society can classify them as moral or immoral (Mondal, p. 15). Even if the act was wrong from universal laws, but eventually it benefited a large number of people, then it can be classified as the moral and right one. For example, killing is unacceptable in most religions and cultures; however, the elimination of a dangerous criminal or dictator who kills innocent people is the right thing to do, since this act saves thousands of lives.

Rule utilitarianism expresses the reverse understanding of evaluating the correctness of actions. According to Lazari-Radek and Singer, the main difference of rule utilitarianism is that it sometimes prohibits what will have the best consequences (p. 89). The most crucial thing in this form is following the rules, and breaking them is unacceptable. This idea is based on the belief that the use of the regulations, in any case, will lead to better results, but their violation will harm someone inevitably (Lazari-Radek and Singer, p. 89). At the same time, it does not matter whether following the rules will bring the greatest benefit as the main thing is that the rules are created to lead to positive consequences.

However, both act and rule utilitarianism have their drawbacks, which erase their advantages. The main problem of act utilitarianism is the relativity and inaccuracy of measuring the size of the benefit and consequences of rule-breaking. For example, a revolution in the country led to a change of power, but hundreds of people died during the uprisings. In this case, the real consequences are difficult to assess, and it is impossible to accurately answer whether such a violation of the rule was correct. Some part of the population found happiness in the revolution, but another could face the tragedy.

The main drawback of rule utilitarianism is that the principles themselves are most often not universal. Typically, the rules are generalized and cover the broadest range of standard situations. However, in the event of an emergency, these regulations may not be valid, and there will not be enough time to wait for their adaptation and adjustment. Lazari-Radek and Singer give an example in which a terrorist knows the location of a nuclear bomb, but according to the law on the prohibition of torture, police cannot harm him or her (p. 91). Following the law, in this case, can lead to the death of thousands of people; however, it is a necessary measure according to rule utilitarianism. Thus, this contradiction is the main problem of such a philosophical concept in the current circumstances.

It is difficult to define a preferable form of utilitarianism, considering the realities of the world. This uncertainty exists because, in the current time, there is no universal central philosophy in society, and people do not use the principle in which the common good is superior. There are too many variables and ambiguous points to understand which kind of utilitarianism is ideal since too many people commit crimes and violate moral laws. However, if one considers precisely the basic principles of the forms themselves, then it is possible to single out one of them as more universal.

In most cases, a person can predict or anticipate the consequences of his or her actions by following the logic and personal life experience. Based on them, he or she understands whether the violation or following the rules will be more beneficial or harmful. For example, a medical student who will get a license in a month sees that a man is suffocating, and the intern needs to make a hole in his throat to give him access to oxygen. According to rule-utilitarianism, the student has to wait for the arrival of a licensed doctor, but during this time, the man may already be dead. In this case, act utilitarianism is the best alternative, since the student will save the persons life by breaking the rule and possibly bring happiness to his family, friends, and colleagues. The same choice applies to the murder of a terrorist or self-defense. However, rule utilitarianism would be an ideal philosophical concept in a perfect world where everyone voluntarily follows and obeys generally accepted moral laws.

Conclusion

Therefore, the main difference between act and rule utilitarianism is the way to determine the usefulness and morality of actions. The first form evaluates the act by the result, and the second by following the rules that lead to the best consequences. Both understandings of utilitarianism are viable; however, rule utilitarianism needs specific conditions for its successful practice, while act utilitarianism more often works in the real world.

References

1. Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna, and Peter Singer. Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2017.
2. Mondal, Abdul Latif. Mills Critique of Benthams Utilitarianism. International Journal of Philosophy Study, vol. 4, 2016, pp. 1321.

Over the years, multiple standpoints to illuminate the morality of human actions have emerged. Humans have striven to produce a perfect theory to act as a point of reference when evaluating human actions. This has resulted in the emergence of a multitude of systems of beliefs. However, two theories have stood out in this debate. These are the utilitarian theory and the Kantian theory. This write-up will argue against utilitarianism from the point of view of Kants theory  categorical imperative (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 20).

Utilitarianism is a moral standpoint that was propounded by Bentham and Mill. Advocates of utilitarianism argue that seeking maximum happiness is the most ethical thing an individual can do for a society (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 22). According to them, actions have measurable results: choices of morality have results that give maximum happiness to a large number of societal members. Utilitarianism hence examines human actions based on outcomes (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 23).

Arguing from the point of view of a categorical imperative, utilitarianism is a system that treats people as means to an end. Kantianism bases its validity on a universal principle of ethics, which guides every human action no matter how circumstances or desires may be (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 23). This imperative is categorical and is normally directed by reason and not circumstances, need, or desire.

According to Kant, Utilitarianism is a wrong system because instead of acting out necessity and duty, its actions are based on outcomes. To him, this form of understanding is not experience-based. It uses its power to unify and direct human behavior. It is not conditional. Kant accuses utilitarianism of being conditional (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 26).

In the words of Kant, utilitarianism cannot be used as a yardstick in the evaluation of human actions because it is not universal. To him, like the categorical imperative, a moral law should apply to all rational beings, should be unconditional, and should come before experience. The utilitarian theory passes none of these verification requirements. Because of their sensuous nature, human beings experience the law of morality as a constriction. They tend to act in a contradictory manner because of the frequent moral dilemmas encountered. This explains why people often indulge in evil or immoral deeds (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 27).

From a Utilitarian moral standpoint, the end justifies the means. Human actions are evaluated based on the outcomes and not on motives. On the contrary, Kant sees the results as obsolete in determining a moral course of action. To him, the intention is paramount in evaluating human actions concerning morality.

In the modern world, utilitarianism has gained unmatched popularity, especially in the political sphere. People are not at all acting out of duty, but out of the outcomes. A good example is a way political leaders use their political authority to enrich themselves and safeguard their interests.

The fundamental philosophy of utilitarian principle is the idea of the greatest happiness for the majority of people. This philosophy has stood out as the cornerstone for the contemporary system of democracy. When basic principles of utilitarianism are used to inform human action, the intention of the action remains disregarded. Utilitarian principle attempts to detach the action from the actor, and focus on the broader idea over the person.

The approach taken by utilitarian proponents has faced massive criticism by the Kantians. Proponents of Kantianism argue that utilitarianism has often worked hard to ignore and brush individuals and minorities aside. According to Kants categorical imperative, action is right not unless its intentions are also moral.

Utilitarian advocates would like to argue that, there can never be universal truths in morality. According to them, universal truths, if it is not impossible, are hard to ascertain. On the contrary, the advantages and the shortcomings of deeds are much more cheaply measured (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 27).

Concisely, Utilitarian proponents urge Kantians to stop depending on blurred and nebulous moral truths to direct action. To them, people should devise more justifiable ways of establishing the morality of specified acts. They believe that the Kantian categorical imperative, leads to ethically flawed conclusions. Hence, for them, ends are more important than means in determining whether an action is morally right or otherwise (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 27).

Kant negates the primacy utilitarianism presumes regarding the issue of moral actions. To him, ends are usually deceptive. He argues that it is not possible to envisage the consequences of ones actions with complete sureness. He contends that the only thing one can certainly know is whether human actions are moral or otherwise: concerning the categorical imperative (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 26).

Moreover, proponents of Kantianism hold that humans can only be accountable for their deeds and not those of others. In the eyes of Kantians, utilitarianism as a system is flawed because it devolves in a precarious ethical relativism where humans are permitted to validate heinous acts on grounds that their consequences are advantageous (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 23).

Kantianism and Utilitarianism attempt to unravel the puzzle of what is good life. What a good life entails is a subject of philosophical relativism. This is a philosophical puzzle, which no matter how hard people may argue a definite conclusion will never be attained. This puzzle is an obscure part of the belief system. According to advocates of utilitarianism, a good life is that which benefits as many people as possible. Naturally, a life that would generate happiness for the greatest number of people would be acknowledged as a virtuous life. This is what utilitarianism believes in.

On the contrary, Kants argument contradicts this perspective. To him, an action is morally right if and only if, it is done completely out of duty. Kant further creates a clear distinction between different intentions. To him, an action can agree with obligation and still fail to satisfy the requirements of morality. Take for instance a person who owes his or her friend some money and later pays it. The ethical question here would be, with what motive did he pay the money? If he paid the cashback to fulfill his or her obligation, then his act, according to Kant, is morally right. This is because he acts out of duty and necessity (Poijman & Peter, 2009, p. 27).

On the contrary, if the motive to pay the money back was to secure an opportunity for future return, then the action is consequential and hence, ethically wrong. This is because the reason to pay the money back is not to fulfill an obligation, but to create a future chance to borrow again. Such actions are what Kant calls hypothetical imperatives because one does not act out of necessity and rightness of the action, but rather out of the outcome.

According to Kantians, the utilitarians effort in doing whatever is appropriate to warrant the best result violates the principles of integrity. When one is dedicated to securing the best, he or she avoids saying such statements as poor results. No matter how savage an act needed to warrant the best result is, utilitarian advocates would still believe that it is illogical to regret doing it. This is because what in actuality is the right course of action will have already been done.

Kantianism, which delineates a determining factor of conduct, to embrace instead of setting an objective of actions to struggle to find a solution to the issue of integrity, seems plausible. The benefit of the Kantian standpoint is the definite field of accountability. Ones portion of accountability for the way contemporary society seems is delineated as constricted. If one does as he or she ought to, then she or he cannot bear the responsibility of related bad results or consequences.

Therefore, Kantianism prevails over utilitarianism in as much as goodwill and duty is concerned. As far as morality is concerned, a utility can never be an evaluator for actions. Utilitarianism cannot be universalized. On the other hand, the Kantian theory of duty would prevail as it considers universal factors.

Reference

Poijman, L. & Tramel, P. (2009). Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Introduction

Moral relativism is a theory that morality is relative and different people hold different truths. There are two forms of moral relativism: cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism. According to cultural relativism, morality depends upon culture. According to ethical subjectivism, morality depends upon individuals. Moral relativism denies the universal existence of truth or morality. Thus, there is no definition of good and bad; there is no goodness and badness; there can be good and bad only within a specific context. From the standpoint of moral relativism, the specific activity can be good for one person but be bad for another. If to assume that moral relativism is true, then it is impossible to discuss good and bad outside the specific situation.

Main text

Utilitarian moral theory, on the contrary, provides clear distinction between good and bad. According to the utilitarian moral theory, an action is right only if it produces the highest good. From this perspective, an action is considered to be morally right only when it results in the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain.

Jeremy Bentham argued that the consequences of the human actions could be counted in order to evaluate their merit.

Pleasure or happiness can be measured by considering how long the pleasure lasts, how intensively it is felt, how quickly it follows the action (Kemerling, para.1). From this perspective, the principle of utility defines good and bad by reference to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people affected by or involved in the action.

Argument from disagreement points out that different individuals and cultures have different moral beliefs (Is Morality Relative.., para.6). Morality is a product of culture and personal opinion.

Moreover, there are always exceptions to every moral rule. Sometimes, stealing and lying can be morally justified because there are no moral absolutes.

In addition, moral relativism is supported with the argument from tolerance according to which people should be tolerant with whom they disagree. From this perspective, it is morally wrong to think of one culture being morally better than any other.

However, while moral relativism is highly personal, utilitarian moral theory can be applied universally. Utilitarian theory aims at defining goodness as the best for the largest number of people. As John Stuart Mill wrote, Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Kemerling, para.6).

While moral relativism motivates individual approach to every situation, utilitarian theory provides ample guidance for everyday moral actions. Bentham and Mill both argued that moral utilitarianism is intended to guide people by moral rules most of the time.

At the same time, moral relativism does not allow cross-cultural comparisons while sometimes it does seem to be right to judge one norm (value or culture) superior to another (Is Morality Relative.., para.9). Moral relativism denies the legitimate moral comparisons and it does not allow judging whether a changing society is getting worse or better. Notably, all reformers who changed the society for better (abolished slavery, granted women the right to vote, etc) acted against the values of their cultures. Thus, their actions were morally wrong according to the assumptions of moral relativism.

Taking into account the limitations of moral relativism theory, utilitarianism appears to be more justifiable. Mill claimed that universal agreement on the role of moral sanctions in guiding good actions by humans motivates people to do the right things (Kemerling, para.8). No, a single person is free of such feelings as guilt, self-esteem, or conscience. Thus, utilitarianism holds that all people have social feelings on behalf of others.

The fear to be blamed by others or experience the self-blame is enough not to act morally wrong. People desire happiness and each person desires his own happiness. Mill argued that the greatest happiness of everyone is desired by all.

Once I was a witness of my friend cheating during exam. I understood that cheating was morally wrong but I did not know what to do. I could either ignore the cheating of my friend and talk to him after exam or inform the teacher about the incident immediately.

From one side, I was not the one who was cheating and it was the choice of my friend, therefore, I was not in a position to decide. On the other side, my friend was neglecting the academic rules and he would get a grade he did not deserve. I had no time to think about this situation because I had to finish my exam, however, I decided to talk to my friend right after exam.

When I told my friend that I saw him cheating, he answered that it was not my business. It was not easy for me to decide on my next action. If I decided to inform the teacher, my friend would fail the course and other students would not trust me anymore. Nevertheless, I could not just forget about my friends cheating because it was morally and ethically wrong; he violated the academic and ethical rules. I decided to talk with my parents and other friends with the hope to get advice; however, the opinion of my friends was divided as well. Some of them advised not to intrude, while others recommended informing the teacher immediately.

Referring to ethical theory of moral relativism, cheating is not justified with cultural relativism or ethical subjectivism. The American students share the belief that cheating is ethically wrong from all perspectives and cannot be justified.

Cheating is not morally justified because of individual differences. According to moral relativism, there is no goodness and badness in general, however, it is possible to define goodness and badness in specific situations. In this current instance of my friends cheating, his action can be classified as bad because it resulted in no good for anybody. Nevertheless, I had no doubts that cheating was bad; I hesitated over my further actions; whether or not I had the moral right or obligation to inform the teacher.

The utilitarian moral theory helped me to dissolve the current moral dilemma. According to this moral theory, all people should strive for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Thus, the decision to forget about the cheating of my friend would not hurt anybody as well as it would not bring any benefit. On the other side, my decision to inform the teacher would result in the penalty for my friend while others students would learn a lesson that cheating is wrong. I hesitated whether I was in a position to decide on behalf of my friend and other students. Undoubtedly, the concept of moral diversity could be avoided (Moral Relativism, para.3).

I considered cheating morally wrong, the majority of students would agree, but my friend saw no badness in cheating. Other students would know that I was the one to inform the teacher  some of students would support my decision, others would never accept it.

Finally, neither moral relativism nor utilitarian moral theory contributed to my decision. I considered several decisions and none of them would bring the greatest happiness for the people involved. I did not inform the teacher, however, my friendship with the friend ended because of the ethical and moral differences I could not tolerate.

Works Cited

Is Morality Relative to Individuals or Cultures? Moral Relativism. 2008. Web.

Kemerling, Garth. Utilitarianism.. 2002. Web.

Moral Relativism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004. Web.

According to utilitarianism, the greatest ethical action is the one that benefits society, and the value of each person is more significant than the value of a community. The founding father of utilitarianism is Jeremy Bentham, who established two main principles of this theory. Two theory notions involve the pleasure-pain principle and the principle of utility. Consequently, both principles prescribe seeking actions that lead to the most benefit and pleasure.

The first principle, as described by Bentham, involves the pleasure-pain principle. According to the philosopher, pain and pleasure are natural feelings that determine the actions of humans (Xiaofei, 2021). Additionally, these two matters identify the wrong and rights and establish the cause and effect (Xiaofei, 2021). Consequently, it is evident that the goal of any deed is to ensure maximum enjoyment while minimizing pain (Xiaofei, 2021). Thus, either one of the matters determines whether the act is good or bad, emphasizing the pleasant outcome as good and the painful outcome as bad.

Another principle outlined by Bentham concerns the principle of utility. According to Bentham, the objective of the utility is to produce beneficial effects, as well as being advantageous and pleasant, while eliminating the pain and negative impacts (Xiaofei, 2021). The principle of utility does not approve of an object or an action that causes harm or endangers somebody or something (Xiaofei, 2021). In this respect, all actions and objects must serve in publics interests. It is, therefore, evident that Bentham would view the vaccination case as part of utilitarianism. The process of vaccination works in the communitys interests, ensuring the overall health and wellbeing of society.

Hence, the theory of utilitarianism lies within the idea of actions or objects that bring pleasure and are beneficial to either an individual or society. The founding father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, provides two notions of the theory. While the pleasure-pain principle determines whether a deed is good or bad, another principle of utility ensures the act does not cause harm.

Reference

Xiaofei, M. A. (2021). A Comparison between Mohism and Utilitarianism. Canadian Social Science, 17(1), 54-57.

Introduction

This paper is about the different view points of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham on the concept of Utilitarianism. Though Mills work was influenced by Bentham to a large extent, nonetheless there are significant differences in their approach that we discuss here. Mill and Bentham occupy a unique place among the philosophers and thinkers of the Enlightenment era with regards to their conceptions of utilitarianism.

Qualitative and Quantitative Happiness

The main difference between Mills and Benthams conception of Utilitarianism is that Mill, though a consequentialist, makes a case for the qualitative aspects of happiness. Benthams case on the other hand is the one for the greatest happiness of all. Thus, one needs to act in such a way that promotes the happiness of the maximum number of people. For Bentham, all kinds of happiness are equal whereas for Mill, there is a subtle element of difference in the degree and kind of pleasure that we get from our actions.

Benthams concept is known as Hedonistic Utilitarianism where he postulates that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should form the basis for our conduct in society. Mill, on the other hand, drew a line between individual happiness and happiness of all by stating that we should do what we like and without impediment from our fellow creatures. However, he qualifies this statement with as long as we do not do them harm. Further, the sense of personal sacrifice that is so revered in the Christian conception of things can be seen as an objection to Mills theory. However, Mill discounts this by stating that any sacrifice that denies happiness of self and also does not promote the general sense of well being is considered a waste.

Pushkin vs. Pushpin

A significant difference that follows from the section above is what is ultimately good for society. According to Mills theory, it is the qualitative separation of happiness that counts and so a higher pleasure is better than a lower pleasure. In his own work, it is better for Socrates to be dissatisfied rather than a fool satisfied and better for a human to be satisfied than a pig satisfied. Bentham, on the other hand does not seek a qualitative separation of happiness and says that a Pushpin is as better as an Opera house the allusion being to the childrens game that can promote happiness to the maximum number of individuals as opposed to an opera house for the select few. Mill would have certainly favored building more opera houses or rather Pushkin over Pushpin. Mills views can be read as an expression of what is now known as libertarian ideology whereas Benthams ideas can be construed as the modern welfare economics and the welfare state that places collective good over individuals.

Societal Stand

Bentham proposed several legal and social reforms that were in line with his principle of the greater happiness and is credited with having developed a body of thought that would encompass and provide grounding for the same. On the other hand, Mill supported legislation that favored special privileges for university graduates and it needs to be mentioned that the above reading of Utilitarianism should not detract us from the fact that Mill was not against uneducated people and that his stand was that education was important than the intrinsic value that educated people enjoyed.

Sources

Theodore C. Denise, Nicholas White & Sheldon P (1997): Great Traditions in Ethics. pp. 10-12, pp. 24-26.

Utilitarianism is an ethical movement that began in 18th century. It dictates that the best course of action is the one that benefits majority. Here, you will discover an essay about utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism theory argues that the consequence of an action determines whether that particular action is morally right or wrong. Philosophers behind this theory include Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, R.M. Hare and Peter Singer. All these philosophers evaluate morality of actions depending on overall happiness or well-being. Thus, they see utilitarianism as a consequentialist ethic.

Consequentialist ethics holds that in determining whether an act, policy, rule or motive is morally right, we should check whether it has good consequences for all affected persons. Rather than asking if an action has good consequences for a person, we should just inquire whether that action adds to the persons happiness.

Therefore, utilitarianism is an ethical theory that centers on happiness, not just the happiness of one person, but happiness of many people. Thus, the greatest happiness principle is synonymous with the principle of utility. The principle of greatest happiness states that a person should do things that will have the most happiness for all involved persons.

Critics of utilitarian ethics argue that because utilitarianism emphasizes on results, utilitarian theorists should agree that the theory of ethical relativism solves the problem of relativism. These critics claim that since utilitarian theorists argue that morality of an action depends on what the product of the action will take to all affected persons, then almost every action is moral. That is to say, utilitarianism is a consequentialistic ethic and thus, we cannot know whether an action is immoral until we see its bad consequences.

Given that, utilitarian ethics in some ways holds morality of an action hostage to the result, morality of the action appears relative. However, we refute ethical relativism since utilitarian ethics is a type of universalism, given its grounds in trust in universal human nature. Utilitarian theorists say that all people have altruistic and egoistic elements, and all people seek to evade pain and augment pleasure. Then, instead of ethical relativism, they support a liberal ethics that acknowledges there are universal principles and values.

The utilitarian perspective that ethics is more inclined to our feelings and not our rationality may seem to give evidence that utilitarianism is a type of relativism. Obviously, people have different outlooks about different matters. However, description of ethics may not always be from this perspective. Think about a cruel act such as premeditated murder.

How comes that this act immoral? Is it due to societal, divine, or natural laws? The truth is that human beings cannot make the moral judgment that premeditated murder is immoral until they experience negative sentiments about such acts. If there are human beings who do not get negative sentiments after reflecting on the idea of premeditated murder, or other monstrous acts, it is because those persons have something wrong with them and thus, cannot feel others pain.

Desensitization is the contemporary psychological word that describes why some people may not have feeling for the pain of others. People become desensitized making them not feel others pain. This psychological thought matches perfectly well with the utilitarian idea of sentience. However, human nature is universal and a universal ethics rests upon nothing more than human sentiments.

At the center of the utilitarian argument that shifts from the concern we physically have for our personal feelings of pain and pleasure, to others feelings of pain and pleasure, is the belief that this is the nature of human beings. When we hear about calamities happening to others, we may find ourselves flinching or grimacing. However, to go from a claim about our human nature to a moral claim that we ought to do this, and it is correct that we do this, and wrong when we fail to do this, includes an extra step in the argument.

The crucial step is to ask ourselves whether there is actually a difference between our pains and joys and other peoples pains and joys. This, for instance, is a problem to any racist. If dissimilar races experience equal pleasures and pains, then how come one race sees itself as superior to another race? If there is actually no difference between our pains and pleasures with others pains and pleasures, then we ought to, just due to consistency, view their suffering as just as significant as ours.

This is the heart of the justification of the theory of utility; we should do what will have the best outcomes for all persons involved, not only for ourselves, since there actually is no significant difference involving our welfare and other peoples welfare.

It is clear that equality is a main concept involved in this reasoning. A different way to portray the central utilitarian concept is just to say humans are equal; your pain or happiness is equal to another persons anguish or happiness. However, another persons happiness, well-being, suffering, pleasure and pain are not more crucial than yours. Hence, considering ethics along utilitarian line takes us from egoism through altruism to equality.

Other critics of utilitarianism argue that it is difficult and impossible to apply its principles. Those that hold that it is difficult to apply utilitarian principles argue that calculating the outcomes for all persons is impractical due to uncertainty and the big number involved. The truth, however, is that utilitarianism offers a clear way of determining whether an action is moral or not, and this does not involve calculations.

As mentioned earlier, a morally right action should have pleasurable consequences. Therefore, a person who says that it is difficult to apply this theory should support his/her claims with examples of actions that produce pleasurable outcomes, but are wrong. Therefore, the argument that it is difficult to calculate what is right does not hold any water, since it has no harm to the principle of utility. Rather, this is a problem of the human condition.

Other critics that oppose the application of utilitarian principles argue that it is not possible to gauge or quantify happiness and there is no defined method of weighing happiness against suffering. However, the truth is that happiness is measurable and comparable through words like happier and happiest. If it were not measurable, then these words would have little meaning.

In conclusion, the theory of utilitarianism is sound, logical and consistent. Utilitarian ethics follow the law of greatest happiness. According to this law, human beings seek to decrease suffering and maximize happiness. Hence, an action that is correct morally must lead to the greatest possible pleasure. This also implies that actions that cause pain on human beings are morally wrong. As seen in the arguments above, this theory is beyond reproach, as it caters for all possible objections.

The United States is experiencing a social crisis. The problem is characterized by young students armed with handguns, corporate greed and families caving in because of financial difficulties. Sandel a legal expert asserted that the American public must reinterpret concepts of liberty, prosperity, equality, and human rights.

He said that it is not enough to simply develop a framework that will protect the welfare of the majority. There is a desperate need for people of diverse backgrounds to work together. Sandel said that American citizens must learn sacrifice in order to achieve true equality.

Before going any further it must be understood that the present is a mere byproduct of the decisions and actions made in the past. The current state of the social and moral landscape of the United States of America can be understood through the study of American history.

By doing so, one can understand the meaning and value of liberty, prosperity, equality, and human rights. It is also important to point out that the belief system used to interpret these concepts is the result of nation building. This is the process that came about after the dramatic transformation of the United States from a former colony to an independent nation.

It is therefore important to point out the circumstances that led to the creation of the U.S. political system that incorporated the principles of utilitarianism and libertarianism. In other words, it is not enough to simply view these concepts as a means to develop a framework for creating laws and political decisions.

These concepts must be understood in their proper context. Therefore, liberty must be understood in relation to experience of the Americans living in the colonies as they asserted their independence against the British Empire. Equality and human rights must be understood in the context of the national struggle to break free from tyranny. Prosperity must be understood in the pursuit of the American Dream.

Utilitarianism

It is now time to figure out the basis for the policies enacted to promote liberty, equality, human rights, and prosperity. There are two major frameworks used by lawmakers and political leaders.

The first one is utilitarianism and the second one is libertarianism. John Stuart Mills interpretation of utilitarianism contributed greatly to the discussion on how to develop the correct framework for policymaking purposes.

He pointed out, that there is a much better way to develop guidelines that can help society deal with social issues. John Stuart Mill said that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill 1). This theory is generally known in legal circles as utilitarianism.

In the utilitarian framework a correct decision can be achieved if the end goal is the creation of happiness. It must not be interpreted as a self-indulgent mindset even if it seeks to eliminate pain, discomfort, and other negative feelings. It must be understood from the point of view of John Stuart Mill. He clarified that there must be a standard and this standard:

is not the agents own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character (Mill 7).

Sandel understood the core principle of utilitarianism and made the remarks: One way of thinking about the right thing to do, perhaps the most natural and familiar way, is to ask what will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Sandel 9).

But this legal expert was quick to make a counter-argument that maximizing utility, or collective happiness, may come at the expense of individual rights (Sandel 9). This assertion is a valid point especially if one considers the tendency of the majority to create laws that ignores the welfare of the minority.

Libertarianism

Utilitarianism provided a clear goal and that is the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number of people. However, one can find several weaknesses in this argument. It is therefore important to address a problematic issue of utilitarianism which is the creation of a standard that oversimplifies social issues. Thus, the concept of libertarianism was introduced as an alternative view. Libertarianism addresses the need to clarify the importance of human rights. According to Sandel:

Libertarians are best known as advocates of free markets and critics of government regulation. Underlying their laissez-faire stance is the idea that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty  a right to do whatever we want wit the things we own, provided we do not violate other peoples rights to do the same (Sandel 49).

The high value given to liberty explains the reason why a clarification was made regarding the source of these ideas. It must be pointed out that the libertarians point of view was heavily influenced by historical events. Libertarianism is the assurance that the tyranny of the elite can no longer be repeated in the future.

But in the 21^st century the fear of oppression from a monarchy is no longer a relevant issue. In fact, liberty is now seen as an indirect cause to some of the problems faced by many Americans today. This negative consequence is the result of the misuse of liberty, especially if viewed from the clause stating that every American citizen has the right to do whatever he wants to do. It is easy to abuse liberty, even if one adds limitations, such as the idea that everything is feasible as long as the person does not violate the rights of others.

Citizenship, Sacrifice and Service

Liberty is important especially when viewed in countries where a dictator rules. Liberty is precious especially after a recent declaration of independence. But liberty can be counter-productive if citizens of the State have become self-centered in their pursuit of happiness. The best example is the use of liberty to exploit legal loopholes. The damaging effect of liberty can be seen in the way it was used to bend rules in order to exploit people.

Sandel argued that the citizens of this nation must have a strong sense of community. It must incorporate the highest ideals of utilitarianism and libertarianism. In other words this country must work towards policies that will benefit the greatest number of people without trampling individual rights. It is not as improbable as one would think but it would require a change in mindset concerning the importance of liberty, prosperity, equality and human rights.

Sandel made an important observation when it comes to the pursuit of the good life. He was correct to assert that there is nothing wrong with the need to create a good life. But the disturbing development in 21^st century America can be traced to the lack of a sense of community. Thus, individuals tend to work on their own without regard to others.

The inability to form meaningful relationships with diverse groups of people intensified the development of elitist thinking. Furthermore, there is also the increasing addiction to the idea of privatization. The idea of private property is one of the most enduring and important legacies of the founding fathers. They strived hard to provide individual citizens the right to have their own property. Therefore, they can live like kings in their own domain. However, there are many instances when privatization can lead to selfish behavior.

It is high time to understand that privatization has limits. A person must not build his own kingdom and create a barrier that separates him form the rest of the community. It will not take long before that person experiences the sting of isolation. This person may succeed in creating an oasis in a city torn by violence and poverty.

But what will be the effect the moment he steps out of his cocoon? There are many incidents wherein rich people get killed from mugging and other violent acts. In other words, this person has to work really hard in order to create slice of heaven on Earth, in order to insulate himself from the outside world.

The unintended consequence is the need for the ordinary person to work like a slave in order to achieve happiness. In the past children were happy with toys that they can make on their own. Today, a typical American child cannot be happy unless his parents bring him to a toy store selling expensive items. When he grows up and become a teenager, his appetite for expensive toys remains the same. He will then pressure his parents to buy video games and other items that can cost hundreds of dollars

The desperate desire to acquire more wealth in order to buy things that they do not need has driven men and women to do things that they would regret later in life. In many cases business leaders are forced to bend the rules in order to increase the profit margins of their respective companies. The best examples were the erring companies that went bankrupt after the government indicted them because of irregularities. The story of Enron and WorldCom is a reminder that America requires a transformation from within (Fusaro & Miller 10).

Inequality and Solidarity

Sandel also made an important contribution when he said that it is not only important to respect individual human rights and support the desire of people to pursue happiness. He said that it is also important to work together as one people. Sandel circles back to his original position that people need to have a sense of community. It is important ingredient in order to attain sustainable economic growth.

Sandel also said that it is of critical importance to eradicate inequality. However, Sandel proposed that it is not enough to simply create laws that free them from bondage of slavery and segregation. It is not enough to uphold the law. People of all race, creed, and color must come together in solidarity. Sandel said that if society cannot solve the problem of inequality then the gap between rich and poor widens.

Sandel made an effective argument regarding the evils of inequality. He said that if the gap widens between rich and poor, then, there is no hope to rehabilitate broken institutions like the public school system. It is interesting to note the rapid decline of what was once considered as a bastion of quality education was not caused by a weak economy but the result of neglect. It is the direct result when influential people stopped sending their children to private schools.

At first glance the decision of the rich to send their children to private schools is a mere expression of their right to choose. They believe that sending their children to private schools ensures a bright future. Using principles gleaned from utilitarianism and libertarianism, this decision is perfectly within their rights. But upon closer examination, it will be revealed that the self-imposed isolation by the countrys elite resulted in the overall decline of social institutions.

The explanation is so simple but requires the brilliance of Sandels mind to make it obvious to the general public. The failure to interact with other members of society on the basis of social status prevents influential people to see the problems that plague society. More importantly, the barrier that exists between social classes prevents the rich and powerful to help those who are in need because they are unaware of their plight.

Conclusion

Sandel made a convincing argument regarding the need to go beyond the principles of utilitarianism and libertarianism. He said that even if one combines the best ideas from both schools of thought, it is not enough to deal with the problems that have caused the deterioration of American society. Sandels proposal is so simple but it is highly unlikely that Americans will embrace it. Sandel said that people must have a sense of community.

According to him, it is not enough to know liberty, prosperity, equality and human rights. Sandel said that people of diverse social backgrounds must come together. This proposition can be achieved if rich and poor continue to find ways to interact with each other. In this way the general public becomes aware of the problems that affect everyone and they can work together to find a solution to a particular need.

Works Cited

Fusaro, Peter and Ross Miller. What Went Wrong at Enron: Everyones Guide to the Largets Bankruptcy in U.S. History. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. Print.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. 2011. Web.

Sandel, Michael. Justice: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.