Write A Two To Three Page Double-Spaced Essay

Write An Essay Two To Three Pages Double Spacedanswering The Followi

Write an essay two to three pages (double spaced) answering the following questions: What is Utilitarianism? Explain what you take to be the two most important objections to Utilitarianism. What are the best utilitarian replies to these objections? Do they replies succeed in showing that utilitarianism is a plausible moral theory or ought utilitarianism to be rejected? Guidelines Write two sentences that you introduce a key concept and indicate what thesis you will argue Use your own words, do not copy Rachel's or other source without attribution.

Paper For Above instruction

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that evaluates actions based on their consequences, specifically aiming to maximize overall happiness or utility. This consequentialist approach asserts that the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number, making it a significant framework in moral philosophy. Despite its appeal, utilitarianism faces notable objections that challenge its practical and moral legitimacy. Two of the most important criticisms are its potential to justify morally questionable actions and its difficulty in fairly measuring and comparing happiness across individuals. In this essay, I will explore these objections and analyze the responses that utilitarianism offers in their defense, ultimately assessing whether these replies successfully establish utilitarianism as a plausible moral theory or if they expose fundamental weaknesses warranting rejection.

The first major objection to utilitarianism concerns its apparent condoning of actions that seem morally wrong when viewed through common moral standards. For instance, utilitarianism can justify sacrificing an innocent person if it leads to a greater overall happiness, as illustrated by the "tyranny of the majority" or the scenario where harm is inflicted on one for the benefit of many. Critics argue that this moral permissiveness undermines individual rights and justice because maximizing happiness can conflict with protecting individual moral worth. For example, in the case of punishing an innocent person to prevent unrest and promote societal happiness, utilitarianism appears to endorse actions that violate moral intuitions about individual rights. This objection challenges the theory's credibility by suggesting that it neglects important moral principles such as justice and rights, which are critical for a fair ethical framework.

The second significant objection relates to the practical difficulties in measuring happiness and comparing it across diverse individuals. Happiness is inherently subjective, and utilitarianism requires an impartial mechanism to assess and aggregate individual utilities. Critics contend that accurately quantifying and comparing happiness levels is nearly impossible, which leads to questions about the theory's predictive and normative accuracy. Additionally, this issue raises concerns about the potential for favoritism or bias in the calculation process and whether policymakers can reasonably apply utilitarian principles in real-world decision-making scenarios. If happiness cannot be reliably measured or compared, then utilitarianism risks being an overly idealized doctrine disconnected from the realities of moral judgment and social policy.

Utilitarians have developed several responses to these objections aimed at defending the plausibility of their moral theory. In addressing the problem of justice and individual rights, utilitarian defenders argue that while maximizing happiness is the ultimate goal, the theory can incorporate constraints to prevent fully rejecting individual rights. For example, rule utilitarianism suggests that adherence to rules that promote overall happiness in the long run will also uphold moral rights, thus avoiding morally egregious violations. This approach seeks to reconcile utility maximization with moral intuitions about justice by emphasizing rules that generally produce beneficial outcomes without permitting extreme violations. Moreover, some utilitarians argue that these objections often stem from overly rigid interpretations of the theory, and that in practice, moral agents can reason nuancedly about contexts, making utilitarian calculations more flexible and sensitive to moral constraints.

Regarding the measurement problem, utilitarians acknowledge the difficulty but defend the use of approximations and informed judgment rather than precise calculations. They contend that while happiness measurement may be imperfect, it is still possible to make reasonable comparative assessments based on empirical evidence and experience. Techniques such as surveys of well-being, psychological studies, and social data can guide decision-making effectively, even if perfect measurement remains unattainable. Moreover, rule utilitarianism contributes to resolving this challenge by emphasizing institutional and societal rules that tend to promote happiness rather than relying solely on individual calculations. Through these responses, utilitarians aim to demonstrate that their theory remains robust and applicable despite practical limitations.

Assessing these replies, it appears that utilitarian responses offer a compelling defense against the objections, but they do not entirely eliminate concerns. The incorporation of rules and constraints complicates the straightforward calculation of utility, risking a departure from pure consequentialism. While these responses improve the plausibility of utilitarianism, they do not fully resolve the moral tension between maximizing happiness and respecting individual rights. Consequently, utilitarianism remains a powerful but imperfect moral theory. Whether it should be rejected depends on weighing its strengths in promoting overall well-being against its potential to justify morally problematic actions. Given the current discourse, utilitarianism provides a coherent and highly influential moral framework, but its vulnerabilities warrant continued scrutiny and refinement.

In conclusion, utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory grounded in the maximization of happiness. Its primary objections—its potential to justify unjust actions and the measurement challenge—pose significant philosophical hurdles. The best utilitarian replies involve integrating rules that protect moral rights and employing practical judgments for happiness assessment. These defenses succeed in strengthening the theory’s credibility but do not entirely dispel the moral tensions it engenders. Therefore, utilitarianism remains a compelling yet imperfect moral doctrine that warrants cautious acceptance and ongoing philosophical debate.

References

  • Brandt, R. B. (2010). Ethical theory: The aims of ethics. Princeton University Press.
  • Driver, J. (2014). Consequentialism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition).
  • Hare, R. M. (2015). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Subject-Matter. Oxford University Press.
  • Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
  • Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
  • Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press.
  • Kagan, S. (1998). Normative Ethics. Westview Press.
  • Parfit, D. (2011). On What Matters. Oxford University Press.
  • Railton, P. (1984). Alienation, consequentialism, and the demands of morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 13(Suppl), 134-171.
  • Waldron, J. (2002). Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1973–1984. Cambridge University Press.

Related Assignments