There are two forms of utilitarianism, both act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism attempts to identify an ideal type of behavior to decide a preferable structure that can produce an overall good. Proponents argue that a person should behave in such a way that the recipients of the action should gain the maximum benefits. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, is based on creating regulations that can define people’s behavior to punish those that go against the law (Singer, 2011). One of the most common weaknesses of act utilitarianism is that it does not identify answers to moral questions. Critics say that it permits actions where everyone knows that they are morally wrong but still insist that they are doing it to benefit the masses. A suicide bomber, for example, can walk to a school and kill innocent children that do not adhere to his or her religion. A judge can also convict innocent persons without confirming their guilt to make it as a lesson to others that murder is wrong and discourage the members of the community.
Utilitarianism can have justifiable forms of actions that discourage personal endeavors. Act utilitarianism states that the good of the majority is better than that of an individual. When considering individual rights, one is guaranteed the opportunity to pursue their interests without interference. A business owner is entitled to sell goods at low prices provided that their customers at the majority in the community. Other owners cannot make the profit unless everyone can have invested in various activities that can gain advantages. Another example is the ability of judges having the power to decide on cases based on whether it benefits the people. If the lawmakers can prevent riots, for instance, by convicting innocent persons and those that are instigating disturbances in the community, it means that a judge can sentence people to prevent unruly behavior ( Shafer-Landau , 2017) . In a similar situation, a doctor can save five people from death by killing a healthy person and taking out their organs. Utilitarianism is based on a form of behavior that can be a disadvantage for individual interests. The arguments imply that a certain act is morally permissible or required. It can approve moral concepts that conflict that are widespread and deeply held ethical procedures in the community.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Utilitarians can criticize the traditional moral values and rules for being too rigid and without allowing the people to base their trust on an action. Doctors, judges and other influential personalities are committed to doing the best tomaximize the well-being of the majority. Therefore, an individual is entitled to losing his or her position in the community by promoting the welfare. For example, a person in a minority race cannot get into the international university to promote the good of the majority. As a result, act utilitarianism is not accountable for people and cannot help them to act by critical moral tulles. Their behavior lacks consistency, and one can only trust social stability. Equal consideration of interests is also the primary consideration of utilitarianists believe that they have moral duties to others that to themselves. One considers a hypothetical case in the society rather than his or her well-being ( Shafer-Landau , 2017) . People living in affluent countries, for example, should not purchase luxury items for themselves when the world is full of sick and hungry persons, who make up the majority. They should keep donating the money until the impoverished are in the same level of income.
When using utilitarianism as the determinant of justice, it is possible to help strangers rather than benefiting one’s family members and friends. Act utilitarianism is based on the actions that benefit the majority and justice that can be promoting the well-being of the society. Strangers can go into a person’s home in large numbers and require him or her to offer their belongings for the good of the majority. Utilitarians defend the actions by determining that such activities do not maximize utility. However, the answers that critics offer to weaken the theory by asserting the approach that ordinary moral claims can claim the ethical justifications of the people. In the United States, for example, the president elected by the Electoral College vote should not be declared as long as the voters have chosen the people ( Shafer-Landau , 2017) . The judgment is not applicable to capitalistic nations that encourage everybody to work hard to improve their standard of living. By forsaking utilitarianism, one can defend his or her actions by asserting that they do not harm others but instead exploiting the available resources.
Utility justice irrationally supports rule-based actions in cases where overall good could be done by violating the law rather than obeying it. One of such cases is the rule of worship, where Islamic countries violate the rights of women and children to adhere to the requirements of their scriptures. The laws forbidding some actions apply to all people without the justification of whether it benefits the majority or not. The objective of the rulers is to ensure and guarantee that everyone obeys the law without compromise. Judges and lawmakers provide that they are ready to refrain or violate their positions as long as the nation remains peaceful. When people are aware that they can violate the rule of law in masses, they end up overthrowing the justice system as they become the majority ( Shafer-Landau , 2017) . Such cases have been evident during the Arab Spring, where the masses realized that they could rise against oppressive rule without suffering consequences. The elected individuals cannot keep up with the daily needs of the people and end up making laws to limit actions such as protests and free speech to keep the public at peace.
It does not mean that utilitarianists support rigid rules without exceptions. They are keen on establishing the situations that a person can violate the rules. For example, an ambulance may run a red light to save a life. However, a person that may be quick to withdraw money to save her husband from starvation is entitled to an arrest. The arguments that utilitarianists make do not adhere to logic. The justice system that exists selects a jury of peers to guarantee that an individual did not act according to the rule of the majority ( Shafer-Landau , 2017) . However, thousands of people from minority races have been convicted by a jury of members that do not understand the background or the situations affecting the person. Utility justice imposes constraints on the minority not only in races but also in businesses, social status and other areas in the society.
Conclusion
The form of justice that utilitarianism supports is not similar to the libertarian point of view. Libertarians assert that there are a set of rights that each person should have to guarantee their position in the society. The rights are independent of other people as long as one does not violate the freedoms of others. On the other hand, the freedom of others is above individual rights. A doctor may kill a healthy patient to research on ways in which one can save others in the society or harvest organs for ten other patients. Although some good may be done by adopting utility justice, it is essential to ensure that people have their rights. Justice should ensure that everyone is free to push his or her interests without harming others in the society. The majority, however, should not rise against a person merely because they believe that they have the benefit of the numbers. Everyone is guaranteed of his or her position in the society without compromise.
Reference
Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The Fundamentals of Ethics , 4th Edition. Oxford university press.
