Utilitarianism is an approach to ethics that emphasizes that actions are only justifiable if their end goal is beneficial, and hence, brings about happiness among individuals. The above approach which embraces pleasure rather than pain and suffering is believed to have been pioneered by Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the Hellenistic period. The above thought is highly supported by the hedonist, who say that human beings live to seek happiness and hence, this is the primary objective of life. There are several dimensions that this theory could be approached in accordance with how its believers think about it. Regardless of the different views whose main focus is on the utility of an action or undertaking, the above theory has its weaknesses and strengths, as exemplified by societal practices that tend to emulate or practice principles central in this school of thought.
Utilitarianism has several advantages, especially when the masses in a given community firmly believe in it. One of them is that it is likely to result in a society where morals are the primary guiding principles. With such living standards, a community that lives and cares about the good of the other person is likely to result. An example is where people do not steal because such an action could cause others pain and hence do not conform to the stipulated Utilitarianism principles. Another one is where there is fair trade and no production of counterfeit goods because such an act degrades the original product, an aspect that acts to the disadvantage of the primary producer, hence causing him pain.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The approach is also advantageous because it is likely to promote effective altruism. This type of altruism urges people to analyze as well as profoundly think about an action before execution to determine that its outcome will be beneficial. The above dramatically focuses on issues such as policies, trading deals, and agreements, large-scale manufacturing, and production in industries among others. The US government, for example, would be urged by this argument to engage in peace talks with North Korea to avoid an eruption of a nuclear war that is likely to have devastating effects on a majority of the both country’s citizens. Other than government leaders giving reckless comments that could spark conflict, they are urged to deliberate on the issue carefully. Another example is companies acting in the best interest of the community at large, hence being socially responsible. Others in this sector could ensure the fumes released into the air during industrial production are filtered to reduce their contribution to global warming.
Utilitarianism has been criticized to a large extent due to its inclination that in some cases is paradoxical and opposes common ethics.
Utilitarianism does not hold central an individual’s right, but the good of the overall community. The impartial nature of this approach, hence, cannot be proved to cause all individuals to be happy.
The abstract nature of Utilitarianism makes the whole concept hard to explicitly define. It is difficult to have a measure of happiness whose standard is proved to be the ideal one. An individual might delight in an undertaking or an outcome while another one might not be delighted by the same aspect. The above concept is exemplified by J S Mill who argued that there are variabilities that are related to pleasure, making it an aspect that is intrinsically desirable to some individuals while it is not to others. A real-life example would be although lying is not morally acceptable to many, others lie for the main reason of protecting one’s image, an aspect that is still desirable to many. The central question on this is then how the act of lying can be justified while still sticking to hedonism.
In conclusion, although Utilitarianism has advantages such as resulting in a harmonious community as well as responsible governments and industries, it is partially disadvantageous because it does not focus on an individual but masses. Besides, it is hard to measure happiness and pleasure, hence, making it difficult to precisely classify individuals as happy or sad.
