Many philosophical thoughts that were introduced in the 18 th and 19 th centuries have continued to influence the world to date. Many of the theories dealt substantially with moral reasoning and the consequences of action. Reference to the research Sinnott-Armstrong and Wheatley (2012), philosophical theories should be subjected to rigorous though in order to establish their usefulness in everyday life. Against this backdrop, the present essay sets out to investigate Utilitarianism as a concept that was developed by John Stuart Mill. This paper seeks to define the theory and give its implications in justice, integrity, and fairness.
Definition of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a philosophical theorem which approves of one’s actions based on the goodness and general happiness of a majority. This persuasive strategy holds that provided one engages in an activity for the interest of the happiness of the entire society, the action is morally right. The theory was originally developed by Jeremy Bentham and later modified by John Stuart Mill. According to Mill (2016), morality is pegged on any character if the consequences of the person’s acts lead to ultimate happiness. It is noteworthy to mention that in this normative persuasion strategy, one always looks at the consequences and not the action itself. It, therefore, means that even bad intentions may at times produce good consequences which will later deem the acts moral. Mill (2016) however argues that not act is morally right independently. Instead, the general context of the action should be carefully investigated so that nobody seeks personal interests and pleasure. In order for an individual to assess whether the activity they are yet to engage in is right, they should always ask about the intrinsic value and the ultimate happiness for all people.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Utilitarianism and Worries on Justice, Fairness and Integrity
Many scholars who have explored the utilitarianism theorem find many flaws of the persuasion strategy especially in its application in justice, integrity and fairness' in the society. To begin with, Utilitarianism seems to ignore the objective application of justice. In a research exploring the effect of utilitarianism on decision making, Beekun, Stedham, Westerman, and Yamamura (2010) argue that one weakness of this theory regards its compromise on justice. In other words, utilitarianism ignores justice when it classifies higher pleasures and lower pleasures as the parameters for right and wrong. An example can be given of a judge who rules over a case in which a suspect is accused of instigating a war in the town. Bearing in mind that the suspect is innocent, jailing him will bring happiness to the town while freeing him will stir a stronger insurrection. According to utilitarian thought, the best strategy is to jail the person so that a majority can have their happiness. In this case, justice to the suspect has not been achieved but it is instead compromised for the good of the townspeople. Against this backdrop, the greatest worry is that the right of an individual is less important than the selfish good of the entire society.
Another worry about utilitarianism in the corridors of justice is that giving someone a legal right could be a breach of someone else’s rights. Although Mill (2016) stresses that utilitarian gives someone what they deserve, sometimes establishing this becomes an objective problem. Critics of the theory continue to observe that in many instances, justice is relative and it depends on what people perceive to be right. In such instances, utilitarianism may free a criminal and jail an innocent individual hence failing to achieve justice. This comes when someone has been deprived a right based on lack of goodness in the actions. It is important to underscore that certain actions may not yield immediate goodness. Pegging goodness on the actions is, therefore, a flawed strategy that is devoid of justice.
Turning to integrity, there are a number of flaws associated with utilitarianism. The postulation of Mill (2016) that every action should be judged based on happiness is a dangerous strategy that rejects conscience and permits lesser evil. In other words, there are people who may use questionable means to achieve selfish gain hence flouting integrity. This is the idea advanced by Hill (2010) who contends that utilitarianism compromises one’s integrity by considering consequences instead of the means. By way of example, a person may be allowed to tell a lie to avoid embarrassment or save himself from a dangerous situation. Also, in the society, a person who is poor can just steal from a rich neighbor so that they put bread on the table. In both of these instances, ultimate happiness is achieved. However, matters of integrity have been seriously flouted.
A critical look at the utilitarian theory with regards to integrity shows that the classification of pressures into higher and lower forms permits one to exploit their intellectual abilities for selfish interests. For example, a government official may use his superior wit and squander public resources because this act may not be discovered by those who are illiterate. It is at this point that the theory becomes questionable. A student who has the last chance to participate in a difficult can attain happiness by cheating. As Hill (2010) observes, determining case by looking at the consequence ignores the right principles of integrity. This reasoning is based on the fact that one may do an action or allow certain things to happen indirectly. Utilitarianism fails to punish the indirect actions yet they are also within the control of the doer.
Fairness is a virtue that everyone pursues in society. However, the postulations of utilitarianism seem to be in conflict with fairness. Beekun et al. (2010) observe that utilitarianism is majorly based on consequences and outcomes that satisfy the majority. Utilitarianism may encourage unfair treatment of certain individuals so that some people attain happiness. An example can be given of master-servant relationship. In the mind of the slave, he feels that he should be freed. However, to the master, the slaves should always be detained so that the happiness of the master on development projects can be achieved. In this example, therefore, it is apparent that fairness to the slave has been compromised so that the master can attain selfish happiness.
A critical look at the utilitarian theorem reveals that it permits unjust actions that violate the fairness that individuals need. Further, it permits unjust actions against individuals as the wicked ones prosper. This is one reason why the theory is flawed. Fairness is not achieved when the consequences and outcomes are placed above the actions themselves. Bad precedence and long-term consequences of actions are never considered in utilitarian thoughts. In this regard, immediate outcomes lead to rash judgment thence denying victims the fairness deserved.
Conclusion
This essay has investigated utilitarianism as a persuasion strategy in philosophy. This theory was originally developed by Jeremy Bentham and modified by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism considers the consequences of actions with particular attention to happiness. In this theory, provided that one achieves happiness, the actions are likely to be judged as moral. This essay has established that utilitarianism compromises justice, integrity, and fairness in society. It is, therefore, the conclusion of the essay that before any philosophical theory is applied, people should subject it to rigorous thought so that illogicalities can be identified. This is a sure way to avoid flawed reasoning.
References
Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y., Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2010). Effects of justice and utilitarianism on ethical decision making: A cross ‐ cultural examination of gender similarities and differences. Business Ethics: A European Review , 19 (4), 309-325.
Hills, A. (2010). Utilitarianism, contractualism, and demandingness. The Philosophical Quarterly , 60 (239), 225-242.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Wheatley, T. (2012). The disunity of morality and why it matters to philosophy. The Monist , 95 (3), 355-377.
