Niña Amato BSED-English 2

1. What is utilitarianism and explain its basic principle?

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that is based on a principle which states that an action
is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness
—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also that of everyone affected by it.
For instance, in an academic institution, if raising the rate of its tuition and miscellaneous fees in
return for a greater service like making the entire classroom air-conditioned would yield to
towards the satisfaction of the students in terms with their learning environment and if it
enhances their learning pace, then the action is determined right. However, if the action results to
the students’ withdrawal of enrolment from the university due to financial crisis that the raise
brought, then the action is considered wrong.

2. How does Bentham’s definition of utilitarianism differ from Mill’s? Provide at least
two salient points?

The first thing that differs Bentham’s definition of utilitarianism from Mill’s is that Bentham
claims that utilitarianism as something that highly considers the good effects that result from an
action as determinants whether an act is right or wrong, thus the right thing to do is maximize
pleasure or happiness. While for Mill, utilitarianism is an act that is considered to be right if and
only if it is required by a rule that is itself acceptable towards the greater utility for the society
than any available means.

The second thing that varies from the perspective of both philosophers towards utilitarianism is
that for Bentham, all pleasures are qualitatively equal and that the difference in their quantity is
simply due to the difference in their duration or intensity. Meanwhile, Mill posits that there is a
hierarchy of pleasure which is composed of two types—the lower and the higher pleasure; where
the lower pleasure encompasses all the physical wants of humans including eating, drinking,
sexuality, and resting. While the higher pleasure involves the intellectual or spiritual enterprises
which are culture, scientific knowledge, aesthetic, and social enjoyment.

3. Cite and explain at least two (2) criticisms of utilitarianism and provide a response
respective to the criticism.
One criticism about utilitarianism claims that by counting everyone’s preferences as equal
including your own it would require people to sacrifice even their own happiness.

In my opinion, counting everyone’s preferences equally cannot harm our happiness and does not
necessitate us to sacrifice our happiness since what this theory teaches us is how to make moral
choices centred on a community-based perspective rather than in an individual outlook. It
promotes that every individual must maintain an attitude of willingness to sacrifice for the
farewell of others to attain the fulfilment of our life’s purpose. If I may quote Denis Waitley he
says, “Happiness cannot be travelled to, owned, earned, worn, or consumed. Happiness is the
spiritual experience of living every minute with love, grace, and gratitude.” Thus, by looking up
to the happiness of others, we can be able to show and share our love, grace, and gratitude.

Another criticism towards utilitarianism is against its consequentialist nature which accordingly
supports the principle, “the end justifies the means.” For me, this morality does not entitle that
people should act according to arbitrary whim in order to arrive to reasonable end. This principle
is simply a moral ethic that says striving for the most possible good is more moral than any bad
actions cannot be justified by any results.

4. Differentiate act-utilitarianism from rule-utilitarianism. Provide your own example.

Act-utilitarianism is a belief that an action becomes morally right when it produce the greatest
good for the greatest number of people, while rule-utilitarianism is a belief that the moral
correctness or wrongness of an action depends on the rules provided. Also, it promotes the
calculation of the acceptance or rejection of the rule considering its overall utility.

Act utilitarianism is exercised when murdering a theft who bothered and broke into many houses
in a subdivision. Though killing is intrinsically wrong, but since to kill this theft means to give
happiness and pleasure to the people living in the subdivision, still the act is considered right.

Rule-utilitarianism is applied when someone drives at night and sees a red intersection light;
thinking that it yields a good consequence if she would stick to the rules and not cross the red
light so that everyone will be safe, then she would apply the rule in her driving and wait for the
lights to turn green.
 5. What does Mill mean when he said, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied?” How is this view regarding pleasure different from that of
Bentham?

Human beings are organized by rules in a society; we are kept in order due to these regulations
that we ought to follow unlike pigs or animals which are governed by any guidelines or
protocols, hence they are free to do whatever they want. Mill’s point in expressing such is that it
is better to be someone who is dissatisfied as long as we live with the rules, possess greater
dignity and higher virtue, and not jeopardizing someone else’s lives. In contrast with this, if we
are animals, then we would not care nor empathize with others as long as we make ourselves
happy and attain pleasure which is the main point of Bentham’s act-utilitarianism.

6. John Stuart Mill claims that we should protect individual rights, because in the long
run, it would produce the greatest amount of happiness. Do you agree with him? Is
that really why we should not harm innocent people nor violate their rights?

I strongly agree with Mill’s claim. For me, it is indeed the main point of respecting other
people’s rights, so that we may be able to live a happy, peaceful, and guilt-free life. Also, for us
to gain back the respect that we ought to receive from others, since “respect begets respect.”
Moreover, in line with the golden rule which says, “Do not do unto others what you do not want
others to do unto you,” we must not violate nor harm innocent people’s rights.

7. There are situations when we need to sacrifice a smaller number of people in order
to prevent harm to a much larger number of people. Is it always moral to harm or
sacrifice a smaller number to avoid harm to a larger number? If so, should we
always maximize happiness and minimize pain?

No, in the first place we are not entitled to harm smaller number of people for the sake of the
bigger number, because they are still humans and they possess equal amount of rights that the
larger number has and that they must be treated equally and must enjoy them without any
condition especially of this kind. If we can think of other means to resolve such dilemma without
endangering them, then that will be the fittest thing to execute. Moreover, maximizing happiness
over pain is not applicable if we already came to the point of jeopardizing people’s lives even for
the sake of many people.
 8. Suppose that the Philippine Army found out the location of a warehouse where the
terrorists manufactured and stock their bombs, and based on military intelligence,
the terrorists are planning to have them exploded in the middle of the city, which
would result in the death of large number of civilians. The only way for the military
to foil the impending bombing is to bomb the warehouse at that very moment. The
problem, however, is that there are civilians who live close to the place. What’s the
right thing to do?

For me, this principle is contradicting because it implies that human lives both have intrinsic
value (and so should be saved) and that they can be treated as a means to obtain some other end
(and so can be sacrificed). However, if applied in this situation, the best thing that they can do is
to talk with the terrorists and do all the necessary measures to convince them not to execute the
bombing/terrorism as it would cause many lives. It is a common knowledge that these people
have their reasons behind why they are doing these acts. As the rightful authority to take charge
with the situation, the Philippine Army must be able to address the terrorists’ needs and
determine their main purpose and see if they can be negotiable and completely prevent terrorism.

9. What if the majority of the members of a society derive pleasure from persecuting
and oppressing the LGBTQ+ members, who composed a small minority? Should we
allow them to continue persecuting them if that would produce the greatest balance
of pleasure? Are some pleasures objectionable?

No, because allowing them to oppress the small minority of the LGBTQ+ community only
shows tolerance towards the disrespect of the rights that these individuals enjoy. If so, how can
we be able to maintain peace, and promote the essence of unity amidst diversity? If this act
persists, then it would only bring chaos to the lives of these individuals who only wish to live in
peace and order while enjoying their rights. As long as they did not jeopardize other’s lives then
might as well let them live their gender and accept them as part of the society. In such case, some
pleasure can be objectionable.

10. Evaluate the President’s war on drugs from utilitarian’s perspective? Do you think
that the President shall achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of
people? Argue your position.
Based on the utilitarian’s perspective, the President can be able to achieve the greatest happiness
for the greatest number of people because he only aims to punish criminals for a peaceful
society; this would eventually lead to the greatest happiness of the majority. However, the utility
of killing these alleged dealers/users must be justified and proven that they are criminals because
there can be cases of mistaken identities which may result to greater collateral damage if not
regulated.

______________________________________________________________________________

Thanos’ snap is similar to utilitarianism in a sense that he adheres towards saving the planet from
ceasing to exist due to overpopulation. He intends to eliminate half the native population to let
his people survive. Moreover, the preservation of all life was his goal above else. Also, as
evidenced by the death of Gamora, he was willing to sacrifice any number of individual lives in
order to service the greater good. The destruction, death, and grief that it brings to them don’t
matter for him, because for him it is the end that matter.