UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by

focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.
Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce
the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that
can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common
approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it
accounts for costs and benefits.
However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with
certainty whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This
is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and
individual rights. For example, assume a hospital has four people whose
lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and
a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be
harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably
produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it
an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.
So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to
determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations.
LIMITATIONS OF UTILITARIANISM:
Calculating Utility: One of the major challenges of utilitarianism is the
difficulty in calculating and comparing the utility of different actions,
especially when dealing with complex moral situations. It is often hard to
quantify and compare happiness or pleasure in a meaningful and objective
way.
Example: Medical professionals often face dilemmas in allocating scarce
resources, such as organs for transplant. Choosing between patients based
on factors like age, overall health, and potential years of life remaining
creates ethical challenges in calculating the utility of saving one life over
another.
Qualitative Differences: Utilitarianism does not always account for
qualitative differences in types of happiness or pleasure. It treats all forms of
happiness as equal, which critics argue oversimplifies the complexity of
human experiences. For example, it might prioritize superficial pleasures
over deep, meaningful experiences.
Example: Consider a restaurant offering a limited menu. Utilitarianism might
focus on serving fast food that appeals to the masses, overlooking the option
of including healthier, gourmet meals that provide a more enriching dining
experience for those seeking quality over quantity.
Minority Rights: Utilitarianism can potentially overlook the rights and
interests of minorities. If an action maximizes overall happiness but does so
at the expense of a minority group, this approach could be seen as unjust or
unfair.
Example In a classroom, a teacher wants to engage students in a discussion.
Utilitarianism might encourage the teacher to favor topics that interest the
majority, potentially neglecting the perspectives and interests of students
from minority backgrounds, leading to unequal participation opportunities.
Justice and Fairness: Critics argue that utilitarianism can sometimes lead to
unjust outcomes, such as punishing an innocent person if it results in greater
overall happiness. The focus on overall happiness might overlook principles
of justice and fairness.
Example: Think of a jury deciding a verdict. Utilitarianism might suggest
convicting an innocent person if it prevents public unrest, but this decision
clearly violates the principle of justice and fairness, as an innocent person is
punished for a crime they did not commit.
Lack of Moral Integrity: Utilitarianism might require individuals to perform
actions that go against their moral integrity or personal values if it maximizes
overall happiness. This raises concerns about the moral worth of actions
performed under duress.
Example: Utilitarianism could require an individual to lie or commit a morally
questionable act if it maximizes overall happiness. For instance, lying to a
friend about a sensitive matter might be justified if it prevents conflict and
promotes overall happiness, even though it compromises personal integrity.
Difficulty in Predicting Consequences: Predicting the consequences of an
action is often complex and uncertain. Utilitarianism relies on accurate
predictions of outcomes, which might not always be possible, leading to
morally questionable decisions based on incomplete information.
Example: A government decision to go to war might be based on the
utilitarian calculation that it would bring stability to a region. However,
predicting the consequences of war, including civilian casualties and long-
term social and political unrest, is complex and uncertain.
Instrumental Use of Individuals: Utilitarianism can be interpreted to justify
using individuals as means to an end if it leads to greater overall happiness.
Critics argue that this instrumental use of individuals disregards their
inherent worth and dignity.
Example: A company decides to cut costs by exploiting low-wage workers,
potentially leading to poor working conditions and low wages. This treats
individuals as instruments for profit.
Cultural Differences: Different cultures have diverse values and beliefs
about what constitutes happiness and suffering. Utilitarianism's universal
approach might not align with these cultural variations, leading to potential
conflicts and misunderstandings.
Example: Think of a global fast-food chain introducing standardized menu
items worldwide. Utilitarianism might prioritize consistency and cost-
efficiency but could clash with local cultural preferences, overlooking the
diverse tastes and culinary traditions of different regions.
No Room for Special Obligations: Utilitarianism does not provide room for
special obligations that individuals might have towards their family members
or close friends. It treats all individuals' happiness as equal, which some
critics find morally problematic.
Example: Utilitarianism might not recognize the special obligation a parent
feels towards their child. It might suggest that a parent should distribute
resources equally among all children, even if one child has greater needs
due to illness or disability, disregarding the special bond and responsibility
parents often feel towards their children.
Rule Utilitarianism: To address some of the limitations of act utilitarianism,
some philosophers propose rule utilitarianism. However, this version also
faces challenges in defining the appropriate rules and determining how to
handle conflicts between rules.
Example: Rule utilitarianism might propose a rule that lying is generally
wrong because lying undermines trust in society. However, in a specific
situation where lying could save someone's life, following the rule might lead
to an ethically problematic outcome.

Think of traffic laws. Rule utilitarianism might suggest following traffic rules
to ensure overall safety and order, even in situations where breaking a minor
rule could lead to a safer outcome, such as allowing an ambulance to pass
through a red light during an emergency.