GORGOLON, DENISE

GE9(2771)

Title: The Dilemma of Utilitarianism: Balancing the Greater Good and Individual Well-
being

Utilitarianism, as an ethical theory, posits a seemingly straightforward principle: the greatest

happiness for the greatest number. This one driving idea has elicited both praise and criticism. In
this reflection paper, we will explore how a singular principle can attempt to guide all moral
decisions and the ethical implications of potentially sacrificing some individuals' well-being for
the greater good.

The simplicity of utilitarianism—a single guiding principle to simplify moral decision-making—

is what draws people to it. It's easy to fall in love with the idea of maximizing happiness all around;
however, its application in real life raises difficult questions. What does pleasure entail for us?
How is it calculated? Most importantly, how can we achieve a balance between majority pleasure
and individual well-being?

Utilitarianism is notable for its emphasis on maximizing happiness overall. Although this may, in
theory, appear noble, it raises concerns regarding whose happiness should be prioritized. Does it
involve compromising some people's well-being for the sake of the larger good? I was forced to
consider the complexities of ethical decision-making as a result of these dilemmas. One main issue
with utilitarianism is the potential for forfeiting individual privileges. Utilitarianism may justify
infringing on the rights of a few people if it benefits the majority because it focuses on maximizing
overall happiness. As sacrificing individual rights undermines principles like autonomy and
justice, this raises ethical questions.

A consequentialist theory, utilitarianism places an emphasis on the outcomes of actions rather than
inherent moral principles. According to this point of view, the actions that have the best overall
consequences are those that are morally right. The overall balance of happiness over suffering and
pleasure over pain is the focus. It is based on John Stuart Mill's distinction between higher and
lower pleasures and Jeremy Bentham's principle of "the greatest happiness for the greatest
number."
One more test lies in evaluating joy and agony. The morality of an action is determined by
measuring happiness and suffering, according to utilitarianism. Nonetheless, doling out
mathematical qualities to emotional encounters is profoundly hazardous. It is difficult to accurately
quantify these experiences because different people have different thresholds for pleasure and pain.
Utilitarianism holds that activities are ethically correct, assuming they amplify general bliss or
prosperity. I was intrigued by this concept, but I was also left with a question: How could a single
moral tenet guide all subsequent actions? I came to the conclusion as I delved deeper into the
philosophy that utilitarianism emphasizes striking a balance between individual happiness and the
welfare of the community rather than sacrificing individuals' well-being for the greater good. It
forces us to consider how our actions may impact everyone concerned.

The single guiding principle of utilitarianism, which is to maximize overall happiness, provides a
compelling framework for making moral decisions. Be that as it may, the hypothesis faces analysis
for forfeiting individual prosperity for long-term winning potential. To establish a balance between
the requirements of the majority and the preservation of individual rights and well-being, nuanced
considerations are necessary. Reflecting on utilitarianism prompts us to consider the difficulties of
attempting to apply a single principle to the diverse and intricate moral landscape. However,
determining who prioritizes pleasure and how to balance opposing objectives remains challenging.