Utilitarianism, as Wooldridge (n.d.) states, has two tenets.

First, they are busily fixated on

the affairs of states. That means that utilitarianism is mostly wanting to know more about the
result or outcomes of a person’s action, regardless of why this was done. An action would only
be deemed morally good on this side only if an individual maximized the consequences or the
happiness of the instance which happened. Second, decision-making must remain on neutral
ground. If a decision is to be made, one must consider all those who are dear to them at par and
no one must be deemed more important than the other. Westacott (2019), on the other hand,
discusses that there are three core principles. This includes happiness, pleasure, and the greater
good. To start off, the term “utility” in the concept of utilitarianism does not mean “useful”. In
this medium, it instead implies happiness or pleasure. In utilitarianism, happiness is formed
through varying several types of pleasures. Though there are other things that must be valued
more than pleasure, such as health, beauty, and knowledge. But Mill thinks that satisfaction with
things can only be reached if ever happiness and pleasure would be framed along with them,
thus, all of those are felt. In the mentioned sight, pleasure is claimed to be the root of happiness.
If it is not met, then an individual would fail to achieve the peak of truly understanding the
concept of happiness, in any sort, the reason why the two concepts are perceived as two
entangling types. However, utilitarianism does not fully give full recognition to an individual
type of happiness because, in their regard, action is better if they would be made for the greater
good. Another good thing about utilitarianism is despite its basic concepts (as it only entails the
need for doing things that would provide positive outcomes), it also serves as a reminder that
things must be done in a way that not only one person must benefit from doing good, and that
goodness must be shared.

But despite the interesting takes of scholars, utilitarianism has several criticisms. Austin
(2015) highlighted that there are positive effects offered by utilitarianism. However, it defeats
and disregards a major critical aspect of human nature, which is the existence of justice. For
instance, an innocent person shall be punished if more individuals demand them to be held
captive, as this would equate to the happiness of many. It places an accused in an insufferable
disposition to assure that the greater good was not ignored. This streams down to the fact that
overall, utilitarianism only takes happiness as the only element relevant, which can lead to an
unrealistic way of thinking because all decisions would not be aligned to what would be the best
one for everyone and throws out the idea that there are differences between individuals. In this
stance, the consideration of what the majority wants all the time would not make room for the
minority’s sentiments to be heard or at least be deliberated, making its concept not fair for all
concerned. Also, a collective way of imagining the idea of happiness may not be the same for
everyone, which makes the concept of ethical theory too utopic (Miller, 2019).

On a societal view, a utilitarian approach is suggested as a great way to implement laws

or reforms, because after all, its aim is to create policies that are aligned to the benefit of the
greater population. It is the reason why, based on Mitra (2019), those who are in power (who
lead in a rational way), social laws and arrangements are designed according to the happiness
and welfare of every individual while simultaneously assuring that the needs of everyone would
be met, hence, fulfilling the general interest (or in this case, what most would want to) is seen as
the moral standard and not something that must be compelled by the rules enforced. Meaning,
greatest happiness would be achieved if the greatest number of the masses’ wants would be
followed. If that transpires, the relationship of the said stakeholders would be more solidified, in
a way that trust and confidence in each other would get further bounded.

The best example that would highly construct what the preceding paragraph conveys is
through the lens of the healthcare Philippines. According to the International Citizens’ Insurance
(n.d.), the healthcare system in the country has indeed well-trained healthcare workers and
accredited hospitals to accommodate their patients. But that solely talks about the percentage of
the existing ones in the metro. It was sugarcoated in the article that due to the archipelagic
geography of the country, not all remote and far-fetched areas have the same amount or at level
services in terms of the said sector. Med Hyve (2021) stressed that there is indeed a large
difference between the offers in the rural and urban areas in the Philippines when it comes to the
offerings made by the healthcare system. Though there are a large number of public hospitals,
they are not enough and they are not capable of catering the needs of citizens in that area due to
the lack of equipment and facilities, as well as manpower. In fact, as cited, the Philippine
Institute for Development Studies indicated that 75% of the municipalities over the country seem
to have inadequate numbers of healthcare workers. In addition, since provinces or distant regions
are yet to incorporate modernization within their places. Several processes are still being done in
a manual way, which in turn may not encompass the commitment towards giving the fitting way
of taking care of the patients. Utilitarianism gets into the picture as Felzman (2017) suggests that
theories of consequentialism (is defined by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003 is the
valuing of the turnouts of a certain action more than anything else) welfarism (which according
to Keller, 2009, is about the viewing morality for the sake of others’ well-being), equality of
moral status and impartiality, along with maximization and aggregation must be applied to assure
that the healthcare being proposed by the national government plays it role to make the majority
of the citizens happy and satisfied from what they give. The combination of all the included
principles would make it easier for the government to not fail and receive a positive energy from
those that they govern. But then, doing so would miss the needs of those who are not part of the
majority groups, which in point, are those who live in the slums and areas that are yet to receive
the innovation that are being or will be further enjoyed by those who live in the cities.

Another best demonstration of how utilitarianism can be used for decision-making is in

terms of environmental policy. USAID (n.d.) explained that within Asia, the Philippines, as one
of the fastest growing countries in the said region, has been facing numerous challenges in their
environment. It is rooted from the ineffective management of the agencies within the premises,
which after effects impact women and the marginalized people, degradation of significant
biodiversity, pollution of water and air to a degree that has overtook what health standards can
take, and an elevated percent on the emission of greenhouse gasses. It was written on the said
site that the only way for the country to at least find stability and prosperity is for the Philippines
to find a way to become resilient to the changes of the environment and cope with the effects of
disasters and have a quick recovery from each obstacle that must be caused by nature. The only
way to do so is to have a set of officials that would manage projects that would address or
mitigate the problems that are being faced. Wolff (2008) emphasized in an article that they
penned that even though environmental ethics treats utilitarianism as an oxymoron, the latter
actually forwards a more sensical way of implementing environmental policies. One of the
arguments written was the fact that a utilitarian environmental ethic would encourage the
protection of the ecosystem as it would generate happiness for the Filipinos to enjoy. It can also
constitute for the stopping of hunting and instead secure the lives of wild animals and liberate the
existence of domesticated animals as humans would have the power to instead ask for the
sparing of the mentioned species as another source of their happiness. However, other ethicists
argue that doing actions that are solely based on what would benefit humans can mean that there
might be imbalance in the ecosystems and other organisms might be left at stake. It would also
mean that the rights and intrinsic values of other existing ones would not be noticed.

References: