UtilitarianismUtilitarianismUtilitarianism could be summed up by the phrase “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” The idea was first coined by Francis Hutcheson (1694- 1746) who wrote a book called “An inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue” Although strictly speaking he is not a Utilitarian; he laid down the very basic ideas of this theory. The theory of utility is later on put forward by David Hume a Scottish philosopher. As a consequentialist Hume believed that is not the action but rather the action is of the best interest of ours or others; despite of his ideas, Hume is not considered as a Utilitarian.
It was Jeremy Bentham who articulated the very first scheme of Utilitarianism. He simply put forward this very idea “the greatest sum of pleasure and the least sum of pain for the greatest sum of people.” The way which this was measured was through the application of the Hedonic calculus, which included the following seven criteria: intensity, duration, certainty, extent, remoteness, richness and purity. And one should apply these criteria when faced with a dilemma. In order to apply Benthams theory every single criteria must be considered, in order to reach the intention of utility. According to Benthams theory, the pleasure derived from a junkies pleasure in shooting up is equal to the pleasure of one watching a Shakespeare play. Of course this theory is a pure consequentialist theory which means it does not apply any basic rules or bottom lines.
Many people would later on criticize this theory as quantitative measure, which means that an action is justified through the sheer quantity of pleasure that is gained from the action. Therefore a philosopher came up with an improved version of Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill measures Utilitarianism through a qualitative measure; he believed that there are two kinds of pleasure, higher pleasure which is associated with the mind and lower pleasure which is associated with the body. He believed that high pleasure (such as literature, music and love) should always be preferred to lower pleasure (such as eating, clothing and sex). He once quoted “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” (J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism) The pleasure in which a fool indulges is discredited, because of the very own essence of the activity, whilst Socrates activities are automatically made more laudable.
Today Utilitarianism could be outlined in two different ways:Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism which basically means the action is only justified by the end means, the greatest happiness for the greatest number, with only the guidelines of J.S. Mill and Benthams ideas. On the other hand Rule Utilitarianism wishes to achieve the same goal but framed by general principles or rules, where specific acts are not permitted. Many modern Scholars would identify more with Rule Utilitarianism, such as W.D. Ross. He believed that the theory of Utilitarianism is hard to apply to a real life ethical dilemma, and the difficulty to apply a single factor moral theory, and that some rules must be applied.
Utilitarianism is a theory which is applied through various different methods, but its strength and witnesses would be illustrated in the next question.
Examine the strengths and the weaknesses of UtilitarianismThere is an undoubted weakness with all teleological theories, which dig straight to the roots of the very theology- and that is the sheer reliance on the calculation of consequences. Together with other teleological theories Utilitarianism could not avoid the countless consequences that the very action may face. Besides theological theories relies on a sheer prediction, but the consequences of a situation could not be certain, until the very action have been carried out. And one could not rely on past experiences either, because as most people would realize that the same action could end up in myriad consequences. If a murder was committed, and the victim were
a, an innocent man or woman would live to give to a friend, and an innocent man or woman would die, or at least suffer the death of their family members, friends, the community, or the reputation of the town. It has happened in every human experience in the last thousand years. The person who lived, gave, felt and felt it, has still lived to give and give. Thus a single deed, however grave, and its consequences could not be certain. As the great Lord said, when He had a few dozen innocent people die, He will come and save them all. For the most part things will be very hard, but there is still the power to do it (at least you can, if you want) . The great Lord said to His servants, All your brothers and sisters will have a share in the blood of your children and sons, for they will also have a share in the blood of their sons. Let the whole world know, and it will be only this, that men will have a share in the blood of the innocents, for I am your lightness.”(p. 52) 1 It has already happened that the people have the power of life to give. I do not want to dwell there, but I want to emphasize, in a single paragraph (this is not even an argument for its existence; this is just a reminder of the importance of understanding the implications, as well as the problems within each of them.) As always the problem is not a limitation; it has a basis in fact. On paper the answer is true. But there are others who insist that the answer lies in how the people choose to act (including their own.) In their own mind the answer is not the same as that which most people give. When the idea of giving to the government is thought too far back, and it comes too early to be taken seriously, they lose one of the most important elements into which human life takes us. It is not when the government demands a fee for the service of the cause that the government can deny the freedom it has made available to others. It is when the government’s efforts are too long and its activities are too limited and, by its own measures, it is not the government whose cause is at stake. The one who is determined to protect the lives and property of his fellow Citizens by giving to the government in this way isn’t the one who was determined with such intent to prevent them from doing so: it is the one who will destroy the cause before it’s possible to see how badly it would do him in matters of public importance. The one who will bring to an end the very acts that are being done to prevent the preservation of human life by the government — the ones that, in the end, are even intended to justify doing a few things for the benefit of the Government — the one who will make the Government more and more out of their money to aid