Utilitarianism and its Ethical Theory
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. It indicates that the best action can be chosen based on its potential to attract happiness. The actions include activities that have an impact on the well-being of entities such as humans and animals (Booher, 2007).
Jeremy Bentham, a well-known philosopher, defines utility as the total of the pleasure derived from the outcomes of an activity less the pain preserved by the entity involved in the action. Philosophers have debated on whether an activity should be judged based on act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, total utilitarianism, or average utilitarianism. The origin of the theory can be traced in the hedonists Aristippus and Epicurus who defined happiness as the only good thing which can be expected from any action (Eyal, 2014).
Based on research, Mill is a great proponent of the theory of utilitarianism. He unveils that utilitarianism is focused on the principle of great happiness. It is an assertion that all the action that promotes happiness and pleasure is considered morally right. The point implies that all the actions which are undesirable and attract unhappy outcomes are considered morally wrong. Mill asserts that utilitarianism assign the salient entities. Therefore, mill supports that actions supporting happiness or pleasure determine whether an action is good or bad.
On the other side, Rachel rejects the suggestion that only consequences matter in defining the goodness based on an action. It is an assertion that only happiness matter in determining whether an action is good or bad (Spink & Currier, 2006).
Based on her argument she supports mill's assertions on the theory where they imply that an action is only good if it attracts happiness to the respective entities. Further, Rachel argues that the motive behind an action is a key determiner of its goodness. It is an aspect where the goodness of an action can be judged based on the intentions of the person who did it. Conversely, Rachel emphasizes that the action of an individual must be fair. It is an assertion that the action of a person should not harm another person. The aspect associates the consideration of human rights where the person in whom the action is intended to affect. It aims to attract happiness to the person where the action is presumed to be good. On a different point, Rachel asserts that only happiness or unhappiness matter. The arguments impose that the ultimate impact of the action is what determine whether the action is good or bad. The argument tends to match the theory of Consequentialism where the goodness of an action is determined by the results.
Natural Rights and Utilitarianism
The natural rights are the rights which are not dependent on any culture or government. They are the universal rights enjoyed by all human beings on earth. They include the right to liberty, right to life, right to personal belief and values as well as the right to independent thought and expression. Precisely, the natural rights require a person to act in good faith where his action towards another one should be one that he can expect from the same person. The point insinuates that the natural rights require a person to act morally (Spink & Currier, 2006).
Therefore, an action is defined as a good one if it is moral. On the contract, utilitarianism disapproves the natural rights. Bentham asserts that the natural rights are rhetorical nonsense. The point implies that the natural rights cannot be used to make any judgment whether an action is good or bad. For instance, a person who has killed another one cannot be favored the right of life since he has committed a crime which does not attract happiness to the victim. Therefore, Bentham stands against the natural rights suggesting that they encourage civil unrest, disobedience, and resistance to the law.
Utilitarianism in the Court of Law
Utilitarianism is proved valid in the court of law. It is a condition where the actions of a suspect are assessed based on their ability to attract happiness to the other party (Jacobson, 2008). The point asserts that the lawyers make a decision regarding the case based on the suspect's intention towards the plaintiff. Studies reveal that the aspect has contributed to the imprisonment of many people due to the acts of bad faith whose intend is to cause unhappiness.
References
Booher, T. L. (2007). JS Mill’s Test for Higher Pleasure.
Eyal, N. (2014). Non-consequentialist Utilitarianism.
Jacobson, D. (2008). Utilitarianism without consequentialism: the case of John Stuart Mill. Philosophical Review, 117(2), 159-191.
Spink, A., & Currier, J. (2006). Towards an evolutionary perspective for human information behavior: an exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 62(2), 171-193.
