Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical or moral theory in philosophy developed by Jeremy Bentham and later expanded by John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th century. This argument advances that humans in the society make decisions and subsequently act after weighing the consequences of their actions based on the maximum utility they derive from these choices (Bentham n.d). Utility, in this case, refers to the individual's happiness and happiness of the society. Utilitarianism thought advances that it is the consequences of an action that matters and not the motive behind the action. The theory postulates that even actions taken with ill motive can result in a good outcome.<\/p>
Critics of Utilitarianism
Critics of utilitarianism have challenged the theory\u2019s moral foundation. Basically, the opponents argue that the motive of an action is as important as its consequences (Nozick 44). One of the major counterexamples against utilitarianism is demonstrated as follows: taking an example of a tyrant leader who imposes an execution penalty for anti-government demonstrators captures twenty demonstrators. The leader commands his soldier to pick and shoot one captive at random and set free the remaining nineteen captives, lest he kills all the captives. According to the utilitarian perspective, the utility would be maximized by a decision to kill one captive and set free the rest as it would minimize pain suffered by the group. A contrary argument for this example would be that the motive of the killing is wrong despite the consequences.<\/p>
Consequentialism
One of the aspects of utilitarianism that avoids the counterexample presented above is that of consequentialism. Consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism with a view that normative properties entirely depend on consequences \u2013 not of the act alone but also of the related acts. While this approach has its application in diverse areas with variedly different applications, the prominence of its application lies in the determination of the moral rightness of actions (Rawls 27). As applied in ethics, consequentialism holds that ethics or morality of an action is squarely dependent on the outcomes of the action or of other things related to the action. Acts related to the action may include the intention or motive of the action and the existing rules as regards to the chosen course of action. In the presented case, consequentialist view factors the motive behind the killing of the captive. However, it is notable that utilitarianism cannot be blamed for the failure of the moral institutions in the society. The case does not provide a realistic scenario that faces us in the normal life.<\/p>
Counterarguments Against Consequentialism
There has also been waged various counterarguments against consequentialism as a form of utilitarianism. One of such counterexamples is sourced from Sir Bernard William\u2019s proposal on the way of averting parking on double yellow lines in London. William had argued that threatening to shoot anyone who dared to park on the double yellow lines would help stop the act. William further explained that if a few were short while caught in the act, consequentialism model would justify the shooting as the sanity in parking that would result afterward would please the majority of London dwellers. The objectors use mathematical analysis to rule out the effectiveness of the proposed policy. They argue that the number of shootings that could cause a favorable cost-benefit ratio had to be high. Another argument along the same line is the submission that if consequences were the basis of ensuring morality in the society, then imposing death penalties would succeed in averting the murder cases. The murder cases in the society do not seem to die off even with the severest of the penalties. This demonstrates the failure of the utilitarian and consequentialism theory.<\/p>
Cases Against Utilitarianism
Some of the cases leveled against utilitarianism are that it redefines the concept of morality and answers questions by avoiding them. Consequently, considering ethics as synonymous with pleasure is erratic. Another argument is that utilitarian theory advises on the \u2018don'ts' rather than providing the right course of action when presented with a challenging situation thus it is confusing (Rawls 27). It is also argued that regardless of the type of utilitarianism, the theory can lead to justification of moral ills by concentrating on hypothetical ends. This makes the theory a scapegoat for tyrant leadership (Nozick 44).<\/p>
Conclusion
To sum up, ethical theories in the society have existed and have been modified since time immemorial. Just like any other theory or philosophical thought, utilitarian and consequentialism have received their fair share of criticism. Several counterarguments and counterexamples have been advanced to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of utilitarianism as a guiding theory to ethical policy formulations. Even with the portrayal of the limitations, it is worth noting that no theory is sufficient in itself. Worth appreciating is the fact that utilitarianism, as well as consequentialism theories, aim at promoting moral behavior in the society.<\/p>
Works Cited
Bentham, Jeremy. The rationale of reward. John and HL Hunt, 1825.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, state, and utopia. Vol. 5038. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Rawls, John. A theory of justice: Revised edition. Harvard university press, 2009.
