Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism Essay

Strong points * Utilitarianism is simple. That doesn’t include a lot of complex guidelines, but rather the individual can decide could be the ‘best’, by simply how that affects other folks. * It truly is flexible: not any law or perhaps principle is definitely unchallengeable. * It provides for circumstance, so you can decide precisely what is the best thing to complete given the latest circumstance. 5. It jewelry in with the Christian ethic of absolute, wholehearted love, since preached simply by Jesus.

2. If someone believes that both resting and breaking promises will be acts which have been intrinsically wrong, utilitarianism provides a principled way in which they can choose which meaningful rule in order to if forced to make a choice together. * The emphasis on impartiality, unselfishness and altruism is to be commended. * There is no need to consider precedents as total – simply because one actions worked somebody does not mean that it must be enforced again, because it may not improve someone else. * It is also attractive to secular thinkers, because it makes no grand claims to the supernatural or metaphysical. That appeals to tangible results – the consequences of the action will be perceived. Weak points * What do we suggest by delight? What makes all of us happy?

It is hard to define happiness since it varies with person to person. 2. Should pleasure always be attacked? What if we could only be happy if we obtain it in a ‘bad’ way?

Like if a murderer is only happy if he gets rid of someone. 5. How can we all say that happiness from one satisfaction is higher than from one other? There is no way to inform if a professional is any longer happy than someone not so clever. 2. Humans tend not to always deal with each other the same.

We proper care more regarding the people close to us and would give all of them more concern in an honest dilemma. A lot of would claim that utilitarians are merely idealistic and unrealistic mainly because they do not accurately evaluate man behaviour and simply assume many people are perfect, caring equally for anyone. * It is impossible to be sure about a outcome, which is a basic problem with teleological ethics. 2. It is very challenging to measure pleasure given by any outcome.

It will require a great deal of time, thought and study, looking at effects about both people and the condition. * Do we compare one particular person’s joy to another person’s happiness? 5. If only the whole happiness counts, imagine those two situations: [A] 80% human population live very well and are very happy because the other 20% happen to be their slaves. [B] There are no slaves and everyone can be happy but is not as happy as the 80% in situation A. The total and average joy in equally situations is the same, consequently to a utilitarian there is no big difference between the two, and both are equally morally right, but slavery is regarded as wrong. 5. Is Work Utilitarianism too demanding?

An individual buys a TV pertaining to �500, which would make all of them happy; nonetheless they could also spend the money saving multitude of lives in Africa. Some Action utilitarians might argue that, yes, we should mail most of the money overseas, since that will create the most happiness for the most people, although is that also demanding? * The refusal to acknowledge intrinsically wrong acts: a judge may possibly convict a great innocent person in order to stop a riot that would ensue if he were not found guilty – a utilitarian could argue that this can be permissible since more persons would be built unhappy by the lack of a conviction plus the riot; yet is it intrinsically wrong to imprison or execute a great innocent man? * Action utilitarians might accuse Secret utilitarians of being legalistic: what’s the point, they could say, of following a rule if it is clear the consequences is going to decrease delight?

In their watch, past encounter can only provide guidelines, not rules. 5. Rule utilitarianism may just be work utilitarianism in disguise: each of the rules will be focussed around the maximisation of happiness. Rule utilitarians believe the best way to maximise happiness is usually to maximise joy with every act- but this is just action utilitarianism. * Human legal rights, justices, and also other such ideals may not include any place in a utilitarian honest system in case the wishes of the majority override them.

5. Christians, Muslims, and others of religious faith could argue that the almighty decides precisely what is rights, and what is the best outcome; not necessarily four individuals to try to determine. * Utilitarianism ignores ‘meaning well’ – benevolent motives. * Utilitarianism “seems to require more of a human that numerous are capable of providing” * In the same way there are simply no absolutes to get determining serves which are intrinsically wrong, there is no way to define precisely what is universally very good. * There must be sufficient account taken in the minority watch – the majority are not always right, even though the pleasure of their wishes might generate the most pleasure.