Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that asserts happiness and perfectness can be only increased through taking a desirable course of action. It basis lies upon the consequences of actions and decisions; hence, it is sometimes associated with consequentialism. The mode of approach of utilitarianism differs significantly from other ethical models such as deontological ethics, pragmatic ethics and virtue ethics, among other models. The popularity of utilitarianism may not be questioned; it is highly advocated in resolving dilemmas in various spheres of life. However, the theory is subject to various criticisms. The proponents tried to address the limitations by coming up with delineations such as act and rule utilitarianism, yet even these redefinitions have not been convincing. In particular, utilitarianism has earned criticism on the account that it does not only fail to guarantee justice, but also scores poorly in distinguishing between what is desirable and what should be desirable.
Act utilitarianism approach holds the assertions that whenever a person is faced with a situation that prompts action, it is always imperative to tackle the situation by exploring the alternative of choices. Next, each alternative is evaluated in terms of appropriateness to yield optimal, desirable results. The appropriateness is ascertained is by the desirability of potential consequences. Upon establishing that a choice would bear pleasurable results, an action may be taken. On the other hand, the rule utilitarian approach articulates that rules, principles, norms and guidelines are ethical imperatives that should inform decision-making processes and actions. An action is preceded by giving considerations to the choices available and its appropriateness is determined and scrutinized based on the rules, as the first priority. Once the options satisfy available rules, one may proceed to choose what option that has the potential of giving the most desirable outcomes (Mill 45).
It follows that utilitarianism may be criticized on the account that it is inclined on rules that are just general and which may seldom give pleasurable outcomes when observed. There are various examples to elucidate this. Consideration may be given to a rule that bars anyone from killing. In a situation where an individual is targeted by a murderer, rule utilitarianism will fail to guarantee justice, not for the case of self-defense. In another way, a law may state that a person found guilty of burglary should be killed. A situation where a sole breadwinner to a family of 20 members is convicted for similar offense may grant justice, but not desirable outcomes.
Utilitarianism has been further restated to reflect the exceptions where rules could be broken in order to ensure desirable outcomes and happiness are achieved. For instance, a person may be allowed to kill for the sake of self-defense, breaking the rule that stipulated no one should kill. Nevertheless, even the delineation on when the rules should be broken is blurred. There are various instances in which rules could even be simply violated to satisfy selfish motives. Furthermore, this arouses the question on the need to come up with rules that could be simply broken. As if not enough, how can what is desirable ascertain in the cases of dilemma, as well as multiple interest conflict? In these are undoubtedly challenging.
Thus, if utilitarianism is to suit community needs, it should be redefined to be specific on how certain contentious issue should be tackled, as opposed to providing general guidance. Besides, rules may be necessary, but they would only be effective only if they cannot be easily manipulated or broken. Additionally, it ought to be inclusive of situations where human minds rationality is limited.
Work Cited
Mill, Stuart. Utilitarianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906. Print.
