There are various forms of utilitarianism, but all have similar fundamental tenets. It is critical to note that utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of the actions other than the character traits of the actor. Classical utilitarianism entails three major propositions.
First, Mill and Bentham identified "good" with pleasure. In this regard, the intrinsic good is pleasure while inherent wrong is suffering. The nature of hedonism proposes that an action would be ethical if it yields pleasure as opposed to suffering. Although satisfaction is important, it cannot alone be sufficient to make logical decisions. The latter proposition leads to the second tenet of Utilitarianism.
The actions must yield not only pleasure but the maximum happiness, and to the greatest number. Therefore, the actor considers the utility of the actions and chooses that which would lead to the satisfaction of the majority for it to be ethical. It follows that in the case that the agent chooses an action that leads to happiness but not of the majority, then by the scale of classical utilitarianism, it would be immoral.
The proposition on happiness presumes that the agent is rational to the extent of making the best choices by backward looking. However, many argue that the backward looking presents a challenge because the consequences of actions are in the future. However, this assertion is not entirely true because the past has a bearing on the future on many occasions. For instance, if an individual has not committed any crime, it follows that the person deserves no punishment (Rachels and Rachels, 2006).
Thirdly, under classical utilitarianism, the agent is impartial. In this respect, everyone’s good is the same. The moral equality advocated by utilitarianism holds that “each to count for one, and none for more than one,” (Driver, 2014). In this regard, there are no peculiarities when one is considering to act and, therefore, one would do just as any other person would as long as the situation remain similar.
Smart (1956) claimed that common sense morality may not be trusted. In this regard, Smart argued that moral actions may not always arise from common sense that is easy and does not demand many considerations. In most cases, acts are spontaneous. Consider, for example; John sees a drowning child on his way home from work. He has the capability to save the child without endangering his life. However, he is wearing a $500 suit that may be destroyed by the water. Common sense requires that John saves the child even though doing so would ruin the suit.
However, if other people were witnessing the child drowning, John may have to hesitate who among them is suitable to save the child. For instance, a youthful person in a swimming gear would be more appropriate to rescue the child than John. However, John may not be certain whether the others are interested or would save the child or waiting for him to act. In this regard, the child may end up drowning because of hesitations, and, therefore, the common sense fails.
What if the drowning child was Hitler, and John saves him? In this regard, John would have used common sense to rescue the child. From his motives, his actions would be morally right. However, the consequences would not be good meaning that utilitarianism principle would not hold. In this regard, common senses morality fails.
References
Driver, J., (2014). The History of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on April 1, 2016 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#IdeUti
Rachels J., and Rachels, S., (2006). The Elements of Moral Philosophy 5th edition. McGraw- Hill. ASIN: B0028ICHMQ
Smart, J. J. C. (1956). Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism. The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 25 (Oct., 1956), pp. 344-354. Retrieved on April 1, 2016 from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/mm/articles/Smart_1956Utilitarianism.pdf
