Introduction
Utilitarianism is a doctrine which provides for actions to be right so far as they useful and they benefit majority. The doctrine also provides that an action is right if it promotes happiness, or maximizes happiness. Therefore utilitarianism provides the moral worth of an action in assessing the utility in providing happiness. Utilitarian also measure the extent of usefulness of the law in the extent it provides happiness, decrease injustice and poverty. It majorly deals with happiness of the immediate actor or those affected by the actions. The theory of consequentialism on the other hand provides for how a moral act and its values should be judged by its consequences.
Utilitarianism is seen as the simplest form of consequentialism; because it asserts that actions should be judged, whether wrong r right, on the basis of how it maximizes pleasure over pain. Consequentialism recognizes actions which should be aimed to maximize pleasure such as beauty, pleasure and friendship. Albeit, there is contention on whether actions should be judged on basis of consequences or whether a general rule of conduct should be used in making the judgment.
Utilitarianism requires choice of actions which are reasonably expected to bring the best consequences overall. It follows a formula that will bring the best utility out of the choice. It can be welfare or preference satisfaction. Neera can be seen as a utilitarian; she takes friendship as an emotional and practical relationship marked by mutual pleasure and liking. According to her friendship exists between siblings, parent and child and adults. She also views the importance of friendship in regards to the benefits one gets from the friendship. Some people value friendships according to their usefulness, or their instrumental nature of being source of friendship. Her major concern also arises in end of friendships, and the challenges they pose to consequentialism.
According to her, in an end friendship, one loves a friend, as a means to an independent end and as an essential system of one’s part. Such independent ends can be amusement, career advancement, and greater happiness in the universe or philosophical illumination. She furthers explains that in such love, with an end, one loves a friend for who they are, but not for their incidental physical features. Such reasons to love include psychological, moral, fundamental intellectual qualities and the unique perspective of the friend to others. Hence friendship cannot be replaced by another, due to the unique features. According to her, friendship is a human value, which fuels interests in activities and shape our sense of things. It is an intrinsic part of our happiness and involves mutual pleasure. Hence her perceptions about friendship fit in the utilitarian perspective as the utility of having a friend, aims at bringing out the best consequences.
In the same view, doing the greatest well for the greatest number of people can be seen as impartial. In Neera’s view, one can become friends with many people, and in utilitarian view nature source of friendship can be misleading. Sometimes people can be friends with others depending on the source without having any benefits in the end, after all it is hard to maintain a many friends, and hence not all will be beneficial to the well being, hence impartial. On the other hand no all friendships have an end as some end abruptly due to unexpected circumstances, hence no good to the walfare of oneself and in the end undesirable consequences. Sometimes one ends up miserable instead, due to the end of a friendship or sometimes one party loses a lot to the other hence impartiality of the notion ‘the greatest good’ of utilitarianism. Utilitarian’s have emphasized on the moral good of impartiality. Hence raises the moral dilemmas in the notions, i.e.: one is required to forsake a friend and save an archbishop. The moral puzzle therefore, creates a problem for utilitarians.
According to Elinor, indirect cconsequentialsim relies on decision making procedures, and distinction of criteria of rightness. This is evident in Neera’s friendship theory; as decision making procedures are involved in the search for a friend, and there are distinction criteria. This is especially seen when she says that a friend cannot be replaced due to the distinctive features. Therefore, the indirect consequencies in the end of friendship depends on whether chose the right friend with good trait, the achievement of utility in the end of friendship will also depend on whether one chose the right friend. This is because consequentiliam in the end is determined by how good, right and the value a friend will have in the end. In this case indirect consequentialist can be a real friend, because there are positive and negative consequences in the end. Similarly, a direct consequentialist can have negative or positive impact. The question arises in the means, but eventually consequencies rely on decision making procedures.
Many philosophers object utilitarianism due to its demanding nature. Impartiality in utilitarianism is seen when one considers equality and fairness. Therefore, Impartiality and friendship, in Godwin’s extreme views which show that are not primarily based on moral notions of impartiality such as equality and fairness, but on considering such factors. Godwinian utilitarianism is motivated by the belief that general well being should be promoted. Viewing this impartiality arises because one is required to act in a strict manner, giving no considerations to personal attachments or prior commitments. Additionally, Utilitarianism is cited as absurd by Boron, as it involves commitment through the first- order leading to impartiality. In the same note, when a clear distinction is drawn between utilitarian commitments to general good, and impertialist commitment to equality one does not see any impartiality. This also shows that failure to draw the difference leads to the absurdity put in place by Boron.
However, utilitarianism can be interpreted as a teleological morality which has a reason to promote the general good. Alternatively it can be viewed as commitment to impartiality and justification. Hence in this view everyone as to accept and not reject, but not necessarily treat everyone equally. Utilitarians claim that their theory is publicly justified morality as it treats everyone equally. This is because everyone’s satisfaction is eventually treated as satisfaction of anyone else. An excellent example is when a person ranks total number of states from the least desired. Then preference – satisfaction is given to as many people as possible, and given with equal consideration, hence equal value. The aim of utilitarianism in this case is to maximize the notion of good agreed upon generally. Also to be impartial in deciding whose preferences should be satisfied. Therefore it can be conclusively said that publicly justified morality, should not include impartiality as the only relevant consideration.
In the same point, Utilitarianism deploys a notion of concern and equality. The equality is satisfied by the dictum “everyone is to count for one, nobody for more than one”, by Bentham. The dictum can be interpreted to imply that in a utility calculation preferences count first, thus attaches weight of formal equality in each person’s preference. Impersonality rather than impartiality is created when this dictum is applied to an impartial spectator. Impersonality in this case is of the value of the object of individual preference or want rather than a person whose interest is concerned. This becomes problematic because it makes sense to individual decision making, in sacrificing present satisfaction to increase future welfare,. But when the ideal is applied in interpersonal decision making its effects is sacrificing majority interests. Therefore in this view, utilitarianism conception of equality, coupled with its value creates impersonality out o f impartiality. This aspect is rejected by many contemporary philosophers because it weakens practical decision making in regards to personal- ideas. If what is ultimately good satisfies wants or is ultimately pleasurable, then agents should be pursue.
Accordingly, there should be constraints on how these processes can go and how far they are acceptable. An excellent example is sacrificing the interests of ethnic minorities to improve, majority welfare and zero- tolerance of burglary crimes by punishing the innocent. Conception of equality is seen as person – regarding and not want- regarding or utility. Hence his brings in the issues of liberalism which aims at combining social justice derived from the utilitarian-view and person- regarding protections.
Conclusion
Emphasis on impartiality is carried through formulations of consequentialism. The theory of endorsing actions that produce the greatest happiness, also takes into account whose happiness is affected by the actions or conduct. Shelly Kegan a defender of consequentialism is of the view that morality bids us to act with an eye, and not pursuing or own interests or projects or of those individuals we favor; but with regards to interests of the world as a whole and all individuals for overall good. Peter Singer also argued for equal consideration of interests, hence extending the moral impartiality to other species. His view requires equal treatment and consideration generally. In this view friendship can be taken as a moral challenge, as it is inherently a partial relationship with devotion to time, resources and energy. There are operational costs we invest in friendship. Yet morality requires that we banish our feelings and act impartially, in decisions having moral consequences. This illustrates that the love we feel for our friends is an obstacle in doing the right thing. This directly follows that modern moral philosophy has impartiality central role.
References
Elinor, M. (1998). Can an Indirect Consequencialist Be a Real Friend? Chicago Journals .
Kaapur, N. B. (1991). Why Is It Always Wrong To Be Guided By The Best: Consequentialism and Friendship. Chicago Journals .
