This is one of the theories in normative ethics which holds that a proper course of action is that which maximizes utility. It can be defined in simple terms as a theory that maximize happiness and reduce suffering. The most influential contributors of the theory are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill stated that, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” This indicates that the need of mutual consideration in ones action of paramount importance in determining what is moral or amoral.
In this theory the moral worth of any action is determined by the results of such action. However there is a debate on how to differentiate between the consequences considering that there are actual, foreseeable and intended consequences. Whether determined or not, the result of the action ought to be considered as the outright determinant of what is right or wrong. In such, all possible outcomes must be considered to establish whether an act was right or wrong.
Bentham (1776) holds that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”. In order to regulate our election among various proposed actions, or to determine the greatest moral excellency, the degree of happiness expected to proceed from an action, the virtue is as the quantity of happiness or is in compound ratio of the quantity of good and the number of enjoyers while the moral evil is as a degree of misery and the number of sufferer and thus an action is best if it procures greatest happiness for the greatest numbers and likewise, if it occasions misery Francis Hutcheson (1725). It is however immoral to sacrifice an individual or a small group of people only because the acts justify the happiness of the majority. For example it would be wrong to detain few members of a society to please the majority without due cause.
The pleasure of happiness that is advocated may vary. There are higher and lower levels of pleasures. The theory has therefore to consider not only the quality of happiness but also the quantity. Mill noted that in general some pleasures are intrinsically superior to others. It is therefore the greater pleasure that dominates over the lesser pleasure.
Proof of the theory
Mill proofs the utilitarian theory by explaining how we proof other existing things. He explains that sound is audible if it can be heard by people and that an object is visible if it can actually be seen and hence a desirable thing can be evidenced by people desiring it. Therefore there is no possible reason that explains why general happiness is desired except if each person believes it is attainable and hence desires his own happiness. If then, happiness is good to each person; general happiness is good to the aggregate of all the people
Reasons why utilitarianism is the best moral theory
Based on the fact that, the theory advocates for the results of an action to judge its moral uprightness, the theory is the most possible practically. Humans’ interests are driven by two masters, happiness (pleasure) and pain. Therefore the act and results of the act are conceived in accordance to the agents end desires of gaining happiness and therefore such acts are so guided. In any situation, a rational human being shall strive to be maximally happy all the time. This makes the theory more practical than the others.
The happiness of the majority is more of importance to judge on the morality of an action as per the results of the action. What this means is that, an act must be guided in such a way that the consequences causes maximum happiness and minimal pain to the majority of the people. This is what guides democracy. The good of the greater majority is superior to that of the minority and hence there shall more happiness as compared to pain. In this scenario, a driver who avoids hitting one person and ends up causing a more fatal accident killing more people shall be said to be morally wrong as the happiness of the majority is not considered. The theory acknowledges the existence of other parties in agents environment which makes it the best to use to determine the morality of an action. If all people consider the other agents and their acts are so guided, then the whole world shall have the maximum happiness and minimum pain.
The fact that an intention in itself as conceived in the agents systems of thought is virtual in nature makes the consequences the best alternative to judge on morality. The intentions of an agent are therefore anticipatory and without consideration of the consequences, then the intentions can be presumed worthless or are inexistence. In actual sense, what guide an intention is the consequence of the intention, this means that the intention is attached to an act which is consequently attached to a particular consequence and thus, the consequence which is more practical is the only way to be certainly sure of the morality of the action/intent. If one has and intention to steal and due to some circumstances either internal or external does not do so, then the intention to steal, if it had not occurred before and the consequences determined, then is not worthwhile until its consequences are determined.
Ethical egoism leads to a state of self-anarchy that emphasis on the individual will over any other possible determinant that is external. This is not right since it is our relationships with others that determine the extent to which our morality can go. If we consider egoism as the only driving motive, then we would have no any obligation to any other party and this is actually immoral. The only vindication of a moral code is based on the resolution of conflict of interest which in egoism is not provide for since it considers one own individual interest alone.
Deontology emphasizes on duty and adherence to existing rule or rules. It involves keeping with natural law, scriptures and intuitions of common sense. The theory does not offer freedom of discourse that leads to inquiry. The conformity to already set up rules is limiting the exploration of other possible alternatives. The progression of a society at any particular point is guided by the inquiry to the existing rules. At a particular age in a given society a moral judgment may be accepted as being appropriate but cease to be when the society progresses.
Virtue ethics consider the role of one’s character and the virtues which are embodied in the character to evaluate an ethical behavior. How can the nature of virtues be established? This is a challenge based on the fact that different cultures, societies and people have different opinions on what is a virtue.
Conclusion
The utilitarian theory can be said to be more possibly practical compared to the others theories. However the possibility of determining the consequences may proof to be difficult if not impossible. This does not necessarily mean that the theory is untrue since a theory does not need to be true basing on its applicability in real life.
Works cited
Bentham, Jeremy. "A Fragment on Government". 1776 Retrieved November, 2013.
Mill, Stuart and Crisp, Roger. eds. Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. 1998.
