Utilitarianism refers to the ethical theory that posits taking an appropriate course of action increases the chances of perfectness and happiness. Its worthiness is based on the consequences of actions. Utilitarianism may be considered as an ethical approach that is quantitative as well as reductionist. It particularly differs from other ethical theories such as deontological ethics, virtue ethics, pragmatic ethics and other consequantialism approaches. Even so, the practicability of utilitarianism has not been without shortcomings. In particular, it does not adequately guarantee justice, as well as fails to distinguish between what is and what ought to be done in a given situation. Whereas the proponents of the theory have tried to shun these deficiencies by coining act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism, these have not addressed these limitations.
Act utilitarian posits that when an individual encounters a situation that requires him to come up with a choice, he should first hold back, weigh the situation based on appropriate choices before him, putting into consideration the consequences of each choice. Upon ascertaining that the choice that would yield the pleasurable outcomes, one can then proceed to take action. Besides, as far as rule utilitarian is concerned, when faced with a situation that calls for decision, one must first consider the consequences of following the available rules, for example, the law. Upon establishing that following the rules would lead to pleasurable outcome, one should proceed to take the course of action (Mill 33).
Rule utilitarianism can be clearly criticized since it advocates for some rules that are general; which when followed do not guarantee pleasurable outcomes. For instance, when one encounters an aggressor who is capable of killing, rule utilitarianism general rule may clearly state that no one should kill another human being, even in the circumstances of self defense. Secondly, utilitarianism may rule that a health centre should be shut down following a case of negligence to blame for loss of a life, when the facility is the only one that the society depends upon. Undoubtedly, when this rule is followed, it overshadows the necessity of self-defense against the aggressors and the benefits of a health facility despite accidental flaws. In this regard, utilitarianism fails to guarantee justice.
Nevertheless, in response to the criticism, utilitarianism undergoes restatement to reflect general exceptions, wherein the rules can be broken. For instance, in situations that call for self-defense against the aggressor capable of killing, one may break the no-one-should-kill rule by killing in the retrospect of self-defense (Mill 52). Yet the applicability of such rules is also subject to flaws. There are various cases where some rules can be deliberately broken to justify self-vested interests against justice. What then is the essence of having the rules when they can be broken under various circumstances? What even draws more concern is the fact that breaking of the rules makes rule utilitarianism to revert to act utilitarianisms, which are already considered to abound deficiencies.
Utilitarianism principles are only effective at ensuring justice if they are fixed and do not give room to manipulation. This is because humans are often biased when it comes to making decisions and may often manipulate the rules, and even break the rules that are outlined. Furthermore, utilitarianism does not say much about the case of impaired human mind, as far as logical thinking is concerned.
Work Cited
Mill, Stuart. Utilitarianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906. Print.
