Limitations and Relevance of Utilitarianism
Please select one question from the list below, and make sure to clearly state the question you are answering at the start of your essay.
Questions: SELECT ONLY ONE TO ANSWER
(1) What is utilitarianism? Critically assess the plausibility of this proposal.
(2) What is euthanasia, and why is it considered to be morally different to murder or suicide? Is it?
(3) What do you think is the best moral argument for vegetarianism? Does it work?
(4) Does freedom entail the ability to have done otherwise?
(5) What is the harm principle? Does it pose a justified limitation on our freedom?
(6) What is Rawls’ conception of a just society? Is it is tenable?
(7) What, if anything, would be wrong in simply saying that anything counts as art so long as this is what was intended by the creator of the artifact in question?
(8) Can two identical objects differ in their aesthetic properties?
(9) Can one properly form one’s aesthetic judgments via testimony from aesthetic experts?
(10) What are Gettier-style counterexamples, and how do they challenge the classical account of knowledge?
(11) Is knowledge more valuable than mere true belief?
(12) Is ‘knows’ a context-sensitive term?
The essay should be written for a smart, philosophical novice who is apt to misinterpret but wants to learn. In other words, imagine you are writing this essay for a classmate in another class. Ask yourself, "Will my non-philosopher classmate be able to understand what I'm saying in this essay even though he/she hasn't taken the class?"
Overall, the language should be as transparent, simple, succinct, precise, direct, and professional as possible. Technical or important terminology should be explained/defined and augmented with examples when warranted. The grammar and word-choice should be conservative.
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Question 1: Utilitarianism
Generally, utilitarianism is the doctrine that implies that actions are right if they are beneficial to the majority. The term is derived from the word utility which refers to the state of being useful or beneficial. Metrics used to determine the right actions in this doctrine are the consequences of those actions. In addition, the guiding principle in this theory is that an action is right so long as it enhances happiness to the highest degree in the majority (Pritchard 30). According to one of the founders of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, happiness refers to the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. Logically, therefore, the theory is opposed to any action that promotes sadness or harm to society.
The majority of people embrace utilitarianism in the sense that they strive to cultivate a friendly environment for themselves and others in society. For instance, an individual can practice the theory by undertaking to ensure that peace and tranquility prevail in the neighborhood. The doctrine is distinctly different from egoism in that it advocates for the happiness of the majority as opposed to individual happiness (Shaver par.2). However, it collides with other ethical theories since it holds that the right action can be done with bad intentions in mind. For instance, the doctrine would refrain from condemning a person who robs a bank to feed and clothe a poor community. If anything, it would hail such an act and give accolades to the doer.
Limitations of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism has had to contend with several problems that critics deem irrational. One of the problems is that the theory puts undue emphasis on the consequences of an act. These consequences revolve around pleasure, and the absence of pain and the means through which they should be achieved is of no consequence to utilitarians. Critics of the theory contend that apart from pleasure, certain other things are valuable too. Those things include understanding, accomplishments, freedom, and friendships (Pritchard 16). In this regard, people should not just have friends based solely on the pleasure they afford them. People should view friends in a different light. They should regard them as people who have more value than just a source of happiness.
The other problem facing utilitarianism is that the theory may sometimes require people to do what is morally wrong in the pursuit of pleasure. For example, a chief justice may decide to publicly execute a murderer in public to deter would-be murderers (Pritchard 16). While this may minimize pain and save more lives in the long run, it is morally unacceptable. However, practitioners of utilitarianism would support such an act because, ostensibly, it would be a source of happiness to the majority.
Last but not least, the doctrine sets the bar way too high for moral correctness, thus requiring people to do more than necessary. Utilitarians front this requirement through their principle that an action is only right if it maximizes happiness (Pritchard 16). This, in essence, means that if you do not act in a manner that will maximize happiness, then your conduct is regarded as immoral. By all accounts, many opine that this is a lopsided way of passing judgment since it means that most things people do are immoral. For instance, if you spend a modest sum to go on holiday and enjoy yourself thoroughly, a utilitarian may not approve of it. Despite achieving absolute happiness, utilitarians would rather you give the money to charity or help educate poor children. Now that you did not do such, you end up being branded immoral. Consequently, this makes the theory unpopular for demanding too much from people and adopting a lopsided perception.
Relevance of Utilitarianism
In the modern world, utilitarianism has permeated many aspects of life. As such, its relevance cannot be gainsaid. In the course of daily routine, people practice utilitarianism, whether knowingly or otherwise. This is because the theory is pretty simple and does not give space to mysterious beliefs (Pritchard 16). The doctrine draws a clear distinction between what is right or wrong as well as what is pleasure or p...