Introduction
Ross is of the view that people do not undertake tasks because they are aware of the consequences of their actions; rather, the decision to undertake such tasks is propelled by a promise that they have made to themselves. Proponents of this theory suggest that a right or wrong act is obvious to us since the ability to distinguish right or wrong is innate. It is impossible for human beings to fully understand why a given act is right but they can distinguish between good and evil.
Moral senses are in born hence they are not modified by the environment. This theory contradicts with the relativism theory which argues that moral senses are not inborn; rather, the environment shapes human beings. Since utilitarianism suggests that the moral value of an act is recognized by its benefits, Ross argues that it is through this that human beings prefer actions that bring them satisfaction (Ross and Stratton-Lake, 2-6).
Strengths of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism holds a logic position that makes it applicable to daily life. It dictates the modern day society since its principles are applicable.
Utilitarians attempted to come up with a way of settling for an objective way of improving the welfare of the people by equipping them with the necessary skills needed to distinguish things that are of benefit from those that are not. This theory is sometimes referred to as “the supreme happiness theory”. It provides an empirical method of calculating happiness. Goodness has the purpose of making one to feel satisfied.
Once a person feels happy with the act undertaken, then we can comfortably conclude that the act is good. If little or no satisfaction is attained; we conclude that the action is not good. The theory therefore provides us with a measurable way to determine whether a given act is good or bad. The theory can also be used to establish the extent or the degree of goodness; this can be exemplified by making use of words such as satisfied, very satisfied, or not satisfied.
This theory observes benevolence as it seeks to endorse the idea of people’s happiness and that of the society. Something is regarded as good if it maximizes happiness. The theory emphasizes on the importance of undertaking actions that have a promise of bringing happiness of the greatest degree (Mill, 23).
Although people are never sure of the consequences of an act, they should weigh their options and settle for those things that are likely to make them feel that they are high achievers. It is the good things in life that motivate people to continue undertaking tasks as well as taking risks. The theory considers the outcomes of an action and luckily most people judge the usability of an action by looking at the end result.
Thus this theory can be used since its basic principles can be applied in the society. Proponents of the motivation theory suggest that when we are reinforced after undertaking an act, then we get the psyche to undertake more actions since we become hopeful of being reinforced again. If we fail to attain good results, we may become discouraged since we do not feel happy. This is the same case with this theory; good outcomes signify that something is good or that the act was undertaken well.
Mill is of the view that rights and justice are important determinants of the degree of happiness in the world (Mill, 34). If the rights of all people are respected, then the world would be a better place to live in. people would be happier since they would exercise their freedom without fear, this means that people would be accountable for their deeds.
The world would be a better place to live in since as Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian and author said “The secret of happiness is freedom…” to further support the importance of freedom, Bertrand Russell, an English logician and philosopher noted that “Freedom in general may be defined as the absence of obstacles to realization of desires” this generally upholds the idea that with freedom, one can become happy since it becomes easy to do what one finds right and beneficial (Miller and Williams, 26). Justice and freedom are therefore two important things that determine happiness in the world.
Simplicity is also recognized as a main strength of this theory (Ross and Stratton-Lake, 217). This is because it gives a good starting point for the formulation of policy decisions. The theory is also useful when it comes to making laws that deal with ethics. A good example of this is the abortion act of 1967.
The theory is self-explanatory and it does not require one to search for information to understand the idea behind its formulation. It is realistic when it comes to things that are right or wrong. It is also simple since it gives a clear basis for the actions mentioned above to be carried out with ease. This is one of the most important qualities of a good theory since they are formulated so that they can be applied in our day-to-day lives.
Weaknesses of Utilitarianism
This theory has been accused of being relative since it holds that there are standard moral values that should be upheld. It therefore disregards other morals that are of benefit to the minority. It is biased in that it supports only those things that are believed to bring happiness to a section of the population. It is important to note that there are some things that may not be of benefit to the minority but the majority could benefit a great deal from the same (Miller, 111).
What may be of benefit to one person may not bear the same consequences to another person. Proponents of this theory are of the view that provided an action makes us happy, it is right. If I and my business partner kill our competitor, we acquire competitive advantage hence we can reap maximum profits, this will definitely make us happy. So, is this act justified? Is it right? According to this theory it is right since it makes us happy to see our business prospering.
The moral standards held as right may be seen as godly or basic human rights that ought to be observed and maintained. This is not always true since not everybody derives pleasure from attaining the given moral standards (Miller, 212). Seeing these standards as divine or human rights is a misconception since the fact that they bring happiness to most human beings does not mean that they are applicable everywhere.
One thing that makes the theory to be questioned is the fact that these values vary from society to society. What one society considers as divine or as a basic human right may not be seen as the same by other societies. This means that the principles are not standard since they change with cultural beliefs and values held by different societies.
The assumption that what is of benefit to human beings is morally good is not justified. The proponents do not provide evidence to this claim hence we regard it as an assumption. While this assumption may be true in some cases, it may not be applied in all cases. Good is defined as pleasurable but it may not apply to everyone. Each and every one of us has preferences meaning that different things make different people happy. It is wrong to assume that because something bears positive results it gives everyone a feeling of satisfaction.
This theory can be criticized since it allows evil and socially unacceptable deeds to be categorized as good provided that the deeds are undertaken by the majority. This is regarded as a swine ethics. Vices such as mob justice could be seen as good since majority of the people support it.
This aspect makes the theory to be unrealistic since some things may be regarded as good while they are not. Colonialism received support from majority of the western countries and it benefited the colonialists since they were able to amass a lot of wealth from their colonies; according to this theory it was good. The colonies were oppressed and their rights were violated since they were under the colonizers. The fact that the majority support an action does not qualify it to be regarded as good.
People are not always in support of what is good; essentially, human beings love short cuts to get to where they want even though the path followed does not comply with the rules of morality. The theory is accused to supporting injustice where an individual or a group of individuals become scapegoats so that others can be happy. Extremists such as Hitler can therefore defend themselves using this theory by stating that they were being inhuman to maximize happiness.
Other critics view the theory as being too impersonal. In an attempt to pursue good, the theory disregards the rights of some people. This is because what the majority support may go against the wishes of the minority and in some instances their rights may be violated (Mill, 101).
When the majority are in support of an act, it becomes hard for the minority to defend themselves since the majority vote acts as a green right to undertaking the act or embracing it. It is too impersonal to the extent that it disregards the rights of some individuals without accounting for such a decision or attempting to provide a solution to this group of individuals. It lacks integrity since it fails to consider the morality and the essence of integrity which entails holding on to what one believes to be true and right.
The idea of knowing that an act is good without understanding why is not logical. When we say that a person is good, we give reasons as to why that person is considered good. The same case applies to values; there must be a reason to support why a certain act is considered good or bad.
For instance, if a group of people were to be asked if killing is wrong, all of them will not just say that is wrong because they have been made to believe that since they were born. Some will use religious beliefs to explain why it is wrong, some will reason that it depends on the situation while others will use their beliefs to say if it is good or bad (Miller, 167).
Conclusion
Utilitarianism theory holds that good things are those that bring maximum happiness to human beings. This theory has both strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses tend to outweigh the strengths since the theory does not account for most of the things hence it leaves many questions unanswered.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism: Easyread Large Edition. California: ReadHowYouWant.com, 2006. 164 pgs
Miller, Harlan and Williams, Hatton. The Limits of utilitarianism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. 315 pgs
Ross, William David, and Stratton-Lake, Philip. The right and the good. Chicago: Oxford University Press, 2002. 183 pgs