Utilitarianism Research Paper Example

I believe the moral theory which provides the best account of how we ought to act is Utilitarianism. I will begin by defining Utilitarianism and why it provides the best account of how we ought to act. I will then present an objection to the theory, followed by a response to the former. I will argue that although the objection is valid, Utilitarians provide a sufficient response that proves why it's not a big problem for the theory. I will conclude that Utilitarianism is theoretically the best theory of normative ethics. 

According to Utilitarianism, the morally correct thing to do is maximize goodness, or utility, in the world. This means that an act is morally required because it improves overall well-being – essentially arguing that the ends justify the means. Utilitarians don't care about intentions but instead focus on their outcomes and whether or not they provide the greatest good for the greatest number. In a pragmatic sense, if I had helped Ben take his groceries from his car to his house and he got brutally assaulted on the way inside then, I would not have acted morally. Mill argues that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." (Mill 11) It is often the case that good intentions yield bad results and bad intentions yield pleasant results. Still, the Utilitarian would evaluate morality based on whatever action yielded pleasant results. 

I believe Utilitarianism provides the best account of how we ought to act because it is the easiest theory to follow. It offers a straightforward approach for deciding what the morally correct thing to do is in any situation. When torn between two actions, default to the one that improves overall well-being. The trolley problem can be easily answered by a Utilitarian – diverting the trolley towards the one person to save the five people would maximize the most utility by saving the most lives. I believe this quote by John Welsley puts it in the most simple terms – "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the time you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can." – Essentially saying that we should prioritize promoting good. Utilitarianism can justify conventional wisdom. Things that are perceived as wrong are explained by not maximizing utility, and those perceived as right are explained by maximizing utility. Kantian moral theory faces challenges in justifying conventional wisdom. Imagine a scenario in which the US had captured a terrorist and had the opportunity to torture them in return for information that could potentially save millions of lives. Utilitarianism would tell us to torture the terrorist because we should prioritize saving millions of lives to maximize utility. Utilitarianism allows us to resolve these moral questions by weighing the positive and negative consequences – one person being harmed in return for saving millions of lives. On the other hand, Kantian moral theory would tell us not to torture the terrorist because we should not treat people as a means to an end, which is an absolute moral rule. When faced with the terrorist problem, Kantian moral theory would have difficulty explaining why we would choose to torture the terrorist. Now imagine a different scenario in which you lived in Nazi Germany and hid Jews in your house. When the Nazis come to your home, would you lie and say you aren't hiding Jews, or would you tell the truth? Utilitarians would say that lying is the morally correct course of action because it would maximize utility by saving your life and the life of the person you are hiding. Kantian moral theory would argue that because lying can't be universalized, you must tell the truth – consequently leading to your death and the death of the person you are hiding. Similarly, Kantian moral theory cannot explain why you would choose to lie in that scenario. 

Someone might object to Utilitarianism by pointing out that the theory does not deem anything intrinsically wrong. Because of that, they could argue that Utilitarianism justifies incredibly heinous actions. Utilitarians believe the wrongness of an action is dependent on its consequences. This essentially means that things that we commonly associate as being morally reprehensible, like torture, enslavement, murder, and rape, would only be considered wrong because their consequences don't maximize utility. If a Utilitarian had to evaluate a scenario in which 5% of the population was enslaved for the greater benefit of the other 95%, they would say that it is morally correct to enslave that 5% regardless of their suffering because it maximizes the utility for the 95%. 

The Utilitarian response to this objection would be that the scenario presented above is unlikely and therefore not a concern. The odds of ever encountering a scenario in which we had to enslave 5% of the population is marginal. Utilitarians bite the bullet on this argument because, yes, enslaving that 5% would maximize utility, but the way human nature has evolved would mean these preposterous scenarios wouldn't occur. If we were to allow the enslavement of 5% of the population, it would justify a chain reaction of mass-scale genocidal scenarios that wouldn't maximize utility and would be in nobody's best interest. The application of Utilitarianism to real-world problems is far more realistic insofar that it wouldn't lead us to enslave, torture, murder, and rape a large portion of the population. 

In conclusion, I have described Utilitarianism as a theory of normative ethics, why it is theoretically the best moral theory, an objection to the theory, and a Utilitarian response. Although the objection is valid, Utilitarianism does an excellent job of biting the bullet and proving why it doesn't pose a significant problem. In short, I believe that Utilitarianism is theoretically the best theory of normative ethics.