preview

Pros And Cons Of Classical Act Utilitarianism

Decent Essays
Open Document

In this essay, I will argue that classical act utilitarianism can meet the injustice objection, but ultimately is weakened by the same argument.

Classical Act utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism, a type of ethical theory which dictates that the rightness or wrongness of an action stems purely from the consequences of that action. In particular, classical act utilitarianism places ‘utility’, namely pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, and states that each action should be considered individually to decide which one results in the greatest aggregate utility. One of the main objections towards act utilitarianism is that of injustice. The basic argument is that since utilitarians focus on the net utility created by an action, they …show more content…

The first is that since a utilitarian looks at long term consequences, and acts like the one above would likely decrease trust in the medical profession along with other negative effects, the utilitarian would not be committed to act in the way described. The second is that utilitarians, in order to avoid constantly making fairly complex and difficult ‘hedonistic calculations’ would use rules of thumb. These rules would include such rules as ‘don’t perform medical procedures on somebody without their consent’ and so the utilitarian would not be bound. While both of these arguments have merit, there may still be examples of where a utilitarian following the hedonic calculus may be bound to commit an act regarded by others as unjust. This is where the third reply, known as the ‘bite the bullet response’ comes in. In essence the response is that while the act may be seen as unjust, that alone is not reason not to do it, and it may still be the correct action.

The part of the objection that I will focus on is that ideas of rights or justice are often based on prejudice and intuition rather than a true reflection of moral reality, what ever that may be. If we look at conceptions of justice across history and cultures we can see that ideas of the just or fair action have varied wildly. For example, it has previously been held that women should not be allowed to vote. More recently it has been held by some that the state paying for disadvantaged children's lunches is unfair as it is the parents burden to provide for the child. At each time, people making such claims have felt like they are correctly representing the just course of action. If we say that those people were wrong to make those claims, as I would, we have to accept that intuitions, feelings, even beliefs of what is just do not necessarily reflect what the truly just action would be. Especially when we rely on intuition, as we do when we say that the

Get Access
Related
Get Access