The Utilitarian Theory

The Utilitarian Theory

Definition of Utilitarianism
Many references define about what the definition of utilitarian theory is. Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.
Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people", and is also known as "the "Greatest happiness principle" Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as "Happiness" "Pleasure" "Pain" "Preference utilitarianism" define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a "Life stance" "Intrinsic value (ethics)"
">Bentham's Principle of Utility:
(1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life,
(2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and
(4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure').
In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: intensity, duration, certainty (or uncertainty), and its nearness (or farness). He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its extent.
">John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing
(1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism,
(2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and
(3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent").
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
We can apply the principle of utility to either particular actions or general rules. The former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called "rule-utilitarianism."
Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results (or the least amount of bad results).
Criticisms of this view point to the difficulty of attaining a full knowledge and certainly of the consequences of our actions.It is possible to justify immoral acts using AU: Suppose you could end a regional war by torturing children whose fathers are enemy soliders, thus revealing the hide outs of the fathers.
Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those rules.Some criticisms of this position point out that if the Rules take into account more and more exceptions, RU collapses into AU.More general criticisms of this view argue that it is possible to generate "unjust rules" according to the principle of utility. For example, slavery in Greece might be right if it led to an overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated individuals.
Some Cases of Utilitarian Theory
We find a more significant objection to Utilitarian moral theory in the following sort of case. Consider Fulan, who goes to the doctor for a check up. His doctor finds that Fulan is in perfect health. And his doctor also finds that Fulan is biologically compatible with six other patients she has who are all dieing of various sorts of organ failure. Let us assume that if Fulan lives out his days he will live a typically good life, one that is pleasant to Fulan and also brings happiness to his friends and family. But we will assume that Fulan will not discover a cure for Leukemia or bring about world peace. And let us make similar assumptions about the six people suffering from organ failure. According to simple act utilitarianism, it looks like the right thing for Fulan’s doctor to do is to kill Fulan and take his organs for the benefit of the six patients who will otherwise die. But intuitively, this would be quite wrong. Act utilitarianism gets the wrong result in this sort of case. This case seems to provide a clear counterexample to simple act utilitarianism. Can the utilitarian view be modified to avoid this sort of counterexample?
One move open to the utilitarian is to evaluate rules for acting rather than individual actions. A version of rule utilitarianism might say that the right action is the action that follows the rule which, in general, will produce the highest utility. A rule that tells doctors to kill their patients when others require their organs would not have very high utility in general. People would avoid their doctors and illness would go untreated were such a rule in effect. Rather, the rule that doctors should do no harm to their patients would have much higher utility in general. So the move to rule utilitarianism seems to avoid the difficulty we found with act utilitarianism. Or at least it seems to when we consider just these two rules.
Other cases, we can see at the production system of Nabisco production biscuit. As we know that most people love that biscuit, especially for children. This product also has reached price for us. In my opinion, at the beginning, the system of production Nabisco is going smoothly, good, and suitable on nutrition and food test. But, in recent year, there are information which tells us about embezzlement of raw materials that can be dangerous for human health because contain melamine. This is happened by the reason of economic crisis global that influence of raw materials is more expensive and the implication for the profit of product management is lower. They want to decrease cost of production by using “uncertain the raw materials”, whereas that inflict financial loss and medical loss for the costumer.Not only Nabisco(which is a large enterprise) but also small sellers, who sell various food, such as gulali (a kind of candy), fruit ice, fried chicken, bakso, etc fix their products with sweeteners, unnatural dye, borax, or other dangerous materials which can be bad impact for consumer. Where is the seller’s responsibility?
Based on utilitarian theory that act and policy on decision taking must be evaluated so that can be “fairness”. So, the want for taking biggest profit must do by fair production and give benefits for people and get the good name of enterprise for the consumer back.
Utilitarianism seems to fall short in failing to afford respect for persons. I find a compelling reason here for rejecting utilitarianism as a complete moral theory. But this is not to deny that producing happiness is important from an ethical point of view. One can take the utilitarian theory to capture something that is important about acting well even while taking respect for persons to override utilitarian reasons in cases like above where there is a conflict. This conclusion – that everybody's interests should be considered equally when making decisions – is a core tenet of utilitarianism.