Utilitarianism Theory

Utilitarianism theory is one of the many normative ethical theories that looks deep into the actions of an individual or an entity based on the consequences they have on another person or entity. From my analysis of this theory, it can be described as a form of consequentialism. The core principle that acts as the driving force behind the theory of utilitarianism is that individuals ought to act or behave in a way that maximizes happiness for the greatest number. In any decision-making process, the morally right action, as per utilitarianism theory, is the action that produces the most good. This theory emphasizes that an action is always right if it is aimed toward promoting happiness and pleasure. It also states categorically that an action is wrong if it tends to produce unhappiness or pain to those to whom it is performed. This evaluation is not just for the performer of the action but also for everyone else affected by it. In doing so, the utilitarianism theory takes the consequences that action produces as the only relevant factor that determines whether that action or deed performed is morally or isn’t morally right to the performer and those affected by it (West & Duignan, 2024).

There are many reasons as to why I am a staunch supporter and advocate of the utilitarian theory. This normative theory promotes general happiness. This is because it directly considers the happiness and suffering of everyone affected by a particular action without discrimination or favour. It main objective in the performance of any action is to bring happiness for everyone involved or affected. As slightly highlighted earlier, utilitarian theory is impartial. This simply means that at whatever call of action, this theory doesn’t give preferential treatment to any individual, any race or their status in a society. It is a theory that insists that every individual’s happiness counts equally and, therefore, promotes the principle of fairness and equality in a society. Additionally, it is a theory that is very flexible and situation-dependent. In this, we mean that the utilitarian theory doesn’t hold that certain actions are inherently right or wrong; rather, it depends on the consequences of the action performed (Cox, 2020).

One of the most important objections that has attracted many defenders of the utilitarianism theory over other ethical theories is its ability to consider the consequence of a particular action to those affected. This nation is also used to criticize other categories of theories, such as deontological theories and virtue ethics. This category of theories is known to focus their attention on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions and where the character involved in the action is supposed to act as a moral agent. A very good example of deontological theories is Kant’s theory, which maintains that certain actions are automatically right or wrong, regardless of their outcomes. From my perspective as a very staunch critic of deontology, I am of the opinion that such a nation can lead to morally unacceptable outcomes in a society (Tseng & Wang, 2021). For instance, in any society of the world, telling the truth is always considered to be inherently right, but in a situation where telling the truth would lead to harm, such as a result into a full blown war that might result in the death of thousands of innocent people, a deontologist would still consider it the right action.

On the other hand, looking at virtue ethics, it is evident that their major focus is on the character that performs a particular action and acts as a moral agent rather than the consequences of their actions. From a critic’s point of view, it is evident that the notion behind these theories fails to provide clear guidance for the action performed and does not look deeper into the consequences caused by the actions on others. From a utilitarian point of view, it is evident that this theory addresses the criticized approaches by focusing on the consequences of actions. This theory confidently argues that an action can be considered right if it promotes or brings about happiness to the majority affected by the action. In doing so, the utilitarian theory allows for a more flexible and situation-dependent ethical framework, which is considered by many to be more practical and intuitive. With the aim of bringing the above explanation into practice, let’s analyze this example. In a situation where a surgical doctor has a list of five patients each, one of them needing a different organ transplant so that they can go with their lives. A healthy patient comes in for a routine check-up, and the doctor finds that this patient is a perfect match for all five patients. A strict deontologist might argue that it’s very wrong to harm a healthy patient with the aim of saving the lives of the other five patients. Additionally, a virtue ethicist individual will most likely direct their attention to the doctor’s character and virtues. These will include character such as their honesty and respect for life. This could eventually result in them concluding that harming the healthy patient is wrong (Tseng & Wang, 2021). However, from a utilitarian point of view, they would argue that the right action is the one that results in the greatest overall happiness of all individuals that might be affected by the action, which in this case would be to save the five patients. This simplified example illustrates how utilitarianism’s focus on consequences can lead to conclusions different from those of deontological or virtue ethics. This focus on consequences, along with its flexibility and practicality, is the main reason why, from my point of view, I choose utilitarianism as my preferred ethical theory (Smart, 2020).

References

Cox, D. J. (2020). Descriptive and normative ethical behaviour appear to be functionally distinct. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(1), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.761

Smart, J. J. C. (2020). Utilitarianism and its Applications. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 24–41). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003031475-2

Tseng, P., & Wang, Y. (2021). Deontological or utilitarian? An eternal ethical dilemma in the outbreak. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(16), 8565. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168565

West, H. R., & Duignan, B. (2024, February 16). Utilitarianism | Definition, Philosophy, Examples, ethics, Philosophers, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER

Utilitarianism Theory

Paper One
HUM 105
Allen Community College
Prompt: We have covered eight different normative ethical theories: divine command theory,
ethical egoism, natural law theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s deontological theory, contractarianism,
Ross’ theory of prima facie duties, and virtue ethics. For this assignment, you are to explain and
defend the normative ethical theory you find most convincing. In order to complete this task,
please write an essay in which you:
(1) Define and explain the normative ethical theory you find most convincing. Use
illustrative examples. Be sure to provide sufficient descriptive detail.
(2) Present arguments, evidence, and examples (i.e., reasons) that support your chosen
theory. Focus on those that you judge to be the strongest. You might also consider
presenting arguments, evidence, and/or examples that, in your view, discredit the
alternative theories.
(3) Present and explain the most significant objection (in your judgment) to your chosen
theory.
(4) How would an advocate of your theory respond to this objection? Is this response
adequate?
Word Count: 750-1000
Due Date: x
Citation Requirements
 If your work includes any ideas, examples, or sentences that you did not develop on your
own, then you must cite them.
 Please include in-text citations as well as complete bibliographic information on a
separate works cited page. You may you use APA, MLA, or Chicago citation styles.
 You are not expected to cite pieces of common knowledge or very specific facts that are
not open to interpretation. For instance, it is common knowledge that Plato was Greek. It
is a fact that Alexander the Great was Aristotle’s pupil.
Formatting Requirements
 Your essay should include a header with your name, course information, date of
composition, and a title.
 You must use paragraphs to break your work into manageable chunks.
 Your essay must be double-spaced and written in twelve-point Times New Roman font.
 You do not need and should not include a separate cover page.

Standards of Evaluation:
Each essay is worth 100 points and will be assigned a quantitative score in accordance with the
following standards:
 Quality of Exegetical Content: Do you demonstrate that you understand the
positions/theories/topics you are writing about? Do you successfully recount the views of
others in your own words?
 Quality of Evaluative and Argumentative Content: Are the descriptions, examples, and
arguments you offer reasonable and well-supported?
 Originality: Are your descriptions, examples, and arguments unique and interesting? Or
do you borrow heavily from lecture notes, your text book, or outside sources?
 Overall Clarity: Is your essay clearly written? Is it well-organized? Are all of your
argumentative assumptions fully stated? Can an ordinary reader follow your arguments
and/or comprehend your point of view?
Each essay will be assigned a quantitative score, in accordance with the standards above, by
application of the following criteria:
1. Quality of Exegesis = _____/40 points
2. Quality of Argumentation = _____ /40 points
3. Originality = _____ /10 points
4. Clarity, Grammar, and Punctuation = _____ /10 points
An essay that receives a grade in the A range will demonstrate exceptional understanding of the
course material, include strong, well-supported arguments, contain original examples/insights,
and be written in transparently clear prose. It will contain few (if any) errors of comprehension,
unsupported assertions, or hackneyed examples.
An essay that receives a grade in the C to B range will demonstrate adequate understanding of
the course material, include passable arguments, and demonstrate a minimally acceptable level of
engagement with the course material. It may contain some errors of comprehension, but they will
not be serious or systemic. It may contain unsupported assertions, but will counterbalance them
with some degree of good faith argumentation. It may contain some unclear prose, but as an
exception rather than as a rule.
An essay that receives a grade below C will (a) fail to demonstrate adequate understanding of or
engagement with the course material and/or (b) be written in prose that is so impenetrable that
the reader cannot tell whether the author has understood or engaged with the course material.
Resources for Writing Philosophical Essays

The following websites offer valuable advice about how write philosophical essays. Students are
strongly encouraged to review the information presented on these sites prior to composing their
own essays.
 Michael Huemer (UC-Boulder): Guide to Writing Philosophy
http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/writing.htm
 Jim Pryor (NYU): Guidelines on Writing Philosophy
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
 Douglas Portmore (Arizona State): Tips on Writing a Philosophy Paper
http://www.public.asu.edu/~dportmor/tips.pdf
 Walter Edelberg (U of Illinois): FAQs on Crediting Others and Avoiding Plagiarism
http://edelberg.people.uic.edu/crediting_others/index.htm
 University of Illinois Guide to Identifying Scholarly Sources:
https://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/scholarly/