Utilitarianism and morality - Essay Example

?Insert Introduction According to utilitarianism, the morally right action may sometimes be a terrible action that results in negative consequences. The situation above is the case since utilitarianism holds it that an action can be morally right if the action grants the greatest amount of pleasure or the greatest good to the greatest number of people. This theoretical standpoint was reiterated by Jeremy Bentham who made the proposition that an action is right in proportion as it tends to promote pleasure or happiness, and (an action is also) wrong as it tends to produce the reverse of the happiness. Taking a Position on whether Utilitarianism Is Correct to Condone These Actions, Given the Circumstances It is not agreeable that utilitarianism is right to condone these actions, depending on circumstances. One of the reasons why one may disagree with utilitarian’s act of condoning some actions is because, fundamentally, utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. This is seen in the utilitarians’ postulation which states that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things that are desirable as ends. In this light, an action is regarded as morally wrong or right, depending entirely on its consequences. In this light, an action is considered morally right if it produces the best outcome of choices that have been availed. The flipside of this is that if an action does not produce the best outcome, then it is not right. According to Sedaris, the import of the foregoing is that actions are regarded as morally right if the greatest number benefit from it, yet there are instances where morally right standards or values may not be popular among the masses but among a few. An apt example which repudiates utilitarians’ consequentialist approach is democracy. In a democracy, even as the majority rules, the rights of the minority are to be safeguarded. The safeguarding of minority rights may not be beneficial to the majority since it forces the observation of a collective approach and consultations, yet consultations and collective approaches bring with them additional expenses and also slow down the pace of decision making at the national level (Sedaris 86). Secondly, utilitarians are wrong to condone some of the actions that may be regarded as ethically right, merely on the account that such an action benefits the majority. This is because the ethics and morality have fundamentals that surpass the concept of gain. An action is right not because it benefits the greatest number but because it is, in its essence, legitimate. It is not, for instance, ethically or morally right for an organization to whimsically decide to punctiliously trim employees’ emoluments on the mere account that such a move will increase the organization’s profit margin and shareholders’ dividend. Even if the employees being shortchanged may be few and too weak to defend themselves or resist the move and the organization have accrued increased profits, the move remains intrinsically immoral since it amounts to the betrayal of an already operational agreement or contract between the employee and the employer. Similarly, the move remains immoral simply because it amounts to the exploitation of the weak and not because it merely does not benefit the greatest number. Again, utilitarians’ act of condoning an action based on the fact that it benefits the greatest number is unacceptable,simply because it reduces human beings and the concept of morality to a matter of statistics. As long as the beneficiaries outweigh the number of the shortchanged, then that action is regarded as legitimate, and the shortchanged minority is bypassed as collateral damage. Again, by saying that an act is ethically legitimate depending on its ability to benefit the greatest number of people is to reduce moral duties to a matter of popularity. This means that (the observation of) moral duty such as telling the truth and doing honest business is no longer an absolute or really necessary. Even though Emanuel Kant advances that people should never lie at all times, regardless of the consequences, utilitarians first calculate or analyze positive and negative consequences of either being truthful or dishonest. This is to the effect that if being dishonest maximizes more pleasure or happiness for the greatest number of people, then dishonest policies will have to carry the day. This is because moral duties are not absolute but are relative to the positive outcomes of a moral initiative. In another wavelength, it is important to note that utilitarianism also places too much demand on people by stating that an act is morally right if it grants the greatest good or pleasure to the greatest number of people. The moral implication of utilitarianism is that people are morally required to act in a manner that brings about the best of consequences. This means that people are individually responsible for: the things they did not do but could have done to maximize pleasure or happiness; what they do to maximize happiness; the things they could have hindered others from doing to overall increase happiness. If one is required to maximize happiness or pleasure, then he would have to make very radical choices in life. This is because one may need to cede away a lot (if not everything) in order to carry out a morally right action. For instance, if an individual has 15 dollars in his pocket, it will be more fitting for him to donate the money to charity instead of going for a movie. This is the case since going for a movie will have given only him pleasure, while donating the 10 dollars to charity will have assisted the less privileged in the society (a greater number). Conversely, with the notion that an act is morally upright if it gives the greatest gain to the greatest number, utilitarianism somewhat requires people to commit acts that are morally reprehensible. This is because utilitarianism can justify acts that are usually regarded as immoral, as long as such acts extend the greatest to the highest number of people. For instance, if carrying out an extrajudicial killing on one individual will scare others from dabbling in a life of crime, then utilitarians are likely to be in agreement. Conclusion The foregoing clearly shows that although utilitarianism serves as a model for making appraisals on morality, it fails to capture the fundamental essence and reality of morality and ethics. Neither are morality and ethics premised upon pleasure and benefits nor is following the morally legitimate path a matter that guarantees pleasure. Likewise, morality and ethics are matters that are absolute in themselves and not relative to the happiness of the majority, as utilitarians postulate. Works Cited Sedaris, David. “Criticisms of Utilitarianism.” Journal of Philosophy 133.5 (2009): 86. Print. Read More