Should We Always Maximize Utility Philosophy Essay

Utility is the connotation for pleasure and lack of pain, for more clarification, pleasure is basically good and pain in contrast is fundamentally bad. It is also known as happiness according to utilitarianism. Happiness therefore to utilitarianism is good which is attained by any ethical action that produces ultimate superiority. Moreover, humans in nature always struggle for greatest happiness which request maximum utility. However, the question which deals with whether a well being should always act to maximize utility had lead to the rise of many arguments that engage in recreation of a vital role in maximizing satisfaction and pointing out its effects which will lead us to a conclusion for this question.

Many utilitarian philosophers such as John Mill and Singer suggested that if we act in a rational right manner it’ll then produce the most good which is happiness in turn, and thus it symbolize that we always hunt for maximizing our satisfaction. Moreover, aiming for greatest happiness for the largest number of people is the basic theory of utilitarianism, which deals with seeking to have more than less of good. Some say that utilitarianism is too essential, which is a justification theory where it points out that we should always act to take full advantage of utility, thus this differentiate between two kinds of actions. First action is that acting ethically correct will gain us ultimate utility while the second action is being supererogatory which is admirable but not essential. Furthermore, if we were just living a normal life where no maximizing of utility take place, for utilitarianism this action is objectionable since it doesn’t associate with their theory and this illustrate that they fail to see distinction between our actions. Therefore, utilitarianism is too challenging to be taken sincerely since it contradicts with the individual’s integrity. Evil preferences is another disparagement which conflicts with utilitarianism, since it suggest that even if killing a baby would offer satisfaction then the being should to do it. Another moral problem is the special relationship which states that due to the different personalities and behaviors of individuals we always build relationship in refer to how special the individual is. Thus according to utilitarianism we should demoralize these relationships on matter how special or close they are, in all cases they should be treated equally.

What had happened is as saying looking backward which refers to utilitarian’s, so by taking the past actions into account contradicts the concept of consequentiality which means looking at forward into things. For example, if you had promised a friend of yours that she’ll be the bridesmaid in your sister wedding and after a couple of month she had gaining some extra kilos which intrude her look and made her seem fat, which will irritate your sister since she doesn’t want fat bridesmaids. In this case, what should you do? For utilitarian’s and according to their backward looking, they’ll reason the concept that you’ve promised your friend which will leave some kind of commitment towards her which must be complied. This concept focuses our concentration on what will be the outcome if we processed onward with different actions. In addition, the distribution of utility is not of that importance to utilitarian’s, since their primarily concern is the quantity of utility disseminated. Suppose you have 4 chocolate bars and 4 friends with you, in deciding how to enjoy the chocolate bars utilitarian’s would drive you to an end that disseminating the chocolate bars among your friends with gain you more utility rather than having it on your own.

Utility also conflicts with justice which refers to the fairly treatment between individuals according to their virtues, thus this issue deals with conducts of the moral principles. Where utilitarianism is forbidden in this case since it contradicts the ethical judgments due to its regulations which omit the maximization of utility. However, there are 2 essential elements in the concept of justice which are punishments and the abuse of human rights. Utilitarian’s treat humans as a mean to an end without applying any constrain on the way they should be treated therefore they don’t realize that humans have rights which should be taken into consideration. They deal with the issue as those actions are justifiable if they create a favorable steadiness of pleasure over sorrow or grief. So if an individual act in a violating manner toward an individual rights but it gives more enjoyment than misery then his action is tolerable. So we can conclude that utilitarian’s are not aware that humans have rights that shouldn’t be violated by others actions for just their own good outcome and no matter of level of pleasure or good to be attained.

Actions should be judged upon the consequence they generate, and based on the outcomes of these actions the person should be punished. This argument deals that humans should study the action well and upon its consequence punishment should take place, thus if wrong is disguised the person ought to be punished. Moreover, conscience plays a vital role in punishing the person after doing wrong things when laws are not given. It makes the being feel as if he has done something beyond normal regulations. This is a part of the duty concept which is something that can be exacted from a being in which he may fairly accomplish his obligations. There are things that are not moral obligation to us and to others, like things we like to do or we admire, thus we don’t see people as items that entail punishments. Furthermore, moral right acts that depend on its consequences are called Consequentialism which holds that acts that maximize good are ethically right, where the amount of good exceeds the amount of bad on a certain occasion (Mill, 1861).

The creation of the amount of pleasure and misery is the only thing that matters and the outcome consequences judge whether our action is right or wrong nothing else and that each person’s contentment counts equivalently, this statement was suggested by the utilitarian philosopher Mills. Moreover, according to utilitarianism it is acceptable to kill a person for the benefit of others for example if you were to kill a person in order to save two, this is explained that right actions don’t always generate best of consequences, which is unacceptable in my own opinion. So when an action is wrong, punishment should be implied upon or an authorization against. Here the concept of ethics with authorization is being linked since ethics refers to right and wrong together with responsibility and dedications. Therefore, according to utilitarianism, in order to be judged whether the beings action is right or wrong, we should look first at the rules that are required (Rachels, James, 2003).

The way we act in an ordinary circumstance, shape our ethical instincts, but for utilitarianism don’t take it this way, they simply don’t care any less. Maximizing happiness is not always ethically compelled but this doesn’t indicate that we should abstain from maximizing pleasure although it is concerned with the contravention of our right obligations. Therefore, before answering the question if whether we should maximize utility or not, there a certain issues and consideration, we should take into account. In conclusion, we ought to endeavor and exploit efficacy but only within limitations of the criticisms that utilitarianism is faced with.

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our Guarantees

Money-back Guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism Guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision Policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy Policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation Guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more