Argue for or Against Utilitarianism

In order to give you my opinion on utilitarianism, whether I should argue for utilitarianism or I should go against utilitarianism. I wish to give an idea about what utilitarianism is?

What comes to mind when you hear the word utilitarianism?

By emphasizing outcomes, utilitarianism determines the difference between right and wrong. A choice that will lead to the most good for the greatest number is considered the most ethical. According to utilitarianism, the amount of pain or pleasure you receive from an action determines whether it is morally right or wrong.

As John Stuart Mills says about utilitarianism that "all action is for the sake of some end".

It means that all of the things we do, we do for a specific reason. If one wants to be ethical, one should know how to assess their own actions. J.S. Mills believed that actions ought to be right if they contribute to happiness and pleasure. Likewise, if it leads to sadness or pain, then your actions are incorrect.

So basically, utilitarianism is the way of looking at morality, but instead of saying that the action is right or wrong. The outcome of an action determines whether it is right or wrong. If it gives you happiness, then it is right. If your action results in you being in pain or sad, then your action is wrong.

Are there any pros to utilitarianism?

The theory has some pros, I think, such as being universally shared since it is based on value and happiness, and almost everyone values happiness.

In addition, it provides an intuitive understanding of utilitarianism, as doing what is valuable will make us happy, which in turn may bring out our best qualities.

Do we need to argue either for or against utilitarianism?

The utilitarian perspective does raise a number of challenges both in its positive and negative aspects, which leads us to our main question of whether we should promote utilitarianism or oppose it.

1. In my opinion, the thing that worries me most is with utilitarianism theory of value. As for many people, only happiness is valuable, and suffering provides us with unhappiness. For example, you may think that you are doing something that will give you success and happiness. It may, however, end up hurting others or cause them to hate you.

2. The second thing that worries me the most about utilitarianism is the theory of right action. We may have found the thing that's more valuable or something that will give us more pleasure. In the meantime, how can we judge our actions morally, if they are right or wrong?

To answer this question I would like you to suppose a situation. As an example, you own a business that broadcasts a live cricket match finale that millions of people watch. And now suppose that person A works in the maintenance room and that he has been scalded by electric equipment, which caused the injury that caused him to suffer from electric shock as well. In order to save him, you have to switch off the telecast station and you may lose billions of dollars by switching off the telecast station. So what would you do?

Morally and ethically, the right thing to do is to switch off the telecast station and save his life. The utilitarian view, however, sees this as bad luck for A. The thing that is most valuable to a business owner is the profit they gain. It is therefore possible that you cannot save him since the thing that is most valuable to you is making more money because it gives you more pleasure.

I think utilitarianism's biggest flaw is that it does not consider issues of justice. One can imagine situations in which a particular course of action might produce benefits for society but would be clearly unfair. White South Africans often claimed that the rule of whites meant a better life for all South Africans, which included black South Africans during the apartheid era. In the black or mixed governments that have replaced white-only governments in African nations, the social conditions have drastically deteriorated, claimed these whites. According to them, turning South Africa over to the black majority would lead to civil wars, economic decline, famine, and unrest. Accordingly, if a prediction of such a sort were true-and apartheid ended to prove the prediction was false-then the white government of South Africa would have been morally justified, despite its injustice.

It would seem that utilitarianism cannot be the sole principle guiding our moral decisions if we are to consider considerations of justice. Nevertheless, it can influence how these decisions are made. Our actions are susceptible to immediate and less immediate consequences according to the principle of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism requires a close examination of the benefits and harms of all people, looking beyond self-interest to cover the interests of all those affected by one's actions. As John Stuart Mill once wrote:

It isn't (one's) own happiness that establishes the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, but that of all involved. According to utilitarianism, a person must be as impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator when it comes to balancing his own happiness and the happiness of others.

A brief Synopsis:

In, my opinion utilitarianism is theory that can make you better and at the same time, it can harm someone as well. As the examples have given above shows that in utilitarianism theory, one only is interested in their own happiness and pleasure. They don't ought to care if the end result may hurt someone or may be even kills them. Such as I can say that I am against the Utilitarian theory. Because it does not supports the moral and the ethical value of other human being. And it does not support the system of justice. For example, if country A starts wars with country B because they want to enjoy and feel the pleasure of being powerful, then that is morally and ethically wrong. But utilitarian theory supports that you should do what you value the most. For which i really condemned the utilitarian theory.