Normative Ethics
It is the branch of ethics concerned with classifying actions as right and
wrong. For example, telling a lie is a question of normative ethics. The main
concern of the normative ethics is to explain the question of ‘What’ and not
‘Why’. In the example, the normative ethics says that lying is wrong and further
than this there is no explanation as to ‘Why’ is lying wrong.
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
Utilitarianism
"The greatest good of the greatest number”.
Utilitarianism is an ethical system where the greatest importance is placed on
one’s state of being happy. Whereby happiness is regarded as the heart of any of
the actions human beings take. It places importance on the right of one’s
pleasure seeking actions and tries to justify them on the above-mentioned
greatest happiness principal.
Logic Of Utilitarians
Utilitarians follow certain logic in the selection of their actions. But lets
first see the assumption they make i.e. utility can be measured somehow in
numbers or by any other means is comparable. First of all they estimate the
situation prevalent in the world after the conduction of alternative actions.
They try to know the level of happiness of each person in the various situations
after they would render some action or actions. Then, they sum up the different
levels of happiness in each case. Finally, a utilitarian compares the final
results and chooses that action which leads to the maximum total happiness
considering it to be morally right.
Utilitarians in general view murder, lying, rape and theft as bad. They view
actions arisen through generosity, healing, truthfulness and loyalty as good.
The theoretical justification for utilitarianism states that, all else being
equal, something, which makes one happy, is better than something, which
doesn't.
Arguments Against Utilitarianism
The main argument against the theory of utilitarianism is that the happiness of
an individual person is considered and not that of the society taken as a whole.
It is a fact or at least should be considered a right thing that all people are
ethically equal. Then, this means that anything, which makes anyone happy, is
(all else being equal) better than something, which does not. This seems to lead
naturally to something very like utilitarianism.
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
The word ‘one’ means any individual who wants to be happy and does an act which
leads to the highest level of happiness for that particular individual is quite
allowable by the utilitarians. For example, if one feels like getting naked in
the rain in a market place out in the open and enjoys the rain drops pouring
then given that this act would give that particular person the highest level of
happiness, the utilitarians would allow that person to bath nakedly in the rain.
There are moral values a society holds regarding dressing, language, behavior
and attitudes and many others which should be duly respected by an individual.
Seeking happiness on the pretext of self happiness is selfish and any such
following actions that are based solely on the feelings of one person giving no
heed whatsoever to how does one’s pleasure seeking activities affect the other
person is itself wrong.
Many people consider utilitarianism a thoroughly evil thing and blame it for the
erosion of moral values of a society. The inherent flaw in this concept is the
freeway given to one’s desires. Everybody knows that desires are something every
human being wants to pursue. Now regardless of the matter or consideration of
the actual actions pursuing that desire the utilitarians feel that the important
thing here is the achievement of that desire or desires. Fulfillment of desires
lead to happiness and therefore it is right (as per the utilitarians) to pursue
one’s desires. Human beings have an inherent tendency to get more happiness from
the acts of sin as sins are described and listed by Bible and told and retold by
missionaries and as per the teachings of church. Sins like adultery, incest,
alcohol drinking, unlawful sex, prostitution, lying, cheating, theft and such
are all those acts which breed highest levels of satisfaction to humans. Any
truly acting utilitarian would most probably be the most sinful person on earth
by this argument and at the same time perhaps the most content and happy person
too.
Another flaw in utilitarianism is the difficulty of comparing utility among
different people as is suggested for choosing an alternate most happy path or
action. Proponents of utilitarianism believed that happiness could somehow be
measured quantitatively and compared between people. This is simply not
practicable. How many of us weigh or are able to measure how much happiness did
we drive from last nights’ sex. Was it 1.2 or 3.6? What is the unit of
happiness? What is the standard of an average happiness driven by having sex?
How is it measured? Would one measure it by the number of times one made love or
what? The main flaw in the utilitarianism is its inherent and main assumption of
measurability and comparability of happiness.
Utilitarianism has also been opposed for leading to a number of conclusions
contrary to common sense morality. For example, given a choice of saving one's
child or two strangers, utilitarians would advice in saving the strangers
instead of one's child, since two people might have more total future happiness
than one. This is in contradiction to the common sense.
Another argument is on the basis of the statement by utilitarians that actions,
as such, have no moral value and what matters is their effect on the state of
the world. The morality of actions themselves is totally neglected and what are
considered are the results of that action on the world or society. For example,
theft in itself is not wrong but the misery it brings to the one whose things
have been stolen is what matters. The argument is false since there are many
actions which are inherently wrong but may not be easily judge able as to
whether they lead to greater happiness in the world or not. For example, if one
masturbates, then ethically and morally it should be wrong whereas any
utilitarian would argue that since the act is not causing any direct harm to the
world therefore it should be allowed and considered right. The act though may be
quite difficult to be judged as to its effects on the world as a whole but the
individual involved gets medically affected. So is the case in taking drugs,
alcohol and dopes. Drug taking causes hazards to ones health but doesn’t
directly affect the world and therefore since it provides individuals with
satisfaction and ultimate happiness and calmness therefore, the utilitarian
would argue in its favor.
There is also a theoretical difficulty with utilitarianism. It requires a person
to compute the total amount of happiness in his entire lifetime, which needs a
command and usage on some sort of integral calculus for happiness. What about
the illiterates? Do they have no right to act since they are not able to compute
the relative happiness?
Another argument is against the statement of utilitarianism that one doesn't do
things so as to have done the Right Thing; one does things because that has
results, which are good. For example, if one takes great pleasure in annoying
other people and by annoying them they work more efficiently then it is
considered a just act in utilitarianism. Another example is to consider lying by
politicians when they in their individual capacity think that such a lying would
save their country or anything whose results in their perception would be good
then this lying would be allowed. Similarly, killing is in itself a wrong act
but killing in a war is allowed. While killing a dacoit or a murderer as per
hanging or lethal injection to fulfill a court ruling is very much allowed since
it results in saving people from the harms that could be done and inflicted by
that person. There is a contradiction of logic here.
Order Your
Custom Term Papers, College Essays and Research Papers
