Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism Essay

Strengths* Utilitarianism is simple. It doesnt go through a lot of complex districts, nevertheless rather the individual brook decide would be the scoop out, by how it affects separates.* It is flexible no law or principle is unch exclusivelyengeable.* It allows for circumstance, so you can decide what is the best occasion to do intermitn the current circumstance.* It ties in with the Christian ethic of unconditional love, as preached by Jesus.* If individual believes that both manufacture and breaking promises ar acts that atomic number 18 as such(prenominal) untimely, utilitarianism provides a principled way in which they can choose which moral rule to break if forced to make a choice between them.* The emphasis on impartiality, unselfishness and altruism is to be commended.* at that place is no need to consider precedents as absolute entirely because one military action worked for someone does non mean that it essential be enforced again, when it may non wor k for someone else.* It is also photogenic to secular thinkers, because it makes no grand claims to the witchlike or metaphysical. It appeals to tangible results the consequences of an action lead be perceived.Weaknesses* What do we mean by happiness? What makes us content? It is nasty to define happiness as it varies with psyche to someone.* Should happiness always be engage? What if we can only be happy if we achieve it in a cock-a-hoop way? Like if a liquidator is only happy if he kills someone.* How can we say that happiness from one frolic is greater than from another? at that place is no way to tell if a lead is any to a greater extent happy than someone not so clever.* Humans do not always treat each other equal. We c ar more(prenominal) active the large number close to us and would pass water them more consideration in an honourable dilemma. Some would claim that utilitarians atomic number 18 scarce idealistic and unrealistic because they do not accurate ly evaluate human conduct and just assume we are all perfect, caring equally for e reallyone.* It is impossible to be certain about a consequence, which is a general problem with teleological ethics.* It is very difficult to measure pleasure given over by any outcome. It depart seclude a great deal of time, idea and study, considering effects on both people and the situation.* Can we compare one persons happiness to another persons happiness?* If only the inwardness happiness counts, imagine these two situations A 80% population live very swell and are very happy because the other 20% are their slaves. B There are no slaves and everyone is happy but not as happy as the 80% in situation A. The total and ordinary happiness in both situations is the same, hence to a utilitarian thither is no difference between the two, and both are equally morally right, but thralldom is considered wrong.* Is conduct Utilitarianism too demanding? Someone buys a TV for 500, which would make t hem happy but they could also spend the gold thriftiness 1000 lives in Africa. Some Act utilitarians would point that, yes, we should send just about of our money overseas, since that would give rise the most happiness for the most people, but is that too demanding?* The refusal to acknowledge intrinsically wrong acts a judge expertness convict an bleak man in order to pr sluicet a binge that would ensue if he were not convicted a utilitarian would argue that this is permissible because more people would be made disquieted by the lack of a condemnation and the riot but is it intrinsically wrong to imprison or execute an innocent man?* Act utilitarians might send Rule utilitarians of being legalistic whats the point, they could say, of adjacent a rule when it is clear that the consequences will decrease happiness? In their view, outgoing experience can only give guidelines, not rules.* Rule utilitarianism may just be act utilitarianism in disguise all the rules are focus sed somewhat the maximisation of happiness. Rule utilitarians believe that the best way to tap happiness is to maximise happiness with every act- but this is just act utilitarianism.* Human rights, justices, and other such values may not have any place in a utilitarian ethical system if the wishes of the absolute volume override them.* Christians, Muslims, and others of religious faith would argue that god decides what is rights, and what is the best outcome it is not four humans to try to calculate.* Utilitarianism ignores consequence well benevolent motives.* Utilitarianism seems to require more of a human that many are capable of providing* Just as there are no absolutes for determining acts which are intrinsically wrong, there is also no way to define what is universally good.* There must be sufficient study taken of the minority view the majority are not always right, even though the satisfaction of their wishes might create the most happiness.