Discuss The Arguments Against Utilitarianism

Consider the argument that people may be acting out of duty/loyalty, it seems possible that people will act out of duty/loyalty to a cause rather than another person. Taking care of the environment can be a such cause. This means, firstly, that that WTP may not necessarily reflect individual well-being. Secondly, however, it is possible that individuals want environmental policy to take such moral duties into account. Individuals' WTP for environmental goods is a central concept in environmental CBA, but empirical data on this is not readily available from market prices. Several estimation methods have been proposed. Some focus on market data, while others use interview techniques. Some are direct in the sense that individuals are asked directly
Harsanyi (1955) argued that individuals who are maximizing their own expected utility will prefer a social welfare function corresponding to utilitarianism. On the other hand, others have argued strongly against the utilitarian moral philosophy. For example, on the grounds that the philosophy attaches no weight to concepts such as ethical rights and moral duties to the environment (Sen, 1985). It is important to note, however, that even if one accepts utilitarianism, the assumption of equal marginal utilities of income remains controversial. Sagoff (1988) argues that when environmental policy issues are concerned, people behave as citizens, which means that they consider the benefits to public interests when evaluating a proposal. In contrast, when acting as consumers, individuals pursue their own, personal interests. Sagoff argues against using aggregate WTP as a central criterion for environmental policy decisions. He believes this because a simple combination of people's judgements as citizens does not have room for the important process of public discussion and deliberation. People’s judgement’s are biased due to the fact that no matter what a person may happen to do, it is per definition in his or her interest. In short, political decisions ought to be guided through search for the best argument, not the highest
He maintains the following:
1. In areas of regulating the environment, safety, and health, there may be instances where a certain decision might be right even though its benefits do not outweigh its costs.
2. There are good reasons to oppose efforts to put dollar values on such things as the costs and benefits of saving human lives or on protecting wetlands and wilderness