The Disagreement Between Act-Utilitarianism And Duty

Utilitarianism states “that an action is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much good (utility) for all people affected by the action as any alternative action the person could do instead.” (Audi 942) One of the branches of utilitarianism is act-utilitarianism, and it is also considered by philosophers to be the “traditional utilitarianism.” (Schick 349) The purpose of act-utilitarianism is to follow the action that will maximize happiness for a given populace. Act-utilitarianism even has its own unique advantages to support its goal in maximizing utility (happiness). However; act-utilitarianism does have its own disadvantages that come in conflict with traditional moral values, some of these conflicts occur when the concepts of justice
According to Sheehy, “In particular utilitarianism allows, or even requires, obviously morally vile acts; it fails to recognize the separateness of individuals or the moral significance of their commitments, projects or integrity.” (Sheehy Part II). Duty is “…the obligations we hold to other person that is either moral or legal in nature.” (Rogers) Act-utilitarianism as a theory cannot coincide with the idea of duty, due to the changes that act-utilitarianism forces upon the concept of duty. Duty in act-utilitarianism requires one to commit any action that generates the most happiness. These actions can and will void personal allegiances, projects and the integrity of the individual in question. By forcing an individual to bend their moral obligations in the pursuit of pleasure, act-utilitarianism voids the notion of duty. It is possible that duty and act-utilitarianism cannot be combined into a singular system like how justice and act-utilitarianism can. Therefore, duty might be the one disadvantage that act-utilitarianism cannot overcome even with