Utilitarianism

Utilitarianists are often persecuted for holding a morality in which the end always justifies the means, no matter how repulsive it may be to intuitional moral standards. Hare attempts to quiet controversy by combining act and rule utilitarianism in daily life in such a way that internal moral standards are satisfied and overall good is promoted. Kymlicka stays firm in his opposition to Hare’s theories and shuns the idea of consequentialism having intrinsic value greater than that of intuitive moral standards. Hare’s process of critical thinking combined with intuitionism leads to a flawless conclusion based on systematic procedure that will benefit the most people in the long term even against Kymlicka’s well thought out arguments. Kymlicka thinks that utilitarianism bypasses immediate obligations that should be fulfilled. He believes that utilitarianists’ foresight actually hinders their ability to do what is “right” or “just” in the present. He also believes that utilitarianism gives too much weight to illegitimate preferences, meaning that utilitarianists can often choose to do the worse option in consideration in order to satiate a desire for immoral happiness. In the specific case that he puts forward, Kymlicka uses the simple example of an everyday action in which a loan is given to him and he faces the moral dilemma of whether or not he should repay it. He believes that the utilitarianist might keep the money or give it away rather than repaying it if he thought that it would produce the most good in the end to himself or some other party. One may argue that by loaning out money it is consensual and therefore cannot be categorized as theft when the amount is not repaid. However, the loan was made with the qualification and equal understanding that the money would be repaid. Since Kymlicka uses the term “loan,” he is very much aware that he has the obligation to pay the money back. This may be called breaking a promise as well as theft, so it is doubly