Utilitarianism- A Short Critique
Utilitarianism vs. Moral Rights and Principles of Justice
Ed Konieczka
University of Mary Undergrad Student
This assignment asks us to answer the following two questions: Does utilitarianism provide a more objective standard for determining right and wrong than moral rights do? Does utilitarianism provide a more objective standard than principles of justice?
I was previously asked to study utilitarianism in a class that studied business law. I was unsatisfied with utilitarianism at the time but was unable to say why. Our current textbook has helped me understand why-I am a Kantian at heart! As I seek to compare utilitarianism with the Kantian theory of Moral Rights, I find that I have 3 primary objections to utilitarianism: 1) Utilitarianism only judges the outcome, not the means; 2) Utilitarianism places happiness as the highest good; and 3) Utilitarianism tends to objectify persons.
My first objection to utilitarianism is that it only judges outcomes and it places no judgment on the various actions used to achieve those outcomes. Our textbook gives the following definition of utilitarianism: “An action is right…if and only if the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of any other act…” (Velasquez, Manuel. Pearson, 2012. P. 78). By this definition, an action is moral if it produces the greatest utility for society, regardless of what that action is. This is akin to saying “The ends justifies the means”. Let’s take an imaginary situation-let’s say that a terrorist is angry with the CEO of an oil company. The terrorist takes a plane full of people hostage and threatens to kill all the people on board unless you kill the CEO of the company. Utilitarian ethics might make the case that the greater utility to society would be for you to kill the CEO in order to save the hundreds of people on the plane. Kantian ethics says that the CEO has a moral right to life and killing him/her would be morally wrong. In this
Ed Konieczka
University of Mary Undergrad Student
This assignment asks us to answer the following two questions: Does utilitarianism provide a more objective standard for determining right and wrong than moral rights do? Does utilitarianism provide a more objective standard than principles of justice?
I was previously asked to study utilitarianism in a class that studied business law. I was unsatisfied with utilitarianism at the time but was unable to say why. Our current textbook has helped me understand why-I am a Kantian at heart! As I seek to compare utilitarianism with the Kantian theory of Moral Rights, I find that I have 3 primary objections to utilitarianism: 1) Utilitarianism only judges the outcome, not the means; 2) Utilitarianism places happiness as the highest good; and 3) Utilitarianism tends to objectify persons.
My first objection to utilitarianism is that it only judges outcomes and it places no judgment on the various actions used to achieve those outcomes. Our textbook gives the following definition of utilitarianism: “An action is right…if and only if the sum total of utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total of any other act…” (Velasquez, Manuel. Pearson, 2012. P. 78). By this definition, an action is moral if it produces the greatest utility for society, regardless of what that action is. This is akin to saying “The ends justifies the means”. Let’s take an imaginary situation-let’s say that a terrorist is angry with the CEO of an oil company. The terrorist takes a plane full of people hostage and threatens to kill all the people on board unless you kill the CEO of the company. Utilitarian ethics might make the case that the greater utility to society would be for you to kill the CEO in order to save the hundreds of people on the plane. Kantian ethics says that the CEO has a moral right to life and killing him/her would be morally wrong. In this