Mill's Argument Against Utilitarianism

Words: 736
Pages: 3

In defending Utilitarianism on the thought that actions depend on their consequence. It is not reasonable to reject a theory that states that the consequences of what we do have no bearing on whether we should or should not carry out that specific act. Therefore, the components of utilitarianism should be accepted. Not even the smartest person on the planet, could ever accurately predict all of the outcomes of every action. The flaw is not utilitarianism itself but is in every decision people make. I don’t know if deciding to walk to class will result in me finding a winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk or getting hit by a truck, when Congress passes a law raising the jail time for drug trafficking, it doesn’t know for sure whether this …show more content…
The institutions in our society – the professional, industry and special interest groups, as well as organizations in business and government, plus the not for profit sector - are faced with many ethical decisions, often complex and difficult, requiring considerable thought, and eventually resolution. The moral issues that arise in these contexts are fundamental to the institutional functioning of our society. Yet very few people have training in moral philosophy. They need a relatively straightforward way of making these decisions – of telling right from wrong. Mill, it will be argued, provides that method.
Many who have no training that are faced with these ethical choices will rely on intuition. Perhaps they will use a set of values learned at home, or from their schooling or their church. As we shall see for the more difficult ethical issues, however, intuition is an unreliable guide. If they have training, they may remember virtue ethics, or Kant’s deontology, but as I shall also argue later, these theories do not necessarily give straightforward and acceptable
…show more content…
The fact that no executive spoke out against the unethical behaviours then practised tells us that those who want honesty and transparency were not confident enough of themselves or their judgement to speak out. Alternatively, the failure to speak out may have been due to the tendency to find a justification for an unethical action. Wheat Board people possibly convinced themselves for instance, that they were acting in the best interests of the Australian farmer, and therefore of the nation. And so the national benefits outweighed the negatives of their action.
A relatively straight forward way to cut through such fuzzy thinking would be the prior resolution of many of these issues. Utilitarianism, it will be argued, provides that method. It would give those who wish to live and work within an ethical environment stronger tools with which to decide how they should react.
Resolution may still involve a considerable deal of thought – about how the theory can be applied; what the alternative options are, and what might be the consequences of these options - a weighing of conflicting utilities as Mill