Philosophy
Abstract:
Act Utilitarianism has been used and applied in decision making since its existence. The theory is widely known and, more so, embraced by many. This analysis focuses on Act Utilitarianism under the value theory of hedonism. Act Utilitarianism is one of the consequential normative theories. The second part of the analysis has compared the Act Utilitarianism and Scalar Utilitarianism, providing the main advantage of the former over the Scalar Utilitarianism. Lastly, the analysis has given the obligations underlying the use of this theory in the choice of actions and decision-making. The analysis is well-framed in the knowledge of philosophy and is a must-read for all.
Act Utilitarianism
Consequentialism is a theory that was developed by John Stuart Mill. His theory has been widely accepted and used in many situations, like decision making and judgments. Consequentialism refers to the judgement of actions in consideration of their consequences. However, Consequentialism portrays itself in many forms that most of them have been contradictory to each other. Furthermore, there lies a different consequentialism framework for any consequentialism theory. This ranges to scaler, or act frameworks of Consequentialism. More importantly, Consequentialism goes hand in hand with value theories. For example, Hedonism (Driver, 2011).
Precisely, I am going to look at Act utilitarianism, Hedonism value theory underlying it. I would admittedly say that Act utilitarianism is the best consequentialist normative theory. Act utilitarianism suggests that actions that bring forth the best results/consequences prove to be the best action. It implies that acts are only morally right whenever they maximize the functional outcomes and minimize the wrong outcomes. The morality or goodness of this theory’s actions is determined by the addition of all the good or moral outcomes of action minus the evil or immoral outcomes of the action. When the goodness of the outcomes surpasses the badness of the results, the action is said to be morally upright, or the action is merely okay. However, this theory does not tell whether doing the other action (second action) is morally wrong. On the other hand, Hedonism theory implies that pleasure is the ultimate purpose of life and that human beings attain it by fulfilling their desires. The author suggests that in all pursuits, human beings should strive in all means to satisfy their desires to attain pleasure out of it, which accounts for the attainment of hedonism (Mulgan 2014).
More precisely, Evaluative or Ethical Hedonism claims that pleasure is the only thing that has value or worth. On the other hand, the value theory of hedonism claims that displeasure or pain is the cause of unworthiness or disvalue. In his book, Jeremy Bentham claims that these two phenomena, pleasure or pain, motivate human beings in their pursuits and endeavours. Precisely, in his book “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,” Jeremy Bentham states that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” In the first lines of the book, Jeremy continues to say, “It is only pain or pleasure that points out to what human beings ought to do and determines what human beings should do (Hayley, 2013).
However, act utilitarianism proves to be better compared to scalar Utilitarianism. Scalar utilitarianism is the opposite of Act utilitarianism, which suggests that goodness or wrongness of actions is a matter of degree. This theory implies that out of the set options of actions, the one with the highest degree of moral/good outcome proves to be the moral action and has the utmost propensity of producing the wellbeing (Mulgan 2014).
However, Act Utilitarianism has some advantages that surpass Scalar Utilitarianism. Notably, Act Utilitarianism is the most popular and is seen as the best natural interpretation of Utilitarianism. This puts Act Utilitarianism ahead of another utilitarianism form of consequentialist normative theories like the scalar utilitarianism, besides the three advantages it has over scalar Utilitarianism. The main advantage of Act Utilitarianism is that it provides a room for showing how moral/right questions can be objectively provided with correct and valid answers. Sometimes people suggest and think that it is the desires or beliefs that are very sincere, which determines the morality or uprightness of actions. Therefore, this means that morality is idiosyncratic and depends on sincere human beliefs or desires (Lang 80-95).
However, the theory of Act Utilitarianism gives out a method that shows the true or false moral beliefs. Once everyone embraces the Act Utilitarianism, all our decision-making would depend highly on the foreseeable consequences among the available options of actions. This translates to that if we can only foretell or predict the magnitude of good outcomes produced by various available options of actions, the right and wrong actions can be determined. However, this advantage surpasses the Scalar Utilitarianism that Scalar Utilitarianism is criticized that its commitments are primarily evaluative. Also, Scalar Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is criticized for not issuing demands and has not sufficient guide for actions ((Frey 219-237).
However, Act Utilitarianism has several objections that often make unfit to use in many situations and instances like in decision making. Act Utilitarianism requires everyone to make the most recommendable action to get good/moral results. However, this makes it hard for always going for the best choice. Arguably, Act Utilitarianism wants everyone to act as “saints” since the most morally upright action. Indubitably, this is not always attainable for all individuals. Act Utilitarianism “tends to make us do more than what moral duty often requires us to do.” Additionally, Act Utilitarianism often makes some good choices seem wrong simply because they do not give the highest magnitude of goodness. Therefore, this restricts people to only act according to specific actions that attribute for the best results no matter how hard they may seem to be (Frey 219-237).
Another intriguing objection of Act Utilitarianism is that it tends to violate human rights. Act Utilitarianism can be obligative by making us obligate serious injustices towards individuals and infringes and arguably violates their rights. For instance, since Act Utilitarianism calls for the overall most significant utility, it might mean sacrificing somebody for the wellbeing of others. Moreover, Act Utilitarianism may make some sacrifice his/her interests for the sake of non-human animals. Therefore, it is clear that Act Utilitarianism is obligatory and does not always stand to be the best consequential normative theory to be put into practice. Although it proves to be the best and mostly used consequential normative theory, it carries along with dire obligations to the extent of violating human rights and interests ((Frey 219-237).
In conclusion, the paper has successfully addressed the most used consequential normative theory, which Acts Utilitarianism. The paper has also looked at the advantage that the theory has against other consequential normative theories like Scalar Utilitarianism. The paper has addressed the reason why the theory proves to be the best among consequential normative theories. However, in the analysis, Act Utilitarianism is seen as an obligation towards the interests and human rights in a phenomenon that one individual can sacrifice for the betterment of others.
References
Mulgan, Tim. Understanding utilitarianism. Routledge, 2014.
Hayry, Matti. Liberal utilitarianism and applied ethics. Routledge, 2013.
Driver, Julia. Consequentialism. Routledge, 2011.
Frey, Raymond G. “Act‐utilitarianism.” The Blackwell guide to ethical theory (2013): 219-237.
Lang, Gerald. “Should utilitarianism be scalar?.” Utilitas 25.1 (2013): 80-95.