Universalist and impartialist about Utilitarianism Essay

Universalist and honestist about Utilitarianism - Essay ExampleThe scholarly consensus as of date is that Utilitarianism is a partial system of morality and is somewhat inadequate on account of its authors reluctance to front up to complexities of ethics. Utilitarianism asserts that It is morally good to act for the general felicity. As this assessment is taken at face value by most, the salient critical question is What is it that is morally not good, which stands in opposition to this? In answer this question proponents say, acting for unhappiness. (Grote 123) Utilitarian moral philosophical system thus has for its subject the ascertaining of what happiness is, which is placed in polar opposition to unhappiness. Having found what constitutes happiness, the philosophy strives to device methods to achieve that end. But real life experiences and events are not strictly broken into these clear-cut dichotomies and therein lie the major objection to Utilitarianisms veracity as a ethi cal theory. The following passages depart explain the two central concepts of impartiality and universality and identify their shortcomings for application in functional ethics. The founding texts of Utilitarianism think of it as inherently ethical. For example, deriving from post-revolutionary French thought, especially that of Helvetius, Godwin asserted that Morality is that system of conduct which is determined by a devotion of the greatest general good. (Godwin, as quoted in Scarre 67) The founding doctrine also makes it clear that the two pillars of impartiality and universality especially add to its ethical soundness. Utilitarianism espouses the belief of impartiality, to the extent that it places the happiness of all individuals in the community on par with each other. Moreover, it encourages constituent individuals in a group to see the virtue of valuing the happiness of others as much as theirs own. In other words, the expectation is to rise above the con lieuration of ones own individual interests. Put as such, this principle sounds laudable. But as critics point out, there is plenty of scope for incorrect application of this principle, which could lead to adverse outcomes. For example, In an action then which, in the truest and widest sense, we should call right or good, there is more than one sort of goodness. And unless we treat rightly this variety of rightness or goodness, our moral philosophy, whatever side we take, must be partial and we shall not be able to argue against opponents of it without being in danger of arguing against something which, it is probable, an impartial and practical reader will consider morally proper. (Grote 124) Even actions by individuals are mediated by this consideration for the greatest common good. The agents actions are never to sharpen his/her own happiness, but that of all concerned. As John Stuart Mill himself clarifies in his treaties, As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requi res him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. (Mill, as quoted by Grote 86) One of Utilitarianisms notable critics is the famous legitimate theoretician, John Rawls. Rawls objection to the notion of impartiality arises from the philosophical systems blanket application of its principles to the entire social