From guest blogger, Bryan.
We talked about the consequentialism few days ago in class, and one of most well-know theories is Mill’s utilitarianism. The theory is defined as an action that is morally correct if and only if, the results of the action produces most net pleasure among all the available actions for everyone who can be effected by the action. My first expression to theory is positive and relevant as it reflects my thoughts while making decisions; however, here are my few objections after thinking the principle deeply.
One of controversial objections for utilitarianism is that it is too demanding. According to utilitarianism, the right action is to maximize the net overall happiness, then any actions that does not achieve this idea is impermissible action. For instance, if a doctor can save a person from dying, and the doctor also can use the person’s organs to save ten other people who are waiting for organs if the person dies. If utilitarianism is true, the doctor is moral correct to choose to do nothing and let him dies so the doctor can save more people because the amount of happiness of ten families are much greater than the pain in one family. Moreover, we can also use donation to charity as an example to demonstrate the refutation. If people all donate money to charity, then the net happiness will be greater than not doing it. Does this mean people who do not do this behavior is moral corrupted?
Another objection regarding of utilitarianism is that it is too simple. Utilitarianism states that happiness is the only intrinsic good of determining correct actions; however, we have no clue about who decides happiness. Additionally, human is driven by many other traits such as integrity, justice, and kindness for our future generation. The theory to me lacks enough considerations.