Objections to Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Objections to Utilitarianism EssayDarwells objection to Utilitarianism states that it conflicts with chaste special K sense in three particular case studies. The first objection to wager Utilitarianism is harbinger tutelage. Act utilitarianism is inconsistent with the moral conscious, because it forward looks considerations of what one would do. The consequences of not keeping the promise may be hard to determine whether it is right or wrong. One example of Darwells objection to Utilitarianism of promise keeping is keeping promises to the brain dead.Suppose you made a promise to your stick to carry on the family business when he passes away. You have inherited your fathers multi-million dollar business after he has died. According to hu manhood action utilitarian, you push aside sell the company and donate either of its money to a childrens charity, since your father is dead and his happiness is no longer an issue. You have maximized happiness for many children by bre aking your promise to your father and destroying the family business. But, retrieve utilitarianism says to keep the promises you have made.Rules were made to maximize happiness. The second case study is the moral imbalance to harm and benefit. Acting as an act utilitarianism, harming one person to benefit two people can be compensated. Suppose there are five homeless men, and it just so happens that a well-to-do man happens to drive by asking for directions. They can kill the rich man and steal all his luxuries, which will maximize happiness for all five of the homeless men. All would benefit from one mans death. Rule Utilitarianism oppose against this sort of action.Rule utilitarianism would not pass such a encounter to kill an innocent man to benefit others. RU dos not want to live in a society that takes from one to give to others, because it can happen to anyone. The third objection to utilitarianism is distributive justice. Act Utilitarianism believes it does not matter ho w happiness is distributed, as long as it produces the same net total happiness. Though, common sense states that happiness can be distributed justly or unjustly. Rule utilitarianism does not want a rule or distributive justice.Society looks at how people are treated. Rule Utilitarianism wants equal discourse towards people. In my opinion, I would have to agree with the objections of Darwells essay against Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism seems to be much contiguous to common sense that Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism does not have a reliable ethical ratiocination system. It does not seem justifiable in believing that under a utilitarians narrow can satisfy moral theory. Since Act Utilitarianism is not justifiable then it cannot be true.In edict for Act Utilitarianisms to be justifiable its claim would have to be understood, instead of contradicting itself. Rule Utilitarianism follows the rules in the legal system, in which these rules are created to maximize happines s. According to Rule Utilitarianism, if an action is justifiable by others and the general rule is proved to reduce happiness, the rule can be changed or ignored. This shows that Rule Utilitarianism is at hand(predicate) to correct moral theory than Act Utilitarianism.