Is Utilitarianism Convincing?
Statement of Intent: I will be showing that Utilitarianism is not a convincing normative ethical theory. , I will
consider the implications of utilitarianism such tyranny of the majority and the issue of partiality . I will
show that Rule Utilitarianism despite being able to resolve most of the objections Act Utilitarianism faces,
it has it’s own problems and thus itself is unconvincing. Most crucially I will show that the notion of
happiness being the only good is unconvincing and because of this utilitarianism in any form will not be
convincing.
RICE 1:
R: Utilitarianism is not convincing because of the issue of partiality. We are in reality partial towards
people we care about eg friends and family we care more about their happiness. However a key aspect of
act utilitarianism is that no ones happiness is more then anyone else's (egalitarianism). Therefore if act
utilitarianism is correct we should spend less time and money on our friends and rather spend it to seek to
help people in need cause people who really need help will be much happier with the same amount of
time and happiness given. Furthermore the idea of impartiality is quite cold and calculating. For example if
you were visiting your friend in hospital and the friends thanked you and you just responded by saying ‘no
worries just maximising general happiness’ then the friends would be sad. THis is because the visit is less
intended to maximise happiness but as a personal visit to someone you care about and whom you value. It
turns quite cold and calculating if we are just nice to friends as a means to generate happiness.
Attachments of love and friendship are central to our happiness which act utilitarianism fails to account. If
anything utilitarianism condemns partiality which is too idealistic and demanding by expecting people to
prioritise strangers to those we care if required.
I: We only have few opportunities to benefit people in general and therefore it is okay to concentrate on
the happiness of those closest to you - allows partiality
C: In this modern day and age this issue becomes weaker with globalisation. With the rise of global
charities and global initiatives - we have so many opportunities to help people we don’t know.
Fundamentally the response is really weak as it doesn't address the root problem which is the moral
relevance of partiality😟
E: Considering how partiality is a massive part of our moral lives then to not have a convincing response is
a crucial issue and its implications are very widespread. How we at as moral agents would change quite
drastically. Not as crucial as the others tbh.
RICE 2:
R: Utilitarianism is not convincing because it leads to the tyranny of the majority where technically no type
of action is ruled out as immoral under utilitarianism. The principle of utility states that an action is right if
it maximizes the utility for all parties involved. However this can lead to certain actions deemed morally
justifiable which we would deem immoral because it satisfies the majority of the people involved. For
example, if the majority was in Favour of the death penalty for homosexuals, under utilitarianism we
should allow such action as it maximizes the most utility for all parties involved and the majority overrides
the utility lost from minorities yet distinctly we want to say that this action is completely wrong. There is
little ways in which minorities are protected and ensured they’re treated well. Tyranny of the majority is the
unjust excursion of power by a majority of people over a minority who have different values or desires as
there are no constraints on pursuing the greatest utility. Quite crucial as its implications can be incredibly
unjust and is therefore very counter-intuitive.
I: We are being too simplistic with utilitarianism and if we place it into our everyday lives and legal system
we will find utilitarianism to be the case through rights and justice. Rights is something an individual has
which is a valid claim on society to protect their interest and these interests are central to human
Is Utilitarianism Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be showing that Utilitarianism is not a convincing normative ethical theory. , I will
consider the implications of utilitarianism such tyranny of the majority and the issue of partiality . I will
show that Rule Utilitarianism despite being able to resolve most of the objections Act Utilitarianism faces,
it has it’s own problems and thus itself is unconvincing. Most crucially I will show that the notion of
happiness being the only good is unconvincing and because of this utilitarianism in any form will not be
convincing.
RICE 1:
R: Utilitarianism is not convincing because of the issue of partiality. We are in reality partial towards
people we care about eg friends and family we care more about their happiness. However a key aspect of
act utilitarianism is that no ones happiness is more then anyone else's (egalitarianism). Therefore if act
utilitarianism is correct we should spend less time and money on our friends and rather spend it to seek to
help people in need cause people who really need help will be much happier with the same amount of
time and happiness given. Furthermore the idea of impartiality is quite cold and calculating. For example if
you were visiting your friend in hospital and the friends thanked you and you just responded by saying ‘no
worries just maximising general happiness’ then the friends would be sad. THis is because the visit is less
intended to maximise happiness but as a personal visit to someone you care about and whom you value. It
turns quite cold and calculating if we are just nice to friends as a means to generate happiness.
Attachments of love and friendship are central to our happiness which act utilitarianism fails to account. If
anything utilitarianism condemns partiality which is too idealistic and demanding by expecting people to
prioritise strangers to those we care if required.
I: We only have few opportunities to benefit people in general and therefore it is okay to concentrate on
the happiness of those closest to you - allows partiality
C: In this modern day and age this issue becomes weaker with globalisation. With the rise of global
charities and global initiatives - we have so many opportunities to help people we don’t know.
Fundamentally the response is really weak as it doesn't address the root problem which is the moral
relevance of partiality😟
E: Considering how partiality is a massive part of our moral lives then to not have a convincing response is
a crucial issue and its implications are very widespread. How we at as moral agents would change quite
drastically. Not as crucial as the others tbh.
RICE 2:
R: Utilitarianism is not convincing because it leads to the tyranny of the majority where technically no type
of action is ruled out as immoral under utilitarianism. The principle of utility states that an action is right if
it maximizes the utility for all parties involved. However this can lead to certain actions deemed morally
justifiable which we would deem immoral because it satisfies the majority of the people involved. For
example, if the majority was in Favour of the death penalty for homosexuals, under utilitarianism we
should allow such action as it maximizes the most utility for all parties involved and the majority overrides
the utility lost from minorities yet distinctly we want to say that this action is completely wrong. There is
little ways in which minorities are protected and ensured they’re treated well. Tyranny of the majority is the
unjust excursion of power by a majority of people over a minority who have different values or desires as
there are no constraints on pursuing the greatest utility. Quite crucial as its implications can be incredibly
unjust and is therefore very counter-intuitive.
I: We are being too simplistic with utilitarianism and if we place it into our everyday lives and legal system
we will find utilitarianism to be the case through rights and justice. Rights is something an individual has
which is a valid claim on society to protect their interest and these interests are central to human
Is Utilitarianism Convincing? 1
