Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism

Thesis Statement: Although the theory of utilitarianism initially seems appealing and practical in moral decision-making, it entails serious flaws that defeat its core principles of neutrality and equality.
I. Introduction
A. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory emphasizing the pursuit of pleasure for the majority as opposed to pain or unhappiness (Shaw & Berry, 2016). Notably, the measure of an action’s pleasure effect derives from potential unhappiness or pain.
B. The core belief of utilitarianism is maximizing pleasure by ensuring the happiness of the majority. This view is outcome-based, meaning that the motives and reasoning for the decision do not matter, as does the consequence. Also, the theory stresses focusing on an individual, based on which the majority can be decided (Shaw & Berry, 2016).
II. Reasons to Support the Thesis Statement
A. Utilitarianism is arguably the easiest ethics theory to implement because it focuses on the outcome rather than the motives or reasoning.

1. Motives and reasons are not always available for assessment, and if available, their trustworthiness could still be in question (Wooldridge, 2019).
2. Consequences are easier to measure, and thus from a practical sense, the value of a policy is testable by its utility (Shaw & Berry, 2016).
   B. Even though utilitarianism emphasizes neutrality as a positive aspect, this concept diminishes the significance of personal relationships in decision-making.
3. Utilitarianism expects avoiding emphasis on personal relationships, such as family and friends, which are essential to becoming a better individual (Wooldridge, 2019).
4. Although utilitarianism does not require individuals to forego their own pain or pleasure, it could diminish its weight in practice due to the perception of bias (Shaw & Berry, 2016).
   C. Finally, the requirement to deem everyone equal does not translate to equal treatment.
5. In some cases, what brings happiness to the majority is hurting the minority, leading to unfair treatment of the minority (Shaw & Berry, 2016).
6. Its focus on consequences could sanction actions that a moral or reasonable person would disagree with, such as murdering one person to please the many (Savulescu et al., 2020).
   III. Counter Arguments
   A. The moral decision would be different when considering consequences from the long-term perspective.
7. Concerning an injustice on the minority, a utilitarian would consider the long-term effect, such as mistrust in the community for fear of being the next victim of the majority, would be bad for all (van Rietschoten & van Bommel, 2022).
8. Society can adopt rules to achieve maximum pleasure from actions (Wooldridge, 2019).
   B. Since utilitarianism provides an effective to address conflicts, it defeats the possibility of bias.
9. Individuals make decisions without attaching self-interests (Shaw & Berry, 2016).
10. Using a uniform standard removes the risk of disputes (Shaw & Berry, 2016).
    IV. Conclusions

• Although utilitarianism remains a significant and flexible theory for ethical decision-making, several questions abound. It fails to consider some practical aspects of decision-making, such as personal relationships and the practicality of its principles. Most importantly, it is impossible to see all possible outcomes to make the right decision in the long term.
   
  References
  Savulescu, J., Persson, I., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics, 34(6), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12771
  Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2016). Moral issues in business (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  van Rietschoten, E., & van Bommel, K. (2022). A critique of utilitarian trust: The case of the Dutch insurance sector. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05040-1
  Wooldridge, B. M. (2019). Utilitarianism: Pros and cons. In N. Levin (Ed.), Introduction to ethics: An open educational resource (pp. 137–140). N.G.E. Far Press.