Question

Write an explanation of one of Feldman's Free Lunch cases and why it shows that the original formulation of Utilitarianism is imperfect. You will want to walk through the examples slowly in order to explain why Utilitarianism concludes what it does about the situation and why that is counterintuitive. You may use Feldman's made up numbers to illustrate the case, but you do not need to draw any graphs or tables. (~ 1 page)​

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) Utilitarianism: The definition as coined by founder Jeremy Bentham, “Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others.”

The above definition suggests that Bentham valued an action as “useful” if there was any actual “use” or “utility” from that action. In an ethical situation, whatever action would cause an outcome where something useful would happen, it would be an act of great “utility.”

The problem with this definition is that it does not consider who the action should be useful for and what should be the so-called “useful” outcome. For instance, if a problem between two people has to be solved and each party would have utility from different solutions, which solution would be ethically applied?

Secondly, what is the measure of “utility?” It is the most moral action, the mist profitable solution, the least disruptive solution etc. Fred Feldman suggests that the action with the most utility would be that of the strongest moral value. Feldman suggests that utilitarian behaviour should have an appeal to moral values. This means that Feldman amends the original definition in stating that utilitarian behaviour should be that with the most moral and ethical utility. This means that the profitable solution, the materialistic value of the solution and other aspects are not as imperative in consideration as the moral aspects.

For instance, if there were a dispute amongst two individuals, the solution that is the most honourable one should be applied. This would be regardless of the fact that the people involved are displeased with the situation or if it isn’t a “win-win” situation. As long as the ethical solution is applied, it would have the appropriate type of utility.