Question

Choose one of the following ethical theories (utilitarianism, deontology/Kantianism, virtue ethics, and feminism) and give a succinct argument and explanation of its main ideas. Then mention and explain one criticism of that theory. Finally, say how you think the proponent of this theory would respond to that criticism. (1000 word minimum)

Answer 1

Background Information

For few seconds, forget that we are studying economics. The fact is that all of us  make hundreds of decisions in a day--consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously. But then the question arises " how do we make decisions or in other words what is the criteria of making decision. Every individual is unique and has distinct philosophy of making decisions. However, we can cateogarise every individual's decision criteria into a particular theory--Thanks to the various theories of decision making propunded by various economists and philosophers.

Economics is an inaccurate science of making choices. And that is the real dilemna--How to make decisions? All economists have contributed various reasons for justifying that their philopsophy of making decisions is correct.

One of the economic theory of making decisions is Utilitarianism theory that  has been propounded by English philosophers and economist John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) along with Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832).

Definition of Utilitarianism can be divided into 3 cateogaries although the essence in all the three cases is same.

1. Layman's terms

As per Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, Utilitarianism is

"​the belief that the right course of action is the one that will produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people"

2. Definition propounded by John Stuart Mill

“Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”

Happiness is equal to pleasure, and the absence of pain.

Unhappiness is equal to pain, and the absence of pleasure.

Supporters and followers of Utilitarians believe that the basic purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the occurence of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the occurence of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). Utilitarians reject outrightedly moral codes or systems that consist of taboos or commands that are based on traditions, customs, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings. Instead of that , they(utilitarians)think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings.

Moreover, John Stuart Mill clarified that there are 2 types of pleasures-higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are received fom pleasures of the intellect, and the lower pleasures are received from the pleasures of the senses. Morally speaking, it is not just the quantity of pleasure that matters to the utilitarian, but the quality as well.

3. General Definition

Utilitarianism is a principle that suggests that those actions are correct and selected which are useful or for the benefit of a majority of the population.

This definition has 3 elements

a. Happiness or Pleasure Is the Only Thing That Truly Has Intrinsic Value.
b.Actions Are Right to the Extent They Promote Happiness, Wrong to the Extent as They Produce Unhappiness.
c. Everyone's Happiness Counts Equally.

Illustration 1

Imagine that the U.S. FBI Agency gets an alert/hint of a plot to set off a dirty bomb in a Washington DC. Agents of FBI catches a suspect who, they believe, possess the information about where the bomb is planted.Now the question arises Can the dignity of one individual be violated in order to save many others?

Greatest Balance of Goods Over Harms
The answer of the Utilitarians would be Yes i.e. to capture one suspect and torture him to get the truth.

Rules of Utilitarianism
Rule 1. Keep your promises
Rule 2. Don’t cheat
Rule 3. Don’t steal
Rule 4. Obey the law

Criticism of Utilitarianism

For Instance, just imagine situation wherein you are a judge in a small town. Now, Someone has committed a crime, and consequentially there has been some instability and social unrest. This results in injuries, violent conflict, and lastly to rioting. Now police has caught innocent person as a alleged person of crime.
Now, as the judge, you clearly know that if you sentence an innocent man to death, the city would become calm and peace would be restored. However, If as a judge you set him free, then even more unstability and unrest will erupt. As a result there would be more harm coming to the city and its people. Utilitarianism seems to require punishing the innocent in certain circumstances, such as these.

Response/Reasoning of Utilitaian

The person who has been caused is half lunatic and would not benefit the society if released. On the other hand if this man is not punished there would be riots and hundreds of children, women and men would be killed. So, it is better to punish the innocent in the name/mask of no benefit to doubtful.