An example of rule utilitarianism in businesses is the differentiated pricing of a product or service for different types of customers. In the aviation industry, for example, many aircraft offer first-class, business and economy class seats. Customers travelling in first or business class pay a much higher price than those in economy class seats, but they also enjoy more amenities – at the same time, people who cannot afford higher-class seats benefit from economy fares. This practice produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The most important classical utilitarians are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Both Bentham and Mill were important social theorists and reformers. His theory has had a great influence both on philosophical work in moral theory and on approaches to economic, political and social policy. Although utilitarianism has always had many critics, there are many 21st century thinkers who support it. It is the problem of false beliefs that poses a difficult challenge to critics of utilitarianism. When we know that our criminal justice system is punishing people unfairly and in a way they do not deserve, we are faced with a dilemma. Either we can shut down the system and punish no one, or we can maintain the system, even though we know that this will result in some innocent people being unfairly punished in a way they do not deserve.
Most people will support continuing to punish people, even if it means punishing some people unfairly. According to utilitarians, this can only be justified if a rule that allows punishment (after a fair trial, etc.) is overall more useful than a rule that rejects punishment because it treats some people unfairly. Ending the practice of punishment – because it inevitably leads to injustice – is likely to have worse consequences because it deprives society of a central means of protecting people`s well-being, including what is considered their rights. Ultimately, utilitarians say, it is justice and rights that yield when the rules that tolerate violations in some cases bring the most benefit. The most common argument against actutilitarianism is that it gives the wrong answers to moral questions. Critics say it allows various actions that everyone knows are morally reprehensible. The following are among the most frequently cited examples: The literature on utilitarianism is abundant, but here are some good starting points: This edition of Legal Theory Lexicon is an introduction to utilitarian moral and political philosophy suitable for law students (especially first-year law students) who are interested in legal theory. Utilitarianism is a philosophical and economic doctrine that the best social policy is the one that does the greatest good for the greatest number. It is a form of consequentialism, which means that the moral value of an action is determined by its outcome. For example, utilitarianism analyzes intellectual property rights from the perspective of society rather than from the point of view of the individual inventor, author, or artist, justifying rights as an incentive for social and technological progress. The most influential contributors to this theory are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
So suppose we have an idea of utility work. Our next question is: What exactly is the decision to maximize the benefits? Is each action necessary to maximize benefits? Or are they general rules that we are concerned about? Or principles? Or something else? I will call this question the question of the scope of the decision. Different forms of utilitarianism give different answers to the scope of the decision question. Let`s take a quick look at some of the possibilities: Utilitarianism provides a relatively simple method for determining the morally correct course of action for a particular situation. Over the years, the principle of utilitarianism has been refined and expanded into many variants. Today`s utilitarians describe the advantages and disadvantages in terms of satisfaction of personal preferences, or in purely economic terms, monetary advantages over monetary costs, rather than in terms of “happiness” and “pleasure.” John Stuart Mill reconsidered the principles of utilitarianism, suggesting that pleasure should refer not only to sensual pleasure, but also to spiritual pleasures such as music, literature, and friendship. Mill tried to prefer intellectual pleasures to sensual pleasures. The utilitarianism of rules seems paradoxical. He says that we can achieve more useful results if we follow rules than if we always perform individual actions whose results are as beneficial as possible. This suggests that we shouldn`t always perform individual actions that maximize benefits. How could this be something a utility would support? Qualitative utilitarianism holds that mental pleasures and pains differ in nature and are superior in purely physical quality.
Quantitative utilitarianism holds that mental pleasures and pains differ only quantitatively from physical pleasures. In jurisprudence, a philosophy whose adherents believe the law must be designed to serve its most socially useful purpose. Although utilitarians differ in the sense of the word useful, most agree that the usefulness of a law can be defined as its ability to increase happiness, prosperity, or justice. Conversely, some utilitarians measure the usefulness of a law by its ability to reduce misfortune, poverty or injustice. The utilitarian movement emerged in Britain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when philosophers Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidgwick began to criticize various aspects of the common law. Bentham, the ancestor of the movement, criticized the law for being written in dense and incomprehensible prose. He tried to break the thicket of legal chatter by reducing the law to what he considered its most basic elements – pain and pleasure. Based on examples like these, rule utilitarians argue that their view, unlike actutilitarianism, avoids the problems raised in terms of demand and bias. The obligation of impartial justifications of moral rules does not compel them to reject moral rules that allow or oblige people to give priority to certain others. Because of the consequentialist nature of utilitarianism, the means of arriving at ethical decision (“end”) are secondary; The end result is what needs to be considered before determining the morality of the decision.
Despite this paradox, rule utilitarianism has its own appeal, and its emphasis on moral rules may seem plausible. The utilitarian approach to morality can be exemplified by looking at the rules of the street. When developing a code for drivers, we can adopt either open rules such as “drive safely” or specific rules such as “stop at red lights”, “do not drive more than 30 miles per hour in residential areas”, “do not drive if you are drunk”, etc. The rule of “safe driving,” like the principle of utilitarian action, is a very general rule that leaves it up to the individual to determine the best way to drive in the circumstances. More specific rules requiring stopping at traffic lights, prohibiting driving at more than 30 miles per hour, or prohibiting impaired driving do not give drivers the discretion to judge what is best to do. They simply tell the driver what to do or not to do while driving. Law enforcement officers have wide discretion to exercise, which must be exercised by all officials of all ranks, regardless of experience. In exercising this discretion, officers are confronted on a daily basis with complex issues that may not be included in Agency policy and that would certainly not have been covered by their formal training, police academy or other training. Law enforcement officers are also required to make urgent decisions without the opportunity to consult with senior officials or policies and procedures. In some cases, when faced with decisions, public servants may want to rely on utilitarianism to make an ethical decision that is defensible when considered in the future. For example, an officer monitoring a large pro-marijuana protest group may observe a person within the group selling marijuana.
Legally, the officer`s obligation to charge that person with trafficking in a controlled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is a serious criminal offence. However, from a utilitarian position, the officer may decide not to arrest and charge the suspect for two reasons: Because its ideology advocates for the greatest good for the greatest number, a company that acts in a utilitarian manner should increase the well-being of others.