In this paper, I will define what pure utilitarianism is, as presented in Jeremy Bentham’s “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” and argue that there is a problem with utilitarianism. I will provide a counterexample to Bentham’s utilitarianism to highlight the flaws with Bentham’s reasoning. I will present an alternative to utilitarianism that avoids the counterexample by slightly revising aggregation. Lastly, I will claim that my revised alternative is still flawed and another counterexample can still be provided. According to Bentham, pure utilitarianism morally requires human beings to do what would produce the greatest total sum of pleasure minus the total sum of pain. Bentham reaches this definition via three conclusions: …show more content…
For instance, suppose the leader of a nation had the option to kill or to not kill a group of people of a certain ethnicity which accounts for less than one percent of the nation. The leader believes that if he kills them, it will prevent the start of war and improve the country’s well-being. Theoretically this action is the outcome that would lead to a greater pleasure and less pain for the majority of citizens in his nation. Aggregation would lead to the conclusion that genocide would be acceptable under this circumstance as it would result in a greater sum total of good for the majority minus the sum total of bad for the minority killed. Utilitarianism would morally require the leader to do what would result in the greatest sum of pleasure, thus justifying his decision to proceed with genocide. However, I believe that few people would be comfortable with a genocide from occurring, even if it did produce a greater sum of pleasure, because genocide and murder are viewed as immoral actions in society. This counterexample demonstrates how aggregation and utilitarianism can be used to justify certain immoral actions such as genocide and murder as long as it results in a greater total sum of good and …show more content…
Instead of just accounting for the greatest total sum of what is good minus what is bad, aggregation also needs to take into consideration immoral actions such as mass murder. We can it revise so that the best outcome is one that result in the greatest total sum of what is good minus what is bad, as long as no immoral actions occur to achieve the seemingly best outcome. If an immoral action occurs, then the greatest total sum of what is good is no longer the best outcome. With this slight revision to aggregation, the decision to proceed with genocide in the counterexample mentioned in the previous section is no longer the best outcome and no longer justified because there an immoral action that would have to occur