Utilitarianism Model

At the level of implementation, there are more problems that the utilitarian model is unequipped to handle. One of said problems is its conflicts with current social, and legal, structures. More specifically, utilitarianism places the most emphasis on happiness while, generally, society emphasizes truth. This manifests on an interpersonal level, as it is more beneficial to lie to obtain things from others, whatever brings the most pleasure while using deception to avoid pain. In particular, I encountered this conflict when it came to my interactions with figures in power, with my father being the most notable. During the experiment, a group of friends that I knew my father did not approve of invited me to go out. According to the utilitarianism,

Without understanding the factors that make another person happy or unhappy, it is difficult to predict the impact an action will have on their pleasure or pain. This is further exacerbated by the uncertainty of the information a person provides. Throughout the experiment, I struggled with a choice of whether to speak to someone regarding an unresolved argument. While part of said struggle was related to the uncertainty of the outcome, a significant portion of it was my inability to gauge whether or not the other person wanted to revisit what had happenedv. In a broader sense, this inherently skews the approximations of any involved parties' pleasure and pain, inadvertently tipping the scales to value the interests of the individual doing the action due to their certainty in their own pleasure or pain, as opposed to their uncertainty about others. The implementation of utilitarianism in modern society presents a paradox surrounding truth. On one hand, utilitarianism promotes dishonesty for the maximization of pleasure and avoidance of pain. On the other hand, it requires honesty on behalf of the involved parties to determine the best course of

The extent of an action is not a clear parameter, questioning whether any event is truly isolated. If an action prompts a reaction from someone, which impacts a third person, should that third person be considered in the extent of the initial action? Bentham only says "[sensations] produced after the first [action]", leaving the definitions of after and production up to interpretation at the level of implementation (459). The definition of community also comes into question, as Bentham repeatedly mentions the interests of the larger body. It's unclear whether this means that not every affected party is inherently a part of the community considered, or even the edges of those considered. To consider only the individual would be selfish, defeating the purpose of the seventh quality of pleasure and pain. However, to consider an entire nation as the community, is simply impractical. To do so would require extensive calculation and premeditation for any and all