There is also an epistemological problem with the utilitarian theory of ethics; it is buttressed on the presupposition of a false relationship between happiness and righteousness. There are no reasons which suggest that we should take this relationship seriously. It certainly doesn’t seem pensive when we consider a naturalistic and objective theory of morality divorced from the idea of a supernatural creator. The Anthropocene epoch presents us with issues too complex to be solved by the almost philistine logic of utilitarianism. If we are granting morality a purpose, why does it have to be happiness? Why can it not be, let’s say, fulfilling the evolutionary and technological potential of the human race? Why can we not link it to collective progress? Happiness and collective progress are not necessarily linked, especially if we’re considering the mind-numbing consumerist happiness of the developed world. …show more content…
The post-post-modern era continues to present us with problems and uncertainties of such magnitude that falling into intellectual despair is easy, and according to the author, concluding that utilitarianism is the answer is succumbing to intellectual despair. With the advent of meta-modern projects in various fields of academia, our philosophical affinity with nihilism, and simultaneous advancement in technology along with weaponry, the issues that surround us have become remarkably more complex. Human rights hold tremendous value in western legal philosophy. However, utilitarianism might overlook human rights in a variety of situations to justify action based on the perceivable results. Two practical conundrums arise with these