One of the major dilemmas in the philosophical community surrounds which moral theory should determine whether an action is right or wrong. Philosophers have sought a solution to the problem since it involves important aspects of daily life, namely how to judge the moral worth and acceptability of actions. Different utilitarian theories have been proposed, but a criticism regarding the way they address promises and justice poses a problem. This criticism must be analyzed through act and rule utilitarian perspectives to determine whether either form of utilitarianism can be a plausible theory of morality. In this paper, I will examine the theory of utilitarianism. Within the examination, I will begin by explaining two situations in which that E.F. Carritt illustrates problems …show more content…
The only way in which this action is not an ideal case of utilitarian punishment is that the probability that the victim himself were to commit this sort of crime is lower than the probability that a real felon would commit this crime. In all other senses, hanging the innocent man serves as a perfect deterrent and promotes increased happiness. This situation also poses challenges to utilitarianism. Primarily, it forgets about rights: it does not grant an innocent man rights simply for being innocent. Utilitarianism only thinks of the duty to increase happiness in the most convenient and the greatest way possible. In doing so, the only right that is ever mentioned is the one that says that all men have one and the same right, which is that of trying to increase total happiness. One right that utilitarianism denies is the right that someone has when they are innocent: the right to not be punished for an action they did not do. In this way, utilitarianism does not respect the institution of justice that is necessary for a functional