utilitarianism and its application as a moral theory in policy formation and implementation

utilitarianism and its application as a moral theory in policy formation and implementation

The economic crisis experienced in the world today is primarily attributed to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. The disparity in society has made it very difficult for individuals in the middle and lower class to access resources. As a result, divisions in society have grown wider, thus decline in the utilitarian principle application. This trend shows the need for change in society concerning policies guiding the distribution of resources. A strategy that is seen to support the bridging of the gap between the rich and the poor is utilitarianism. The concept of utilitarianism is based on the promotion of the common good of all individuals in a community. This is because utilitarianism promotes happiness for the larger number of individuals involved. This policy has been applied partially in different nations to help combat the challenges created by capitalism. Utilitarianism also defines the moral guidelines on the right actions to take to maximize ethical activities in society. This paper analyzes utilitarianism and its application as a moral theory in policy formation and implementation.

Utilitarianism is a theory that is termed as the greatest happiness principle, according to Sandel (2010). This principle is discussed according to the principle developed by Jeremy Bentham between 1748 and 1832 (Sandel, 2010). The policy developed by Bentham has shaped many policies made in the United States because they were adopted by professionals in different areas such as economists, politicians, businessmen, and ordinary citizens. Society is built on a moral code that ensures there is order, respect, and reduced strive because it determines right and wrong. As Bentham’s theory elucidates, this principle maximizes utilities ensuring all individuals in the community are covered in utility assertion models (Sandel, 2010). According to Sandel, this policy proposed for political reforms in penal policy that were based on improving the penal code to ensure it was more humane and beneficial to all parties (Sandel, 2010). The policy was developed to incorporate panopticon, a central prison inspection tower, which would ensure supervisors could observe all inmates without infringing on their freedom. This is a practice that was made to improve the welfare of all individuals in society and thus embodies the concept of utilitarianism.

However, the concept of utilitarianism has various weaknesses arising from its failure to address some crucial aspects of society. Among the significant deficiencies identified is the loss of autonomy and individuality. This is a weakness addressed critically in the book by sanders, where he discusses the integration of sanctions and thresholds that limit individuality (Sandel, 2010). This concept is also supported by the podcast regarding Carlos and other children from the challenged regions compared to the opportunities available to children from the privileged areas. According to the podcast, Carlos was unable to mingle with the children outside the classroom because he felt like an outsider (Revisionist History, 2019). This podcast further brings out the issue of social inequality where the rich have more privileges and better opportunities compared to middle and lower-class families. As the speaker points out, civilized societies are expected to provide opportunities for children such as Carlos to give them better chances at achieving their potential (Revisionist History, 2019). However, the numbers of underprivileged individuals who are given an opportunity to achieve their potential are very few, thus show failure in the application of utilitarianism. As the podcast points out, there are very few students from low backgrounds that can access education from the Ivy League colleges, further emphasizing the need to integrate more libertarian and utilitarianism ideologies.

Another major weakness of utilitarianism is the failure to incorporate welfare, freedom, and virtual in the community. The question regarding these three virtues lies in their application is society to ensure utilitarianism is maintained by ensuring actions are focused on the happiness of the greater population. According to the theory, human beings are expected to choose the most rational option, which must also be ethical (Blanks, 2014). As the author posits, this theory fails to account for justice where individual rights are infringed. This is because the concept generally focuses on the good of the majority and thus oppresses the needs of individuals. This is a challenge that has led to the exploration of the concept of justice to help find a balance between individual and collective rights. Justice can be balanced through the provision of incentives that facilitate hard work in the supply of products that people in a community need (Blanks, 2014). The author further discusses the concept of free markets and price exploitation, further pointing out the social disparity. Society today is more focused on the fulfillment of the needs of a small minority made up of the wealthy few, thus further emphasizing the need for utilitarianism to promote justice and equity.

The application of utilitarianism is also marred by the fact that individuals cannot successfully predict the future. This is further discussed in the paper written by John Stuart, debating the issue of liberty in utilitarianism. In his discussion, he defends utilitarianism and its policies despite its disregard for individual liberties. This is well represented in the paper regarding structural discrimination in the United States concerning free speech. As the author explains, minority groups have been marginalized, and their freedom of speech curtailed due to the concept backing the utilitarian theory (Park, 2017). Although this theory has been presented as reasonable in several areas, it also has numerous weaknesses that result in injustice, thus the need to revise its policies.