In order to effectively answer this problem I will first provide a brief definition of the positive thesis brought forth by the moral theory of Utilitarianism. As stated by Mill in his article “In Defense of Utilitarianism”, “an act is right if and only if it brings about the greatest total amount of happiness out of all the actions available to the agent, whereby happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain”. (Mill 1990, 172). Essentially, Mill stated in his article that Utilitarianism defines a morally correct action to be one that produces the maximum amount of utility or pleasure within an act. In addition to the positive thesis of Utilitarianism, each unit of pleasure can be expressed as a “hodon” and each unit …show more content…
The expected utility of an action can be calculated by subtracting the amount of “dolors” from our “hedons” to find the quantifiable amount of benefit from the action. Looking back at the dinner problem, we cannot discern the amount of “hedons” and “dolors” gained from either of the decisions to properly decide which action is morally correct. For example, if the all four people equally preferred their dinner choice, then Thai Kitchen would be the correct moral decision in accordance to Utilitarianism because it would guarantee a higher utility than by choosing India House. However, if the single person who preferred India House was severely allergic to the cuisine served at Thai Kitchen, and the three people who chose Thai Kitchen did not mind eating at India House very much, then it could be conceivable that the expected utility gained from choosing India House could be much more than the expected utility from picking Thai Kitchen. In summary, since we do not know the exact preferences of each of the four people, we cannot properly quantify the amount of “hedons” and “dolors” in either action and as a result, Utilitarianism cannot solve this problem without any …show more content…
Mill provides the following simplified explanation of the third, “no time to calculate” objection to the moral theory of Utilitarianism: “There is no time prior to acting, for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness.” (Mill 1990, 176). Specifically, the “no time to calculate” objection states that because the principle of utility is a moral theory with the purpose of providing people with a conceptual idea of how to live their lives in order to maximize morality and utility, it must obviously be applicable within our everyday lives or else it would be meaningless. However, this “no time to calculate” objection states that it is impossible for a person to feasibly calculate the utility of each action during a situation. In addition, during the time it takes to calculate the correct action with the highest expected utility in accordance to Utilitarianism, the opportunity to take that action (and several others) could have passed