Utilitarianism: Moral Theory Founded By Jeremy Bentham

Utilitarianism, founded by Jeremy Bentham, is a moral theory that aims to identify what the right course of action in any situation is, and works to maximize the utility, or happiness, of all the stakeholders involved. There are two types of utilitarianism, Act Utilitarianism, which states that “an act is correct if it maximizes overall expected net utility,” and Rule Utilitarianism, which states that “an act is morally required if and only if it is in accordance with a rule that maximizes utility.” The scenario which we will analyze under act utilitarianism is concerning the infanticide of a young disabled girl by her parents. I will be arguing on how both act and rule utilitarianism offer different morally obligated decision, with act utilitarianism …show more content…
It is founded on two defining features. The first, Hedonism, which identifies any pleasure as ‘good,’ and any pain as ‘bad.’ The second, Consequentialism, concludes that the most important features of any moral dilemma are consequences. Therefore, pleasure combined with future consequences guides the decision-maker on the appropriate moral course of action. Of course, pleasure on its own is an ambiguous term, and act utilitarianism must take into consideration different features such as duration, intensity, and richness of the pleasure they are rewarding to any specific decision. This theory is considered forward-looking, due to its large reliance on consequentialism, stating that what you do now should take into consideration any long-term effects of that decision. Act utilitarianism works to compare outcomes, choosing the potential decision that both minimizes pain, and maximizes pleasure (Thomas, …show more content…
It can be determined that killing the child, despite feelings of guilt and sadness, will ultimately bring relief to Susan Roth and her husband, as they would not have chosen to commit infanticide otherwise. The future consequences present the possibility of jail, but due to their decision it is reasonable to assume they valued the termination of a painful life of their daughter as more important, and worth the risk. As for the child, there is the temporary pain of death, however there are no long lasting consequences, and a lifetime of struggling with a severe disability is avoided. Society is barely affected, as the news of the infanticide will bring potential shock to some in the surrounding community, but will not reach the majority of the population, and will be eventually forgotten as their own personal lives are not directly affected. Through the evaluating of these potential outcomes, it is rational to declare that under act utilitarianism, Susan Roth’s choice to kill her baby presents the most utility to the stakeholders