Moral Decision-Making With Utilitarianism

Moral Decision-Making with Utilitarianism
Name of the Student
Institution
Course
Instructor’s Name
Date
Moral Decision-Making with Utilitarianism
Anyone willing to sustain the cost of doing so can reject decisions or actions as wrong or immoral. Different people hold varying opinions. Only some things that people do will be embraced by others as right. Individuals validate their actions through personal feelings, thoughts, or theories they hold dear. Therefore, it raises the question of whether humans can develop a universally accepted criterion for determining whether actions are morally permissible. Such a universal law would call for a review of past thinkers’ moral theories and come up with an acceptable concept for decision-making. For me, I would argue that despite the weakness of disregarding close relationships when acting or making decisions, utilitarianism is a perfect way to assess the moral stand of their actions, thoughts, or decisions.
A major weakness of utilitarianism is its neutrality, which leads to the dismissal of personal relationships. Although this paper outlines neutrality as a strength that should be cited while aligning with the theory, it should be noted that a person is forced to dissociate from close people. One’s children and other relatives would wish for maximum protection and support. However, following utilitarianism, a person should not decide based on this idea alone. A person, therefore, will not show maximum love to their close circle. A decision maker may even be forced to partake in actions that cause personal relationships great pain. For example, in economic crises, utilitarianism demands that feeding multiple families is better than preserving excesses for one’s family’s future sustenance. Doing so would put the family at risk but would meet the criterion for maximizing pleasure. The move devalues the need for caring for one’s family and other close individuals. The theory dictates that it would be morally right to cause good to millions of strangers at the expense of an individual’s few family members. Utilitarianism leads to questioning whether disregarding people close to us is morally right. A thinker may be forced to evaluate the moral permissibility of supporting many strangers while people within one’s household, locality, or community suffer. A person who loves his/her close relationships would feel that the interests, feelings, and desires of those close to him/her matter the most compared to those of strangers. Humans tend to take things personally. Therefore, a decision that appears impersonal, like the one made following utilitarianism, may not be sustainable. Even after making such impersonal decisions, a person may live to regret painful outcomes for those close to them. This reaction may be based on the fact that humans are bound to feel they owe their close relationships of unending loyalty. Supporting a stranger at the expense of those who hold close ties is questionable.
Just like any other theory, utilitarianism has its advantages and disadvantages. However, dismissing a concept at first sight of a weakness or shortcoming would be illogical. The identified weakness should not lead to the classification...