'Utilitarianism is a good way to make moral decisions.' Discuss.

Utilitarianism is the concept that morality is concerned with the best possible consequences for bringing about happiness, for the greatest number of people. A deontological, ‘duty based’ approach provides an alternative to utilitarianism in that it is concerned with the morality of the action itself as opposed to the consequences. It is important to evaluate both concepts. Utilitarianism, also known as the ‘greatest happiness principle,’ pioneered by Bentham in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) has no requirements for prior beliefs about religion or the nature of the world, and thus is accessible for all cultures and religions based on its secular nature. We can also examine deontological theories and conclude that they are incorrect in stating that there are universal rules; every culture or society has different rule however this is not a disadvantage for utilitarianism as the principle of utility can be applied to any culture by adapting what is believed to be a ‘good’ consequence or what happiness is. This flexibility of utilitarianism is also an advantage; rather than being restricted by certain rules such as in a deontological approach, one can study the consequences for any action. For example, a deontologist would argue that murder is always wrong, however a utilitarian would argue that murder is right in a circumstance where the murder of one person would save the lives of one hundred people. Ewing summarises this perfectly: ‘It is hard to believe that it could ever be a duty deliberately to produce less good when we could promote more.’ This flexibility also translates to the concept itself in that it is ever changing and evolving, and any criticisms or flaws of Bentham’s original concept have been answered. This can be seen in the work of Mill, who sought to further define ‘happiness or pleasure’ further. He argued that happiness is too vague in that happiness for a sadistic torturer is not good, and that the quality of pleasure is paramount, not just the quantity of pleasure/ happiness. When examining the deontological approach to evaluate weaknesses of utilitarianism, one can see benefits such as the certainty of the concept as opposed to utility at its core which is relative in its nature. It also places value on human life and the importance of the act itself. A flaw in utilitarianism is that if there are no consequences to a heinous act, technically the act is not wrong, whereas a deontological approach would declare a heinous act wrong regardless of any consequences. Utilitarianism as a concept is strong, however does not work translated into real life. We can look at the tyranny of the majority as an example and the confusion of what is popular rather than what is right; if a majority feel that homosexuality is wrong, a law against practicing homosexuality would be justified using utility. It would also argue that killing one healthy, innocent person to save 5 lives would be justified, however as humans we know that this is morally wrong. Utilitarianism as a pure concept is inherently flawed in its application. However, the good of the masses is an important way to make moral decisions. One may suggest that a meeting in the middle of utility and deontology would be the best way to make moral decisions; by making decisions to benefit the many but without making immoral decisions.