Does Utilitarianism succeed as an approach to Ethics?

For AQA Philosophy in particular, I found it useful to really carefully read through the mark scheme. The mark scheme for this course, especially compared to my A-levels in Economics and Politics, is not too ambiguous. Firstly, it asks for clear intent and a sustained argument. Therefore, I take it as always necessary to start in the introduction outlining the line of argument for my conclusion. For this essay, I would argue that Utilitarianism fails due to unethical consequences. Its teleological nature means sadistic acts can not only be tolerated but also justified. Further, even if these consequences were desired, they cannot be reached due to impossibilities in the hedonic calculus (i.e. due to the impossible calculation of components like fecundity and extent). Lastly, even if these points were not conceded, it is clear that following Nozick's pleasure machine thought experiment Utilitarianism fails through to its fundamental principles (i.e. hedonism is an understatement over what is desired). Necessarily too there must be an explanation of the utilitarian theory. Specifically, that Utilitarianism is a teleological moral theory. As such, it is a normative ethical theory which is only concerned with the consequences of an action. Thus, the value of an action lies extrinsically in the consequences, not intrinsically encapsulated within the actions themselves. As such, there is nothing inherently right or wrong. Balance is also imperative, so I would never put a point forward without it having a counter-point and a respective rebuttal. For example, when claiming the accommodated consequences are unethical I would counter by saying that this only applies to act utilitarianism, other forms are exempt. However, to rebuttal this point, I would explain how all other forms in the syllabus (rule/negative/qualified) all respectively fail. For example, weak-rule utilitarianism eventually collapses towards the same problems as act, as each situation is considered independently. Furthermore, strong-rule utilitarianism suffers from deontological problems, restricting one from actions that can have the implication of the theory not staying true to the fundamental principle of utility. Thus, this ensures the top brackets are reached as there is a sustained argument that remains balanced. This is only one example, but similar lines would also be followed for all points. In the ethical side of philosophy as well, as normative theories are being discussed, I always find it important to use illustrations for clarity. For example, when unethical consequences are being discussed, illustrations like a 'tyranny of the majority' can enunciate the point made. Understandably, with the line of argument outlined at the beginning it can be difficult to have a conclusion that isn't redundant. Therefore, I find it most useful to weight the arguments as which are most useful to the argument in the conclusion. Additional points in the conclusion may mean the essay suffers from a lack of cohesion, while the mark scheme clearly asks for weighting anyway. In the context of this question I would conclude that the problems with calculation and unethical consequences are ultimately small in comparison to the core critique presented by Nozick which strikes the core Utilitarian premise.