Is utilitarianism a convincing moral theory to live by? (25)

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory which argues for fundemental commintments to maximising happiness for the greatest amount. As a consequentialist theory only the outcomes of the action matter, and an action is morally right if it produces the greatest amount of what is good; the happiness and pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Utilitarianism tends to be egalitarian as it aims to maximise everyone’s happiness, thereby no one else’s happiness counts more than or less than anyone else’s. However, these aforementioned claims which characterise utilitarianism are fundamentally flawed, as I will later discuss, which is why I will be arguing utilitarianism is not a convincing moral theory to live by.
Bentham’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism is insufficient in convincing me that utility is a good moral theory to live by, due to it impracticality. Bentham argues that there are to sovereign masters; the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. On this view Bentham argues that something is morally good if maximises pleasure and avoids pain and we are thus motivated by this. This requires us to measure how much happiness is being produced by an action, and this notion can be arguably deemed as uncanny. His hedonic calculus has 7 criteria for measuring happiness. By using the hedonic calculus we are meant to be able to dictate whether an action is morally right, as in a moral dilemma th e action which has most intensity, purity, duration, certainty etc. Will be the right action according to Bentham utility. Overall the hedonic calculus helps us measure the amount of pleasure and therefore reduced the benefits and prudential value to quantities of pleasure.