Justice, Democracy and Freedom: An Economic Perspective

Professor- Dr. Aaashita Dawer

End Term Research Essay

My Literature Review Title - The Evolution of Utilitarianism

Distributive Theory of Utilitarianism

Introduction

My essay is not an examination of utilitarianism because there is already a wide literature for
and against it. My purpose is to discuss how it can be evaluated. It appears to seem more
reasonable when viewed distributively. This interpretation intuitively poses a problem with
distribution, a kind pursuing some norm of justice, although seems vague when it really isn't.
My main goal is to explain what it is that needs to be reviewed and what some of the
modifications of classical forms of the perspective are that might be relevant to those who
believe it to be dedicated to a particular distribution theory.

Cost-benefit evaluation in Utilitarianism

The issue with utilitarianism is the explanation of the standard of good. What are pain and
pleasure for example? Is the prior partially sensory, and is guilt or humiliation included in the
latter? Is trauma essential for pain, as well as how empirically and morally are they linked?
But even if this dilemma with meaning is fixable, issues with estimation exist. Span of
experience is quantifiable however severity can not be measured, even in a specific
individual. Utilitarianism, although as a basis for moral approach, includes interpersonal
correlations of joy and suffering. For utilitarianism, estimation issues are more severe.
Anticipating the impact of choices on pleasure and pain is the primary issue. There is no
timeframe on the sequence of consequences of an action, in practice. At the moment of
choice, utilitarians then must disregard the possibly infinite stream of implications or
approximate them from observations.Existing data may or may not be a reasonable indicator
to the unforeseeable future. If utilitarianism is interpreted in view of certain perception of the
distributive method, the issues just stated do not vanish. But in fact since this sort of
interpretation poses distribution problems, the utilitarianism frameworks that go with it pose
enormous concerns.
 Three Criteria of Distribution

Inclusiveness

The concept of moral reasoning is two-fold. An action is valid if and only if it favourably
impacts and allocates a total good to at least maximum number and then it maximises overall
happiness compared to its substitutes on reaching this number. Assume, an act A offers
twenty items of medical gain for all workers, even for those who are part-time while act B
provides a larger advantage for a smaller community, maybe only full-time workers, but a
higher total gain. The inclusiveness of the distributive framework needs scoring of act A over
act B : the total number of individuals positively impacted prioritises over the overall good
generated.

Qualified Aggregation

It is not the most significant ethical issue as critical as inclusiveness is in moral behaviour,
and especially if with classical utilitarians, we regard joy and pain to be the most fundamental
positive and negative principles, we should treat the question of benefits separately. Overall,
we should want to achieve as much overall medical gain as achievable and optimising the net
good should be the primary focus. However our second concern might be for moral or
prudential purposes, or for both of them in order to introduce a plan that benefits maximum
workers without compromising overall medical gain.

I oppose selecting the more inclusive strategy because I anticipate less net benefit. I will
prefer a more inclusive plan only if picking that won't affect the total good. It must be evident
that the distributive formula's inclusiveness and aggregate findings all reflect normal
perceptions of it. The former requires morally correct action primarily represents the greatest
number of those involved and furthermore, optimises the benefit it provides for the largest
community and for the latter, ethically correct action mainly generates the maximum good for
those involved and, furthermore, allocates it to the largest amount attainable without
reduction of the distributed cumulative good.
An Egalitarian Perception

Normally, I might pursue more for distribution if I can just give it evenly, so that I can give
the bigger proportion greatest happiness.The similar number because money can be offered to
all in the eligible community, unlike most healthcare benefits. One alternative could appear
like this:

Option K: Twenty earns ten percent increase with $500,000 overall.

Option S: Twenty earns 2-10 percent increase separately for a $600,000 overall.

Selecting K over S is important for egalitarian interpretation. Given, one should adjust the
concept in dispute and measure equality in such a manner that, perhaps, disparities of two
percentage points or below would be compensated by an overall benefit for the twenty
percent group. But the claim is that there is an interpretation where fair welfare is a non
negotiable norm of preference over the cumulative good. Is the interpretation that needs to be
allocated a certain good to the greatest number egalitarian instead of utilitarian? Mostly on
idiographic views of Bentham, Mill, and several others, it definitely is not utilitarian, but it
gives cumulative good sufficient importance to entail a kind of optimization of the good.

Despite popular belief, neither of the above opinions indicate that equality is especially
favorable nor can any absolutely utilitarian approach. Obviously, moral devotion, possibly
creates a strong sense of fairness, to fair treatment of individuals as inherently valuable,
complemented by a secondary contribution to optimise their good, may be the most probable
moral basis for the proposed egalitarian concept. Nonetheless the concept may still be used
by somebody that is a utilitarian in the context of Mill but is far away from any previous
loyalty to justice and believes that equal treatment is key to increase the cumulative good. For
instance, one could believe that only equality maintains morale.

Conclusion
The aggregate, collective reading of Utilitarianism, to be specific classical utilitarianism may
seem confining, it is important to look into its distinctive attributes that add to its appeal.
Representation of the good may supersede the rest. Various different social economic
measures help define welfare, pleasure and pain, some with a scientific perspective may find
the other utility candidates that are accessible to empirical determination in principle,
attractive. After the good, secondly, pleasure, pain and others are debatably ordinarily
measurable and in this minuscule sense the theory is quantitative. Thirdly, taking into account
the aforementioned points along with the possibility of predicting effects of actions through
scientific methods. Fourthly, pleasure and pain are taken as themselves, as good and bad
respectively in virtually every theory of not merely instrumental goods but intrinsic goods as
well. What this implies may be viewed as two fold, that in any plausible ethic, it captures a
major element and the problems of difficult measurement as described, are no exception in
any plausible ethical option or alternative. As opposed to both pleasure and pain, justice is
not empirically measurable. The equality with respect to material elements’ distribution is
determinable empirically but the question of, if this material equality will be just, then it is a
maybe, maybe not situation. It depends on the earnings of people and the reason for the
requirement, it matters whether the different distributions are required for fairness or if they
are required by promises. Deriving these notions was commonly sought out by utilitarians,
even if not the notions, then at least the interest was taken in the evaluative standards that
represent them from the utility principle along with facts. The facts would be about people
and the world, the process would “operationalize” justice just the way it were. No criterion of
distribution would be endorsed in addition to the empirical information.

For any utilitarian philosophy, are these issues? Really for a lot of people moral principles
which offer amplification of happiness and pain lowering? Even for those whose principles
are generally utilitarian in purpose, the complexities they suggest for distributive
utilitarianism which always make it more appealing than regular utilitarianism. It is therefore
possible to merge the three distributive views in different manners. For example, the
inclusivist principle can be changed by permitting either factors of equality in such a
distribution of number exceeding a certain level to mitigate a reduction in the overall amount
of which a good can be distributed,
My proposal is that a lot of connection to utilitarianism could be revisited: the idea could be
mainly presented and clarified as an aggregative principle, and those who are drawn to a
distributive variant might label it a distributive utilitarianism and show the distinction. In my
perspective, distributive form should be portrayed without qualification as variants of
utilitarianism, and non-aggregative models are awarded as the best as versions of
utilitarianism whatsoever.

If one's resources yielded only a few pennies for each one, it would certainly be reckless to
attempt to achieve the largest possible amount. Again, tradeoffs step in. There is, therefore,
such a phenomenon as pleasure's diminishing marginal utility? This will be refuted by
Bentham and Mill as according to them pleasure is not just a fun stimulation . But a
utilitarian choice, for which a kind of simple fulfilment of desire is at least conceptually fine,
could embrace it. Empirical data on what meets simple desires will have a great deal of
ethical value for this type of view.
Bibliography

Audi, Robert. “Can Utilitarianism Be Distributive? Maximization and Distribution as Criteria

in Managerial Decisions.” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4, 2007, pp. 593–611.
JSTOR, ​www.jstor.org/stable/27673202​.

Smart, J. J. C. “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism.” The Philosophical Quarterly (1950-),

vol. 6, no. 25, 1956, pp. 344–354. JSTOR, ​www.jstor.org/stable/2216786​.

Charvet, John. “Individualist and Totalizing Ethical Thinking in Mill’s Utilitarianism.”

Happiness and Utility: Essays Presented to Frederick Rosen, edited by Georgios Varouxakis
and Mark Philp, UCL Press, London, 2019, pp. 207–224. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvf3w1s5.15​.

Ruggie, John Gerard. “What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the
Social Constructivist Challenge.” International Organization, vol. 52, no. 4, 1998, pp.
855–885. JSTOR, ​www.jstor.org/stable/2601360​.

Piacquadio, Paolo Giovanni. “A FAIRNESS JUSTIFICATION OF UTILITARIANISM.”

Econometrica, vol. 85, no. 4, 2017, pp. 1261–1276. JSTOR, ​www.jstor.org/stable/44955159​.

Balasubramanian, Anirudha. “On Weighted Utilitarianism and an Application.” Social

Choice and Welfare, vol. 44, no. 4, 2015, pp. 745–763., ​www.jstor.org/stable/43662616​.