Ohm Patel

AU21101132
Part 1
Utilitarianism, a theory that helps one understand what is right and what is wrong. It is a
consequentialist theory that focuses on the outcome and consequences of the outcome. The
main concept of this theory revolves around the utility of the actions taken. As it focuses on
outcomes and utility, this theory tells if the action is correct by measuring the right deeds or
happiness created against the wrong deeds or pain caused. It is very simple to decide, if
majority or more people are provided with happiness when compared to the number of people
that suffered the pain, the taken decision is considered correct or ethically right.
For an example, if the government decides to build a metro from Ahmedabad to Mumbai, but
in this process around 10,000 people and their homes are being relocated to somewhere else,
just because they all lived in slums and did not have any concrete base and right over the
property they lived. Now, in this case the slums need to find a place somewhere else and set
up things all over and God knows how many societal problems they will face. Societal
problems such as, municipal authorities interrupting and finding it difficult to get basic
resources. As a good developed city would mostly consist of higher middle class and rich
ones, the people finding a place would willingly or unwillingly settle at the outskirts of the
city.
On the other hand, the middle class and upper class would eventually get a mode of transport
that is quick, cost effective and convenient. Ahmedabad and Mumbai being heavily inter
connected to each other through businesses and markets, the people involved in the system
get to use the metro for their benefits. And the people benefitted by the metro goes up to
almost 1 Lakh, which is way greater than those who suffered getting relocated. And this
metro construction would also act as a mean of livelihood for the low wage workers working
in the infrastructural sector/business.
Analyzing the decision made, the number of people getting benefitted was almost 10x greater
than that of people eventually experiencing misery or pain. Now, in this case, we can that the
greatest good for the greater number has been done but government is not bothered about the
minority or the affected people, which is an example of Act Utilitarianism. In, act
utilitarianism the theory only focuses on doing the good part and not focuses on the bad part
or bad effects caused. Act Utilitarianism is not totally ideal, because the affected ones or the
ones that suffered pain are not taken into consideration.
Another type is namely known as Rule Utilitarianism, which states that the outcome should
be in a such way that the greatest good for the greatest number should be done, but the
affected or the minority must not be ignored and be taken care of in such a way that has
agreeable decisions and consequences on them. The minority must be taken care of in a
manner that pays or compensates for the pain caused to them.
For example, if the government had taken the responsibility to relocate the slums lying on the
route of metro route and assured if most of them were satisfied by providing them a place and
resource for relocation. This would make a great example for the Rule utilitarianism as it
focuses on both the parties, even if one has a greater focus and utility.
Initially or eventually, Utilitarianism is hedonistic i.e., an approach that focuses on happiness.
It is also a contrasted of Egoism, which is based solely on self-pleasure.
John Mill, the composer of this theory very thoughtfully plotted these criteria as I think that
in this theory there is more flexibility and assertion of a good thing happening where in there
are good chances of a totally new outcome or process occurring to attain happiness. By a new
process or outcome, I mean the possible decisions where the scope to reconfigure the process
to attain the best outcome is more. Although, many decisions cause a change for all and
change always faces resistance. A resistance to adapt, accept and experience the new settings
caused by the outcome.
Part 2
The first and foremost undesirable outcome would be change, and change always faces
resistance. Minority affected or those who suffered pain generally are the ones that are
needed to change. Change in their lifestyle, methodologies, habitats or any other things in
order to have the majority in pleasure or happiness is seen. Utilitarianism theory supports
outcomes that are highly criticisable and open for judgement. Because what is happiness for
one might not be the same for other and a conflict arises.
Happiness is subjective and deciding or assuming what is happiness for one could go wrong.
Utility is also subjective and it could go wrong in the same sense as happiness.
For example, the Uttar Pradesh government is renaming the existing places such as Mughal
Sarai, Allahabad, Faizabad to Hindu centric names like Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Nagar,
Prayagraj and Ayodhya respectively. As a government they think that the renaming places
previously named after or by Mughals was a necessary thing to do. But does that not offend
the muslims, the residents of the state or any other external society. Some might say that,
renaming a place to Hindu centric name is a sheer result of biasness and prenotions revolving
around Hindu superiority. On the other hand, many Kattar Hindus are happy for renaming of
places and greatly supporting the Uttar Pradesh government. This being a political issue is
already very much debatable, but if one checks the population scale, almost 80% people of
Uttar Pradesh are Hindu and other 19% Muslims with 1% as other minorities. So, this
decision as seen is utilitarianism based, although not all Hindus support it but most of them
do.
The biggest question that comes up is, what is good and what is bad? And the other
successive question is, how do we measure the good and bad?
There is no appropriate scale to measure the good and bad deeds, because there is no
common parameter for each. Some might feel happy with the renaming of a place while
others won’t even if they belong to the group that is being benefitted i.e., the majority
considered according to the theory. And the same would apply to the minority as well.