Pros And Cons Of Utilitarianism

One of the core assertions of John Stuart Mill’s book, Utilitarianism, is that Utilitarianism can and should provide the basic moral framework for an individual’s decisions. He argues, often convincingly, that if all of society followed a system of morals dedicated to the maximizing public well-being, or utility, everyone would benefit. This perspective places the burden of decision making overwhelmingly on the individual who is not necessarily capable or properly equipped to make decisions which maximize the utility of the population. While Utilitarianism may have limited value as a layman’s moral framework, it has considerably more value as a moral framework for persons in a leadership role where more information is available to make a rational decision. A core critique of Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy rests on the idea
From an individual’s limited perspective, abuse of the resource may have little to no negative effect on him or people around him, but can be of great personal benefit. The rationality intrinsically present in abusing a public resource is known as The Free Rider Problem, and is one of the most challenging issues faced in preserving public goods. Due to the limited damage done to the public good by the free rider, as well as the benefits the individual gains from said abuse, the decision to abuse a resource may be seen as maximizing utility. Thus, from a limited perspective, the decision to abuse the resource is not only the rational decision, but, in a utilitarian framework, abuse becomes the moral decision. The problem inherent in this line of reasoning is that if enough people make this decision, the resource is destroyed in what is known as The Tragedy of the Commons. The challenge posed by the free rider problem is therefore a significant hurdle for utilitarianism as an individual moral framework to