Place an order for a custom essay, research paper on this or related subject.



Whereas the term utilitarian has been seen as an equivocal terminology, it is contextually used to imply the rightness or the wrongness of any action. This wrongness or rightness makes reference to the good side and the bad side of any activity. According to Bentham who developed this philosophical thought, the consequences and the returns of any action determine the utility of the action (Mills 1963). The actions’ utility nevertheless is always relative and therefore pecking the controversy over what is ideally utilitarian.

The utilitarian theory works on the presumption that the person has maximum happiness and pleasure. However, whereas one person will be having some pleasure, another would well be having a lot of pains. In view of this, the theory relatively appears to be farfetched and unrealistic. The explanation adopted in this theory on morality as being based on social extension with natural inclination is indeed non-founded.

According to this principle difficult situation with moral deliberations would be readily transformed into manageable and yet very empirical considerations. Whereas this assertion would still remain a relative consideration, it does stress on the happiness of the person seeking pleasure and remains silent on the environment’s effect and receptiveness of the acts (Frederich 1899). Ideally this seems to have a clear lee way for the perpetuation of injustices provided the person committing the acts is deriving happiness from the activities.

The theory emphasizes and stresses more on the practices that would make an individual happy.  Provided the environment supports the happiness of person (Mills 1963). The principle remains very silent on the aspect of human norms and natural rights.  Besides, the theory remains very unclear on the confines of happiness; there are no defined units for which happiness can be measured. The theory does not appreciate the fact that there would be the extraversion of the altruistic components in the event that the demands are strictly followed.


2          The capitalist nature of the present economic setup does approve of the market economy. Within the presets of the market economy, the going-on in the market should be determined by the forces of supply and demand. Ideally, the market economy demands that the law of demand and supply dictates the market prices without the interference of the state. Nevertheless, it is arguable there free market s are non existent and are only theoretical.

In an economic system where the price of good and services and other critical decisions are made through the interaction of the citizens, with the least government intervention constitutes free economy. The decisions of the consumers and the producers determine the course of the activities in the market

Command economy on the other hand is the direct opposite of the free market economy. In the command economy (planned economy), the government is fully charged with the control of market activities inclusive of the price control. In command economy, the government is able to explore the available resources without fail and this makes the economy more stable than in the market economy where the forces of demand makes the economy more prone to effects of the external forces such as international economic downturn (Planned economy vs. free economy

). Well planned command economies have reduced cases of surplus production and unemployment.

The planned economy fronts for collective benefits for the resident of the state. On the other hand the market economy like in the capitalist case ascribes to the principle of individual benefits dependent on the inputs of the person. Rewards to the benefits the economy accrues are shared on the basis of the services rendered. Profit making, unlike the free economy, are based on the state and not the individual.

In a world where inequalities are becoming a common phenomenon, the planned economy would offer the best solution towards the reduction of these inequalities. The activities carried out will benefit everybody within the economy; stabilizing and redistributing the wealth without fail. The culture of class alienation would be relatively reduced, resulting into increased social and economic justices. Continued free market economies would simply translate into a world with two divergent classes; the poor and the bourgeois.


3.         Stuart Mills was a philosopher who developed the harm principle asserting that provided an action does not cause harm then it should not be banned. Ideally according to Mills an act should only be banned if the act has some harmful effects on the person. Whereas there are a number of acts that are harmful, the liberals argue that these activities should be allowed altogether. Inherently, the harm principle sets minimal requirement for which an act can be justifiably be banned.

Harm according to the harm principle implies anything that does instill some pain or anything that deprives an individual pleasure. The harm would be psychological or physical. In line with the principles of utilitarianism for which Stuart ascribed to, as along as the individual got the most good out of the activity, then the activity was ideally rights and should not be banned.

According to the harm principle the activities of one individual can be prevented for as long as the activity is proved to be having harm to others. This school of thought asserts that any person can do anything provided the actions do not harm others. This system of believes hold that an individual is sovereign provided over their mind and their own bodies. The implication in this assertion is that the person can do anything with himself but the action to the others is subject to the effects on those persons.

Allowing this principle to take root implies that the persons should be allowed to do anything with their lives as long as the effect on the others are not harming. Ideally, this is tantamount to giving leeway to acts such as suicide. This would contravene most nations’ obligation of protecting lives. Besides, one would simply break person values in the name of observing the harm principle.


4.         Utilitarian postulates that provided the provided the persons committing anything are able to determine that it is right or wrong, the principle tenet of utilitarianism would be met and therefore.

Whereas liberty and toleration have always been argued as dependent on the formal principle of defense, any individual would not readily escape from unfruitful and inclusive disputes. On the contrary it is immutable forcing persons to be free. Though it is agreeable that toleration and liberty in terms of the autonomy of humanity are not ardently eliminated through the non liberal paradoxes, I do not agree that Mill’s defense of liberty is typically trapped in the paradox. I shall argue that Mill was particularly conscious of the paradox and anxious for overcoming it and that his efforts are still suggestive when we think of liberty and toleration today.

Secondly and interestingly so, suggestion which can be found in Mill’s arguments for toleration is related to the fact that he thinks that tolerating an action which we feel unpleasant or imprudent is compatible with our criticizing it and advising not doing it. If we think it desirable that toleration in the negative sense, unwilling forbearance should be transformed into toleration in the positive sense, chances for mutual understanding and changing one’s attitude to others , then, Mill’s suggestion that freedom of thought and freedom of action share a public character can be seen as an important step towards that transformation.

For Mill, dynamic collisions among various opinions about what kind of life is worth living should not be avoided. Rather, it should be welcome. It is true that he treats freedom of thought and freedom of action from slightly different points of view but he sees both of them possessing a public character in that they are open to discussion and criticism.


5.         Utilitarianism provides that for as long as one has maximum satisfaction form the activity, the activity is justified. The rightness or the wrongness of an activity is pecked on the person undertaking the act. Under the circumstances, the soldier was right, either way the bombs effects to the troop would still have been blamed on his lack of responsibility as the troop leader.

The case implies that death was inevitable under the circumstances and that the attempts he was making was simply to elude the fears of the loss of many lives him inclusive. In view of this argument and in the light of the utilitarian theory, his decision was justifiable by all standards. Death would not be evaded ideally, regardless of whether he did this or not, death was certainly imminent.

Whereas the soldier saw that right, it pecks the subjectivity of the argument of the utilitarian theory.  Whatever one may deem as right would end up hurting those around him or her. In this case the family of the soldier would have many aspersions on the exact cause of the death of their loved one, causing discomfort and anguish.  In view of this argument it is plainly evident that the utilitarian theory has very many flows and loopholes for the perpetration of injustices.

6.         Injustice is injustice regardless of the number of times it is done. The modest thing for Jim to do was to refute the offer, because whether one person is killed or all re killed; it is unjust.  Besides, which member was less entitled to life that Jim would have chosen onto to be killed? In view of these paradoxes, it is upon the incumbent to refute the offer. Perhaps this stand would show the perpetrator of the injustices that either way it was wrong.

Ultimately refuting the request would make the perpetrator to rethink the stance and ideally this is the right thing that would bring justice to all. And given that the tenets of utilitarianism demands that whatever one does should not harm the other, the victim chosen would be harmed by what Jim’s views as the right stand.