Questioning Utilitarianism Philosophies

There are many different lenses that we can use to look at a morality of a situation. Arguably. the simplest form of moral philosophy is Kantianism and it states that no matter the outcome, the motive is what matters when it comes to judging the morality of a certain action. In my understanding, Kantianism assumes that each person has their own categorical imperative and they act according to those imperatives. As such, morality looks different to each person; it is subjective. I think that is the most important part of moral philosophy- it is ultimately up to each individual to decide their own morality and judge actions through their own lens. This is where utilitarianism can be contrasted.

Under utilitarianism, it is assumed that the outcome of a certain action is what should determine the morality of a certain action and furthermore, the “utility” or the net “good or happiness” that the action brings can be calculated mathematically. Can we really calculate these things mathematically? I argue not. Firstly, this is because we do not know what other people might feel about a certain action; in fact, they will all feel different. For example, consider a situation where a benevolent worm was released to patch the damages that was left by a harmful worm. There might be some people who are glad to get help, thus it may bring composure but there are others who are still distrustful, thus bringing them distress. How do we calculate that? Secondly, we cannot tell the future. This worm might be used by other bad actors to make other harmful worms or it might be used by good actors to get ahead. Honestly, who knows? We cannot tell the future.