Resolved: Utilitarianism is a flawed moral ideology

UtilitarianismIt's first important to further define the term of utilitarianism before arguing about it. Utilitarianism has its roots in Greek hedonistic philosophy, in that its main imperative to maximize the greatest amount of good or happiness (utility) for the maximum amount of people. Any action that does so is consequentially considered the morally correct action in the specific circumstance. Arguments:1. Future Calculations2. Subjectivity3. Quantification4. Is/OughtFuture CalculationsThe entire premise of utilitarian philosophy is based on the ability for conscious reasoning and knowledge about the future ramifications of any actions (ends). Since utilitarianism only takes into account the ends, instead of the means, a mandatory part of utilitarianism is the ability to know the ends of any such action. This is strictly impossible. No individual is capable of seeing into the future and knowing that deciding upon X will have ramifications of Y and Z in the far future. Since any action causes subsequent actions ad infinitum, any moral action that is made by a utilitarian cannot possible have all of its consequences accounted for during the time that the action is made. For example, take the hypothetical of a man seeing a baby drowning in a river. The man, capable of swimming, rushes into the river and rescues the baby from harm. Clearly, according to the utilitarian, this was the moral action in this situation. Now assume that the baby grows up to become a raging maniacal serial killer who claims the lives of many individuals. The utilitarian thinker is at an impasse. On the one hand, the utility from rescuing the baby supersedes the danger from the man going into the river. One the other hand, the danger and negative effects of letting a serial killer run loose clearly over weigh the life of the baby. Even assuming that the serial killer is captured, it is unclear what his actions will prompt others in society to do and so forth ad infinitum. Is it obvious that considering the above hypothetical, it would be moral for the man to let the child drown in the river. His action of saving the baby was highly immoral, considering its future repercussions. Utilitarianism requires the knowledge that the child would have turned into a serial killer to make a moral decision onto whether he should have been saved. However, there is no way that the man could have had the knowledge at that time. Utilitarianism requires the ability to predict the future consequences of any specific actions, which is clearly impossible. Only with an omnipotent knowledge would one be able to map out the effects that any single action would have one the future. Therefore, the very premise of utilitarianism- maximizing happiness- cannot be accounted for when an action requiring moral reasoning is to be committed. SubjectivityThe central premise of utilitarianism is that there exists some sort of objective goodness or happiness (utility) that should be maximized. This is unfounded because what constitutes as being "good" and "happy" is in itself subjective. Whereas individual X might believe that obtaining wealth leads to being good and happy, individual Y,a sadomasochist, might believe that goodness and happiness are caused by pain and suffering inflicted onto oneself. There is absolutely to way to reconcile the different interpretations that individuals have on what constitutes as the central premise of utilitarianism. Building onto the previous point about future ramifications, there is no way that an individual would be able to account for all the subjective definitions of goodness and happiness in his calculation for all the people which it would effect in the future (which he can't account for either. .. . double whammy! ). Therefore, the concept of maximizing good is inherently flawed because it assumes an objective definition of what is classified as good and cannot be taken into account by the moral agent with regards to all subjective definitions ad infinitum. Furthermore, this subjectivity also leads to the conclusion that some people might not want to achieve happiness in their daily lives. For example, some individuals choose to voluntarily live in seclusion and reject what most people deem to be "happiness" and "pleasure. " If I were to follow utilitarianism, I would be forced to forcefully implement "happiness" and "pleasure" onto them, thus stripping them of their individual and moral autonomy. Quantification Perhaps the most apparent problem of utilitarianism is how do you quantify utility? Utilitarianism assumes, that even if you could see and account for all the possible subjective preferences of happiness and the future ramifications of any action, there would be some way to quantify the utility of an action. Albeit, the closest we have come to that is hedonistic calculus (don't know why it's called calculus; it has no math in it), which is basically equivalent to filling out a self-help questionnaire about how you feel. There is no way to transform into mathematics the "intensity, duration, purity, extent, etc. .. " of any feeling. Therefore, no moral agent can objectively determine the correct moral action. Is/Ought ProblemFinally, the last point in favor of utilitarianism being flawed is the is/ought problem. Whereas utilitarianism recognizes that happiness exists and the individual pursues it, it attempts to make a normative claim out of this descriptive claim, which is an is/ought fallacy. ConclusionI have shown how there is no way to account for the future ramifications of any actions, the subjectivity of the terms used by utilitarianism, the fact that quantification is impossible, and the violation of the is/ought problem. This resolution is affirmed.