Utilitarianism V. Pojman s No Rest And Justice Essay

Utilitarianism is the concept that â€Å"holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.† In summation, the consequentialist theory states, in reference to Dr. Peetush, that morally â€Å"good† actions are those that promote â€Å"the greatest good for the greatest number of people.† For instance, if a utilitarian were faced with the dilemma of having to kill an innocent for the welfare of 100 other innocents, he would justify this action as morally correct as it, according to Hedonic Calculus, quantitatively produces the most benefit for the largest amount of people. Although utilitarianism is seemingly attractive, it is difficult to digest, as there are several key fallacies that unhinge the theory. This paper will criticize utilitarianism via Louis P. Pojman’s â€Å"no-rest† and â€Å"justice† objections and the utilitarian’s respective rebutta ls, followed by further defense against utilitarianism. To begin, Pojman states that utilitarianism is erroneous due to the â€Å"no-rest objection.† This objection asserts that the theory is far too demanding to be realistic. For example, in reference Pojman’s exmaple, if one wanted to see a film with the friend, they could instead be helping the homeless or repairing the ozone layer; hence, it would be morally correct to pursue the latter as opposed to going to see the film. For any action, the theory implies that there are an infinite number of â€Å"preferable acts [one]