In this essay I hope to assess whether an adherent to the ethical doctrine of Utilitarianism can truly acknowledge the value of justice. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory in which the emphasis of morality is placed firmly on the consequences of a person's actions. This places utilitarianism at odds with other ethical doctrines, such as deontological ethics or virtue ethics, which place the emphasis on a person's rational duty or their inherent moral virtue respectively. The key aim of utilitarianism is to judge every action by the amount of happiness it either creates or decreases in the person performing the act and those people affected by it.
The concept of utilitarianism first originated from the philosophies of David Hume and John Locke, before being fully developed into what it is today by the works of Jeremy Bentham and his student, John Stewart Mill. Bentham was the first to develop and adhere to a strict ideological structure for the doctrine, while Mill elaborated further upon his tutor's work, introducing significant refinements such as a classification system for the different types of pleasures and an improved version of Bentham's ?greatest happiness principle'.
Unsurprisingly in the divisive and confrontational field of ethics, utilitarianism has been criticised for various different reasons. A key criticism of the theory is that the purpose and intent behind an action are monumentally important and so by analysing only the consequences, utilitarianism is overlooking a crucial aspect of being able to determine the action's justice. Take, for instance, the example of a man who sabotages the car of a colleague he has taken a severe dislike to, in order to delay his arrival at an important job interview. The next morning the car's owner, ...