outcome a consequence as good, would confer an evaluation of acceptability on an action, and vice versa. Almost all actions, however, result in both good and bad outcomes, which tends to complicate utilitarian evaluations. Utilitarian philosophy attempts to solve this dilemma through the criterion of the greatest good to the greatest number (Brunton, 1956). This approach tends to attempt to reduce a philosophical question to a type of accounting exercise. In just such a way, the use of nuclear weapons by the United States against the civilian population of Japan in the Second World Was justified. It was said that the tens of thousands of civilian deaths caused by the nuclear weapons shortened the war, and, thus, saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. That utilitarian assessment was made by the winners of the war, not by the losers.
The Japanese did not accept the utilitarian justification of the mass annihilation of civilians, and that refusal points up another two additional dilemmas associated with utilitarian evaluations. First, that which may be considered as a good outcome by one may not be considered to be good by another. Second, to many people, a net positive outcome cannot justify what is, at its root, an unacceptable act.
Yet another significant problem affecting utilitarian evaluation is the identification of the consequences of an act. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to identify all of the consequences of a specific act; particularly so with respect to long term outcomes. In mid 1989, as an example, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify all of the consequences which will eventually derive from the Alaska oil spill in the spring of 1989 (Cahan, 1989). A utilitarian evaluation of this action in 1989, therefore, will tend to be incomplete, speculative, or both.
Utilitarian philosophy is relatively simple in concept. It is often difficult, however, to apply utilitar...