Abstract

Ethics is divided into three realms: Meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Utilitarianism is one of the most significant views in normative ethics, which acts as a true criterion to judge on human deeds in terms of loss and benefits of their consequences. In other words, utilitarianism judges on the amount of happiness for all the ones who have been influenced by that act. Utilitarianism itself is divided into two groups: act-utilitarianism, and rule-utilitarianism. The former concentrates on the amount of goodness or happiness that an act creates in a particular situation and the latter considers the amount of goodness or happiness which results from a principle or rule. J.J.C. Smart is a pragmatist, and an advocate of act-utilitarianism. In this essay we have attempted to investigate some of the problems put forward on the problem of calculating the consequences of acts, then we explain the accepted principles by utilitarianists, and finally Smart’s responses to those problems. Instead of calculating the consequences as a response to these criticisms, Smart talks about comparison of two "Total Situation”, and by doing so he ignores the problem. In order to respond to all the criticisms on the calculation of utilitarianism, Smart, by differentiating between two types of evaluating and calculating consequences of an act and evaluating and calculating possible acts, attempts to appeal to the "Ripples on a Pond Model" and to the "Rules of Thumb" for cases which he is obliged to appeal to rules.