Final answer:
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethic arguing that actions are moral when they produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number, without inherent right or wrong. Challenges arise in situations where utilitarian justifications for actions may lead to harmful societal impacts. Deontological ethics, in contrast, maintains that some actions are inherently wrong regardless of outcomes.
Step-by-step explanation:
Utilitarians, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, argue that the morality of actions is based solely on their consequences. According to the principle of utility, nothing is inherently right or wrong in itself; it all depends on the outcome of the actions and whether they produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This approach is consequentialist in nature, judging actions by their outcomes rather than inherent qualities or moral duties.
However, certain scenarios challenge this view, revealing occasions where an action might seem right in a narrow utilitarian view but lead to broader negative societal impacts. For example, if a vigilante act of killing saves lives and seems to maximize happiness, one could argue it's justified by act utilitarianism. Yet, if such behavior becomes widespread, it would lead to a breakdown of law and order, making everyone less secure.
Contrasting utilitarianism, deontological ethics considers certain actions inherently wrong based on the nature of the action itself, rather than just the outcome. A deontologist approach, as Kantian ethics proposes, would hold firm that some actions, such as harming innocents, are inherently wrong regardless of the consequences.