Final answer:
According to utilitarianism, providing harmful things like cigarettes or toxic food is unethical if it leads to more overall harm than benefit. Utilitarianism judges morality based on the consequences and overall happiness produced, so such actions would typically go against utilitarian principles.
Step-by-step explanation:
From a utilitarianism perspective, the act of providing potentially harmful things to others, such as cigarettes or toxic food, may be deemed unethical if it does not result in the greatest good for the greatest number. This approach is concerned with the consequences of an action, emphasizing the principle of utility or the balance of pleasure versus pain. In essence, if providing such goods results in more harm than benefit overall, then it would be considered immoral according to utilitarianism.
Moreover, the ethical assessment might differ between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. An act utilitarian might look at each individual case to determine whether the overall happiness is increased, while a rule utilitarian might consider the long-term consequences of allowing the sale of harmful products, such as a loss of public trust and the subsequent social harm that would ensue from this breakdown.
Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill suggest that we act morally when our actions produce the greatest happiness and least harm for the most people. Thus, providing things that are known to be harmful would likely be viewed as unethical under utilitarianism if the action leads to a net decrease in overall happiness and well-being of society.