Final answer:
The second objection to utilitarianism Sandel discusses is its capacity to rationalize actions that may be against ordinary moral standards by focusing solely on the outcomes that serve the greater good. This includes scenarios where individual rights are overlooked, and overall trust in societal institutions may be compromised.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Sandel, the second objection to utilitarianism is its potential to justify actions that conflict with our ordinary moral standards, such as the endorsement of actions that benefit the greater good despite violating individual rights or moral norms. One example provided by Sandel is the scenario where act utilitarianism could potentially justify a vigilante killing a dangerous person if it leads to an overall increase in happiness. However, this would deeply undermine societal trust and security. Sandel also points out the complications arising from utilitarian calculations, such as establishing a national park that preserves magnificent vistas but displaces residents, making it challenging to determine whether such an action increases net human happiness.
John Stuart Mill's refinement of utilitarianism, with an emphasis on higher and lower pleasures, introduces a qualitative aspect to the evaluation of happiness. However, even with Mill's enhancements, there remain significant objections to utilitarianism regarding how moral decisions are made and their implications on common-sense morality, as indicated by criticisms from philosophers like Anscombe and Ross.