Final answer:
Michael Sandel challenges utilitarianism by noting it might justify ethically questionable actions if they increase overall happiness; actions that can undermine trust in important social institutions like the judicial system and violate the harm principle.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Michael Sandel, one significant objection to utilitarianism is the challenge posed by acts that may increase overall happiness but contradict our shared moral instincts or commitments to justice. For example, Sandel suggests that act utilitarianism might justify ethically questionable actions like the false conviction of an innocent person to prevent riots, based on a utilitarian calculation of happiness. This seems to bypass moral norms and could damage institutions like the judicial system, reducing trust and thus, potentially, overall happiness in the long run. Moreover, it seems to conflict with the harm principle advocated by John Stuart Mill, which seeks to protect individual rights unless someone is harmed.
The second objection to utilitarianism, according to Sandel, is that it can justify actions that go beyond ordinary moral standards. For example, act utilitarianism could justify a vigilante killing a person if it saves lives and maximizes happiness, even though it goes against our normal sense of right conduct. However, this can lead to long-term negative consequences, such as undermining the security of society. Sandel argues that utilitarianism offers an overly simplistic account of morality that does not adequately explain our common experience of morality in practice. This objection suggests that morality is not solely about increasing happiness, but involves other factors as well.