Final answer:
Act-utilitarianism, focusing on maximizing happiness case-by-case, can conflict with justice ideals, as it might justify actions like vigilantism if they result in greater happiness. Such tensions highlight challenges within utilitarianism's consistency with justice, even as it aims to promote overall happiness.
Step-by-step explanation:
Act-utilitarianism is a utilitarian approach that suggests moral actions should maximize happiness on a case-by-case basis. This approach can conflict with our moral judgments regarding justice. For example, act-utilitarianism might justify a vigilante's actions if it leads to greater overall happiness, despite this contradicting our inherent sense of justice that condemns taking the law into one's own hands.
Similarly, act-utilitarianism could condone wrongful conviction if it avoids greater social unrest, increasing happiness but eroding trust in the judicial system. This tension highlights inherent challenges within act-utilitarianism and its consistency with justice ideals. Unlike rule utilitarianism, which applies the principle of the greatest happiness through rules that generally promote happiness, act-utilitarianism assesses each action individually, potentially allowing for unjust acts if they are believed to result in greater happiness.
The challenge of balancing happiness with justice is also evident in applied ethics, such as clinical trials, where utilitarian principles need to balance scientific goals with the well-being of human subjects. Overall, while act-utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness or utility, its alignment with our judgments on justice is debatable and subject to scrutiny.