The Bias of Utilitarianism 

       While completing this week's readings, I am inclined to agree with Thomas Nagel in his support of absolutism and his criticism of utilitarianism. One of my problems with utilitarianism which I felt Nagel did not discuss at great length is that within the "ends justify the means" argument lies an inherent notion that those who can afford the extreme means necessitated by the desired ends will inevitably come out on top and be able to decide the value placed on a human life (as in the case of Hiroshima), the value placed on a political candidacy (as in the case of Nagel's example) or basically anything else in question. Thus, this amounts to, for example, those with nuclear weapons being able to dictate what they deem to be the "greatest good".  An argument advanced for many utilitarian actions includes the fact that the consequences of not acting in such a way would be more devastating. This is highly objectionable as more often than not we are unable to predict future consequences and unraveling of events, as well as the consequences of our actions in their entirety. Furthermore, the question that follows is whether these aforementioned consequences can truly be quantified in terms of utility that brings about happiness or pleasure, as such things can hardly be calculated. Utilitarianism thus seems to be a self-interested, tactical philosophy which though unobjectionable on paper (greatest good for greatest number of people), presents innumerable conflicts in practice depending on which side of the "good" you are on.