What is utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism is a morality theory initially championed by British economists, political thinkers and philosophers, Jeremy Bentham (1747 – 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). The theory encourages actions that lead to pleasure or satisfaction and discourages actions that are harmful or lead to unhappiness. Bentham and Mill advocated for, in general, the betterment of the society by looking at the utility of social, political and economic decisions.
Foundations and assumptions
“The utilitarian doctrine is, that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as a means to an end.” – John Stuart Mill, 1870.
Mill borrows largely from the writings of Bentham which are both inspired by the ancient Greek Philosophers. It is therefore appropriate to state that the theory of utilitarianism is deeply founded in ancient Greek societies but Mill and Bentham have brought to life in a different way.
In an 1838 writing, “Bentham”, (CW 10, 111), Mill asserts that the consequences of an action are the dictating factor to tell whether action is morally right or wrong. Adding on the utilitarian theory, Mill grounds his philosophy in a theory of life that the only things that are desirable are freedom from suffering and pain, and pleasure.
That is where modern scholars chip in the most to criticise Mill and cover him as a hedonist. The ethical theory of hedonism upholds that the highest good in life is happiness and pleasure. However, what these scholars fail to account is that the pleasure in that context is not limited to senses that sustain the body’s interaction with the environment but the pleasure of the entire mind. That is the conflicting assumption they make.
Mill, on the consequentialist theory argues that the proportion or degree to which these actions are anticipated to impact the outcome matters. In that regard, pleasure in that sense is thus pinned to intrinsic value(Mill, 1861/2001).
On the theory of utilitarianism, there are inner circles to support attacks on the founding principles. These are claims that everyone’s happiness equally counts, happiness is the only thing with intrinsic value and that actions that promote happiness are right and those that demote it are wrong.
Many philosophers, especially Kantian Scholars would argue differently or generally disagree with the principle that actions that promote happiness are right while those that lead to sadness and suffering are wrong.
An evaluation of counter-arguments
Several critics of the theory of utilitarianism point out the following major counter-arguments. These are impossibility, insufficiency and impracticality.
The impossibility counter-argument dwells on the fact that happiness cannot be quantified and thus is impossible to apply. Therefore the extent to which a specific course of action satisfies person A is highly likely not the same extent to which the same course of action will satisfy person B, C etc. Claiming that actions whose outcome forges happiness for the most are the right actions is trying to actively make happiness substitutable which is untrue.
In addition, utilitarianism is found to be insufficient because the source of value is not consistently put into account in some instances. For example, take an acceptable social thing like “friendship” or “knowledge”. These two things induce happiness but immediately lose value when it gets uncomfortable to accommodate them. A friend who steals from you wouldn’t be worth having as a friend. On the other hand, some utilitarian theories, like impartiality, advocate for fairness. That means they have other intrinsic values besides happiness and the suffering to be taken is minimized or shared across the parties involved.
On impracticality, many philosophers argue that it is impractical to tell precisely the effect of a course of action to a large population. Therefore, many things that are wrong could be proved to be useful but then that happens in specific circumstances and to specific parties involved. Now, the possibility that the parties could be the majority challenges the utilitarianism theory.
Consideration of specific philosophers and/or branches of philosophy which relate to this framework
There are four elements that are shared across the utilitarian theories. These are impartiality, welfarism, consequentialism and aggregationism.
Impartiality
This element of utilitarianism upholds fairness between parties, rivals or disputants. It takes a neutral approach to things, and courses of action that discourage aggressive behaviour and revenge.
Welfarism
In welfarism, value is determined by the wellbeing and satisfaction of the people involved. Satisfying outcomes are advocated for.
Consequentialism
This element dwells on duties, morals and rights. The approach on these is strictly centred on the repercussions of a specific cause or action. From a utilitarian standpoint therefore, an action that leads to pleasant consequences is the one to be perceived as morally right and encouraged.
Aggregationism
This element expresses the act of collecting together in the sense that people on the same page with each other have a high chance of attaining a satisfying outcome when chasing their goals.
The above four elements properly highlight the position of utilitarian philosophers. The notable utilitarian thinkers are John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) and Jeremy Bentham (1747 – 1832). These two are considered to be at the forefront of the theory and their writings have been reused by their students and juniors to date.
A 20th century personality, Peter Singer (born in 1946), a moral philosopher from Australia is perhaps the perfect example of philosophers who still champion the utilitarian flag today. Singer leans more on the practical element of ethics with utilitarianism as the foundation. As a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, Singer has contributed largely in the founding of the animal rights movement.
Universal human dilemmas and how utilitarianism addresses them
According to Grant Goodrich (2017), in his work, The Moral Courage, there are four paradigms in the ethical dilemma. These are: Justice vs. Mercy, Individual vs. Community, Short-term vs. Long-term and Truth vs. Loyalty.
In truth vs. loyalty, factual and honest information is contrasted to allegiance to a set of ideas or a friend.
In short-term vs. long-term, it entails conflict between immediate and future needs.
Individual vs. community dilemma has individual interests, in singularity, against the interests of a group. The individual often belongs to that group as well.
In justice vs. mercy, you have fairness confronting equal treatment as detailed in the law.
There are several decision principles to get out these universal dilemmas. These are taking a rule-based approach, a care-based approach and an ends-based approach or consequentialism.
Utilitarianism will address these dilemmas by focussing on the consequences of the taken course of action. That is the ends-based approach.
Scenario: A village in Sidney, Australia; called St. Chris has only one surgeon.
The surgeon has been found drunk on a Friday, an action which the law of the village forbids and has been documented in the constitution to be punishable by death via hanging.
What would the law enforcers decide?
Justice dictates that the surgeon be hanged. However, because of the surgeries he performs to save the lives of the members of the community and how expensive it is for the community to replace him, an ends-based (utilitarian) decision would be to show mercy and think about how his getting drunk affected the village and also how his death will affect the village.
In conclusion, this article weighs in on the moral theory of utilitarianism and presents a real life scenario that forces practicality. What scenarios have you encountered? Could you make a decision referencing the theory of Utilitarianism?
References
Tamez, A. (2021). Utilitarianism. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, 8334–8336. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_2909
Tardi, C. (2020, June 14). Utilitarianism Defined. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp#:~:text=Utilitarianism%20is%20a%20theory%20of
Udoudom, M. (2021). The Value of Nature: Utilitarian Perspective. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis, 4(1), 2021. https://philarchive.org/archive/UKATGO#:~:text=UTILITARIAN%20THEORY&text=In%20the%20utilitarian%20account%2C%20morality
Utilitarianism, Act and Rule | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2019). Www.iep.utm.edu. https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/#:~:text=Utilitarians%20believe%20that%20the%20purpose
