The advantage of the theory’s relative approach to ethics means that it can be applied to different circumstances in different ways – the present circumstances can be judged without reference to the precedents. To give an example, just as it may be wrong for one woman to have an abortion, it does not necessarily follow that in another woman’s completely different circumstances it would also be wrong.
Although Bentham devised the theory of utilitarianism, a great follower of his was John Stuart Mill who addressed the problem that Bentham had, in that his approach may condone actions, which, although increase the total sum of pleasure, may still be held to be morally wrong. Instead of this, Mill opted for a quantitative assessment of pleasure, with higher pleasures those intellectually demanding and bodily pleasures such as food, drink, drugs and sex being a much lower pleasure. He believed that someone who has experienced higher pleasures would not normally reject them in favour of lower pleasures (excluding extreme circumstances.) He gave the example that no intelligent person, if he has the experience of the pleasures of a fool, would be satisfied with the latter. Even though the intelligent person may require more to keep him happy than the fool, he would not swap places.
‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; Better to be
Socrates dissatisfied that a fool satisfied.’
Utilitarianism has two forms, act and rule utilitarianism, working as a useful advantage as it enables it to be flexible and any disadvantages of one form can be overruled by the other. Act utilitarianism is closely associated with Bentham, and maintains that the good action is the one that leads to the greatest good in a particular situation, and is flexible in itself, being able to take into account individual situations at a given moment. Rule utilitarianism is more closely linked with Mill and focuses on general rules that everyone should follow to bring about the greatest good for that community. It establishes the best overall rule by determining the course of an action which, when pursued by the whole community leads to the greatest result. Although, it is not perfect in itself, it overcomes some of the difficulties found in act utilitarianism.
The theory has perennial value to it’s advantage, meaning it has ongoing value and has continually taken its place through the centuries and continues to come up, indicating it certainly has some worth about it as it has not been dismissed altogether. It is also secular and based on human experience, so becomes more popular as people move away from religion.
Utilitarianism has considerable strengths as an ethical theory, advocated by Bentham and Mill, the most prominent being its altruistic, democratic, simple, relative and perennial value. It also is at a further advantage due to its flexibility by its two forms – act and rule utilitarianism.
7 b) Identify the main problems of utilitarianism. To what extent do these make utilitarianism unacceptable? (10 marks)
Despite a creditable number of strengths, utilitarianism has some problems, which take into consideration the governing principle of the theory that the consequences of an action are all that is important. It is important to think about the implications of only considering the consequences, and look further into what the theory attempts to do. It is through doing this, that weaknesses begin to appear, and we start to ask questions.
The theory fails to consider different views on happiness is and does not answer the question of ‘What is pleasure?’ as it is different for different people. People have different tastes and often disagree on what gives them pleasure and pain. It appears straightforward to use Bentham’s hedonic calculus, which measures amounts of pleasure and pain according to criteria including intensity, duration, certainty, extent, remoteness, richness and purity. However, this leads us to ask the question of whether different pleasures and pains can be so easily quantified. Surely it is not possible to compare seeing children grow up to eating a chocolate bar, how can these pleasures be quantified? This also leads to the idea of pleasure not being the ultimate and exclusive goal as few pleasures are completely pure, most have a measure of pain mixed in with them. Surely pain is good sometimes as it can lead to pleasure (in extreme cases there are people who find pleasure in experiencing pain) and is there for a reason. For example, Bentham said that ‘the moral worth of an action is directly proportional to the amount, or quality, of pleasure that an action brings.’ However, when a parent won’t let their child go out, it makes them unhappy, but is done for the good of the child. This shows holes in Bentham’s hedonic calculus formula, and proves it is not as straightforward as it first appears, and it is certainly questionable whether an action can be determined to be good in the way the calculus suggests.
Another problem with Bentham’s theory is how to decide which are higher and lower pleasures. Obviously some kinds of pleasures are higher than others, and if someone has had an experience of both physical and intellectual pleasure then they will not go back to just experiencing one sort. No intelligent person would be satisfied with pleasures of a fool, despite the fact it takes more to keep the intelligent person happy. Although Mill seems arrogant he does show clearly the problem of calculating the greatest happiness and attempts to solve it.
Applying the theory practically requires the ability to predict the long-term consequences of an action, and to predict these consequences with unfailing accuracy. For a start they could be different for different people. Past experience can to some extent guide future experience, but we know there is no guarantee that the circumstances will be exactly the same. People may suffer at second and third hand, even if the immediate consequences of an action fulfilled the conditions of the principle of utility. The consequences also affect the minority, as the theory allows ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ but in doing this assumes that the majority is right, where as there should be room for both the majority and the minority to be accommodated to stop the minority from suffering.
The utilitarian fails to admit that we have special responsibility to particular people and that the rightness of this responsibility does not necessarily derive from the fact that they increase the sum of the total human happiness. For example, if two men were drowning, one was your father and the other a famous scientist on the verge of curing cancer, the utilitarian would urge you to save the scientist. Most people find this suggestion repugnant as we have special duty to our parents that outweighs any claim that a stranger, however illustrious, may have upon us.
A profound, but almost surprising difficulty with utilitarianism concerns the issue of justice. The value of justice appears to have no place, since the majority may support that which is not just. For example, five bullies may get pleasure from tormenting one boy, meaning his pleasure is sacrificed for the greater benefit of theirs. In this case, a ‘wrong’ action is made to appear right by Bentham’s theory, and surely it is not right to justify something that we consider to generally be morally wrong, as it would be possible to justify acts of sadism and torture if the majority, no matter how perverted their pleasure, carried them out. His theory even advises self-sacrifice to the point of death. The main problem of justice is that utilitarianism doesn’t set out how the pleasure should be distributed.
A further aspect the theory fails in is that it gives no credit to motivation and intention. Not every action done out of goodwill is going to result in good consequences, but the attitude with which it is performed should be worthy of some credit. It also relies on a single principle by which we make moral decisions which is too simplistic. It is not possible to solve every dilemma by reference to one ethical theory, as every situation is multifaceted and unique in some way. If you move away from a secular view and look at it from a religious perspective then you could argue that the responsibility for bringing about the best outcome belongs to God and not to men.
There are several problems in the two forms of utilitarianism – act and rule. Act utilitarianism judges each moral action according to the morality of actions by their consequences or results and also the increase of goodness or the welfare of humanity. It asks ‘What will be the results of this action on all those affected by it?’ and ‘Will the results be beneficial to at least the greatest number involved?’ The problem with act utilitarianism is mainly that it has the potential to justify virtually any act (an act that could be ‘morally wrong.’) A second problem is that it is impractical to suggest every time we make a moral choice it should be assessed, especially as we would often not have the information required by the hedonic calculus. Finally, it could have extreme consequences
Brandt, in an article titled ‘towards a credible form of utilitarianism defined rule utilitarianism as,
‘an act is right if and only if it conforms with that learnable set of rules, the adoption
of, which by everyone would maximise intrinsic value’
It allows us to establish rules to guide our conduct which will promote the general happiness of humanity and which will hold good stead in most situations. The key difficulty however, was established by R. M. Hare which he identified as the distinction between generality and universality. He argued that the rules had to be universal so they could apply to any act even if the act’s circumstances are highly specific. General rules lay down broad principles without considering exceptions and special circumstances such as slavery. This is permitted even though it appears to be morally unacceptable, as minority interests are not protected.
Utilitarianism has problems causing it to be seen in an unacceptable light. This is because it allows ‘morally wrong’ actions, fails to consider the full consequences, ignores the minority, does not make allowances for special responsibility or justice and mentions nothing of how to determine ‘happiness.’ The interests of everyone do not appear to be protected and feelings for individuals concerning special responsibility appear to be ignored. Finally there is the idea of the end justifying the means – as long as the end result is good then whatever is done to achieve it does not matter.
