The advantages of utilitarianism are things like it is good for the government because its aim is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. It is closely associated to basic Christian beliefs and the golden rule. J.S Mill put it like this: ‘it is better to be a man dissatisfied than a pig satisfied and it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’. So he is saying that humans should strive to reach their full potential rather than stooping to a level of non human animals. The utilitarian has a very simple answer to the question of why morality exists at all; the purpose of morality is to guide people’s actions in such a way as to produce a better world. Consequently, the emphasis in utilitarianism is on consequences, not intentions. We often speak of “utilitarian” solutions in a disparaging tone, but in fact utilitarianism is a demanding moral position that often asks us to put aside self-interest for the sake of the whole. Utilitarianism is a morally demanding position for two reasons; it always asks us to do the most, to maximize utility, not to do the minimum and it asks us to set aside personal interest. This could also be seen as a disadvantage in some ways as it is asking for the individual to stretch for the benefit of the many. Which obviously is the whole point of utilitarianism but it comes down to the individual concerned as people will say not me it’s not my responsibility. This unfortunately is the attitude of today’s society.
There are however other strengths to utilitarianism for instance the evaluation of moral choices that are influenced by personal preferences which may be unrelaibale if the is no consideration of consequences. Also Jesus preached an ethic of love, requiring men to work for the wel being of others, “do onto others as you would have them do to you” the motives of the individual may be good or bad, but only consequences have a real effect on human well-being. Arguably we have little interest in peoples intentions, however well meant if the outcome has negative connotations for us. The principal encourages a democratic approach to decision making. The interest of the majority is always considered and dangerous minorities are not allowed to dominate. Another strength of utilitarianism is present circumstances can be judged without reference to precedents. Just because it would be wrong for woman A to have an abortion, it does not necessarily follow that in woman B’s completely different circumstances it would be wrong. Utilitarianism theories hold with the general consensus that human well being is intrinsically good and actions should be judged according to their effect on this well being.
The theory of utilitarianism is strengthened by the work of Bentham and the facts that he believed ethics were quantifiable. He focused on utilitarianism and more importantly how we could measure pleasure and how such pleasure will ultimately lead to happiness. All types of pleasure and pain can be measures on the same scale. What brings them pleasure and pain is for each person to decide by following the guidelines of the felicific calculus. This is a very good thing as it allows each person to decide what cases them pleasure and pain through answering the seven criteria of the calculus. As Bentham’s theory encourages pleasure and happiness it may be deemed as one of universal ethical hedonism. In this sense utilitarianism is strengthened by its egalitarian approach to individual happiness
There is act and there is rule utilitarianism each has certain things to do. Act utilitarianism assesses each individual act on its own and comes to a conclusion whereas rule utilitarianism asses an act by previous situations with no moral law. Both of these use the felicific calculus. But utilitarianism is trying to provide the means to which to asses the moral value of all actions and each single action before it occurs. It doesn’t mention judgment and it doesn’t refer to moral values in a way as such to change someone’s. It suggests that every single situation is completely unique and should be considered so and they should be clinically assessed using the calculus and then a decision should be made in the favor of the pleasure of the majority over the suffering of the minority in mind.
The problem with this is that to know of the consequences of the action, the action would have to have taken place and therefore the consequences couldn’t be known. But in principal the action and its suspected consequences would have been considered and calculated in advance. With no prior knowledge of any previous situation. So this makes the whole theory unrealistic in the way that to use the hedonic calculus it makes everything labored and impractical and inaccurate in calculating the consequences of life. And only experience can tell a person what to do if they are to have any semblance of logical reason to come out of it.
Non-moral goods don’t look like things that can be quantified easily. And, if that is the case, then much of the precision of utilitarianism goes down the drain. In which case, utilitarianism may not be a good theory of moral obligation if its prescriptions may be contaminated by improper or unreliable assessments of the non-moral goods in the consequences
A serious problem for utilitarianism comes in trying to respond to the following question. “Utilitarianism requires that we do that action which produces the most amount of good. But, for whom is the good produced?” For oneself; egoism? For everyone else’s benefit but oneself; altruism? For everyone’s benefit, one’s own benefit being calculated equally among all other recipients; universalism? Different answers to these questions produce radically different obligations. Actions which produce the most amount of good for myself are obviously not always in the other person’s interest. An egoist will sacrifice the welfare of others at the drop of a hat if it is in his best interest.
The hard problem comes in the following form. It could be the case that utilitarianism demands an action which is incompatible with fair play or fairness. In the early 1800’s Britain’s, slave labor produced the most amount of good for the most amount of people. Slavery was an efficient way for Southern farmers to produce goods at a cheap price. These goods brought a lot of pleasure to a great amount of people. No doubt, the slaves suffered terribly. But, the most amount of good was produced and enjoyed by the most amount of people through slavery. But, slavery is just unfair. Slaves are denied autonomy and a consideration of enjoyment of a fair share of the goods produced. Granted slavery produced the most amount of good for the most amount of people, but that consideration of efficiency is not strong enough to override a principle of fairness.
This of course is the problem with utilitarianism, for all the good it seems to portray with it’s moral basis for the greatest good for the greatest number when you see examples like slavery it is clear to see that the amount of suffering administered to the few for the pleasure of the many in most cases is simply not justifiable and so therefore utilitarianism is simply an unacceptable moral theory.
