Is what promotes the greatest good for the greatest number necessarily morally right?

The second problem with utilitarianism is the calculus side, for example unequal distribution. According to utilitarianism the way something should be distributed is by who can attain the greatest pleasure from the object. Therefore if you have say ten sweets to distribute between five people, then you would expect that, if they all enjoy sweets, each person should get two sweets each, as that is the fair thing to do. However, if we were utilitarians, we would have to see who gets the most pleasure out of having the sweets, and as people experience different levels of happiness from sweets, we can see that there will be unequal distribution. This poses a moral problem, as most people would agree that it is not a morally correct thing to have inequality. Another problem of the utilitarian calculus is that not everything can be quantified, and therefore not everything can be calculated using Hedons and Dolors. Things such as love and emotion cannot be quantified, but these too can bring us pleasure and happiness, and there is that danger that we might ignore them because they cannot be easily measured.

Many writers have criticized Bentham’s work, and it was John Stuart Mill’s aim to improve on Bentham’s ideas. Mill introduced the distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He claimed that Bentham’s utilitarianism made humans no better than pigs, if all we aimed to do was have sex, eat and sleep. Mill therefore said that it is not just the quantity that matters (e.g. five sweets may be better than one), but also the quality, which he described as pleasures that stimulate the mind. This he called higher pleasures that pigs cannot have and lower pleasures are physical acts such as eating. If we accept Mill’s way of thinking then the greatest good is no longer just physical pleasures, but also pleasures that stimulate the mind.

Mill also attempted to solve the problem of how we are meant to go about making moral decisions, because it may not always be possible to calculate the most utilitarian action in a short space of time. For example if there were two people trapped in a burning building and you could only save one of them, if you were to take time trying to see who should be saved, then they might both die. As a result two types of utilitarians emerged. Mill introduced Rule Utilitarianism, where moral decisions are taken by following the rules humans have developed about what is right and wrong. However Act Utilitarians such as Bentham believed that every action should be calculated to see what promotes the greatest good for the greatest number before the action is carried out.

The problem with Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism is that to be a utilitarian you have to promote the greatest good for the greatest number, and Rule Utilitarianism does not always allow for this. For example if you were speeding to get your pregnant wife to hospital. An Act Utilitarian would have done the calculation and said that this action is right. However a Rule Utilitarian would say that it is not right, because everyone, no matter what the circumstance, should follow the same rule. In this situation not breaking the speed limit would result in bringing less happiness compared to if you broke the speed limit, and therefore you cannot be considered a utilitarian. If on the other hand you are a Rule Utilitarian who believes that sometimes it is fine to break the rules on utilitarianism terms, then you are no longer a Rule Utilitarian and are effectively collapsing back into an Act Utilitarian.

To conclude, something that promotes the greatest good for the greatest number can be morally right however it is not always the case. As shown above there are many problems with utilitarianism and it does not approach such ideas as fairness. Utilitarianism is results based (consequentialist) and does not care about the manner in which the results are achieved. This is a major problem when talking about morality and therefore my opinion is that, what promotes the greatest good for the greatest number is not necessarily morally right.