What is utilitarianism? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the theory?
What is utilitarianism? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the theory?
Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that the moral decision is the one which will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. It is also sometimes known as the theory of usefulness. Usefulness refers to the amount of pleasure or happiness caused by an action.
Today there are three main types of utilitarianism: act, rule, and preference. Act utilitarians maintain that the good action is the one that leads to the greatest good in a particular situation. Act utilitarianism is flexible and is able to take into account individual situations at a given moment. Act utilitarians believe that when determining whether the act is right, it is the value of the consequences of the particular act that count. If a law needs to broken to ensure that the greater happiness will result, then it is permissible to do so. The problem with act utilitarianism is that it has the potential to justify virtually any act.
Rule utilitarians establish the vest overall rule by determining the course of action, which, when pursued by the whole community, leads to the greatest result. Some rules are necessary for us to follow in the quest to maximise happiness. However, this poses the problem of what should the rule utilitarianism do when the rule will produce a great amount of unhappiness, such as sometimes telling the truth isn't the right thing to do as it will cause great unhappiness to others.
Finally, preference utilitarianism takes into account the preferences of the individual. It aims for the satisfaction of people's preferences rather than aiming to achieve the greatest balance of pleasure and pain. This is easier to manage than classical utilitarianism since it is easier to calculate. Pleasure is notoriously difficult to measure, while people can always express their preferences, including those which may not cause them pleasure but are still important to them.
It was devised by Jeremy Bentham and put forward in his book The Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). He believed in hedonism or that all human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain. He believed that pain and pleasure identified what we should and shouldn't do. Pleasure is the sole good and pain is the sole evil, hence Bentham's theory of utilitarianism is referred to as hedonic utilitarianism.
To weigh up whether an action is morally right or morally wrong, Bentham formulated the hedonic calculus. The hedonic calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure of an action using seven principles: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. An action is deemed moral or immoral based on whether it causes more pleasure than pain and to what extent. It is a quantitative approach to ethics as it attempts to measure the effect that it will have on the community as a whole. This view can be summed up in the utility principle. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
To weigh up whether an action is morally right or morally wrong, Bentham formulated the hedonic calculus. The hedonic calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure of an action using seven principles: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. An action is deemed moral or immoral based on whether it causes more pleasure than pain and to what extent. It is a quantitative approach to ethics as it attempts to measure the effect that it will have on the community as a whole. This view can be summed up in the utility principle. This principle states that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its "utility" or usefulness.
Bentham's hedonic calculus presents us with all sorts of problems when we examine what it attempts to do. An action cannot be purely measure based on pain and pleasure because some pains are good for you and some pleasures are bad. For example, visiting the dentist when you have a cavity can be painful but it results in good in the long term. Also, smoking is a pleasure for some people, however in the future long-term smoking can result in heart disease or even death. Therefore, how is the hedonic calculus to determine whether the action is moral or immoral if at times the effects of pain and pleasure seem to reverse themselves?
Perhaps the biggest problem with Bentham's theory is that it neglects the views and concerns of the minority. Hence it can be used to justify any action as long as it is producing the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. An example of this could be the justification of genocide. While it is obvious that is very immoral behaviour to murder a group of ethnic minorities, it could be justified using Bentham's theory of utilitarianism solely of the basis that it is producing the happiness of the majority of the population at the expense of the lives of a minority group.
The theory seems to conflict with the idea of human rights. Utilitarianism can be used to provide grounds for denying basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom from torture, or even life itself. However, we know that these basic rights provide a basis in our morality for the way we act towards each other, therefore to go against them would surely be immoral?
This was further developed by John Rawls. He argued that utilitarianism is too impersonal. In its pursuit of the greater good, utilitarianism disregards the rights of the individual. Utilitarianism could be used to promote a dictatorship, in which personal decisions were made to over-ride the interests on the individual in favour of the greater good of society. He believes that utilitarianism is therefore flawed.
John Stuart Mill tried to solve this problem of the neglect of the well-being of the individual with his theory of utilitarianism. He argued that the well-being of the individual is of greatest importance, and the happiness is most effectively gained when individuals are free to pursue their own ends, however these are subject to rules that protect the common good of all. He believed that this problem could be solved by focusing on qualitative pleasures, rather than quantitative ones as in Bentham's theory. Furthermore, there were higher and lower pleasures, of which higher pleasures were better than lower ones. Mill states that "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." He believed that pleasures of the mind were higher than those of the body; however there was a link between the two. One needed to pursue lower pleasures in order to achieve higher pleasures, for example one needs to eat and drink in order to enjoy poetry. However, one should aim to pursue mainly intellectual pleasures. When given a choice between a pleasure of the body and a pleasure of the mind, one should aim for the pleasure of the mind.
Mill also believed that some ideals, such as justice, truth, and love, were good whether or not people desired them or were made happy by them. Therefore, some pain must be endured to ensure that these ideals still prevail.
However, how can you say something is a higher pleasure or something is a lower pleasure? It is only his opinion that says that pleasures of the mind are higher than pleasures of the body, however how is there to say that enjoying a four course gourmet meal is not the same as enjoying a book of poetry? Furthermore, is the pleasure good simply because it is desirable or because it is actually good?
This was further developed by G. E. Moore in his book Principia Ethica (1903). In his theory of naturalistic fallacy he claims that Mill's idea is based on something being desirable. He believes that Mill defines desirable as "what it is good to desire." These desires could be bad as well as good. He also said that Mill produces an "ought" from a statement of fact. Just because it is doesn't mean it ought to be that way.
There is huge problem with all forms of utlitarianism. They rely on the ability to predict the future. The fact that we aren't able to predict the future creates an element of uncertainty as to whether the consequences of an action will result in pleasure or pain. A utilitarian can guess in all probablility that an action will result in pleasure, but circumstances may be created in the future that will cause pain. For example, one might make the decision to have a baby - which will obviously cause pleasure for the parents - however the woman may have a miscarriage which will cause large amounts of pain. Therefore, a utilitarian can never be sure that the action really is the right one to choose.
However, utilitarianism also has much strength. It can provide organisations with a clear-cut system for making decisions in the strain of democracy. They can help decide if the decision is the best way to go if it provides happiness for the majority of people.
This too is a benefit of utilitarianism. It is an ethical theory that seeks to bring happiness to the majority. It offers a balanced, democratic morality that promotes general happiness of the community and not just the selfish needs of the individual.
Furthermore, it is sensible to link morality with happiness. Moral decisions result in the happiness of the person, whether it is immediately or in the future, however it is the happiness of all people, which no ethical theory can promise to produce.
Finally, no special wisdom is needed to apply the hedonic calculus. It is an ethical theory that is accessible to everyone and doesn't require you to be highly educated to understand it. Perhaps this could be why it is highly attractive to many people.
In conclusion, utilitarianism aims to produce happiness. It is an unselfish ethical theory as it takes into consideration the community rather than the individual; however I believe its greatest strength is also its greatest fault. By taking into consideration the greater community rather than the individual it is eliminating the concerns of the minority and it is here where immoral behaviour can creep in. The hedonic calculus can be used to justify any action; no matter how horrendous it is, as long as it produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Therefore, I do not believe utilitarianism to be an ethical theory that should be adopted by the masses, rather solely be organisations as it is the simplest means to make a decision where the majority can agree on.
Jae-Tremae Smith-Young
Religious Studies: Ethics
Ms. Molyneux
