Source: Michael W. Austin
The consequences of our actions are important. They matter. But if the utilitarian is right, then consequences are all that matters. Is this correct?
The main principle of utilitarian moral theory, the principle of utility, states that the right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness. John Stuart Mill adapted Jeremy Bentham's theory, and stated that happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. However, Mill clarified that there are higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are the pleasures of the intellect, and the lower pleasures are the pleasures of the senses. The upshot is that morally speaking, it is not just the quantity of pleasure that matters to the utilitarian, but the quality as well.
On the positive side, if we applied this theory to our lives we might become more unselfish, and many of the problems we face might be alleviated. This is because everyone's happiness counts the same. Prejudice and discrimination have no place here, because each individual counts the same when calculating the happiness produced by our actions. Mill himself fought for women's rights, against slavery, and for fair labor practices, which is consistent with his utilitarian convictions.
However, there are some weaknesses in this theory. Utilitarianism's primary weakness has to do with justice. A standard objection to utilitarianism is that it could require us to violate the standards of justice. For example, imagine that you are a judge in a small town. Someone has committed a crime, and there has been some social unrest resulting in injuries, violent conflict, and some rioting. As the judge, you know that if you sentence an innocent man to death, the town will be calmed and peace restored. If you set him free, even more unrest will erupt, with more harm coming to the town and its people. Utilitarianism seems to require punishing the innocent in certain circ*mstances, such as these.
It is wrong to punish an innocent person, because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is increased enough, it can justify making one (or a few) miserable in service of the rest. Utilitarianism requires that one commit unjust actions in certain situations, and because of this it is fundamentally flawed. Some things ought never to be done, regardless of the positive consequences that may ensue.
Utilitarian moral reasoning is prevalent in our political and moral dialogue. Consequences have a place, and must be considered, but we must also think about other moral principles, the relevant virtues, human rights, and what our choices and judgments say about us. Consequences matter, but they are not all that matter. Morality is about more than the consequences of our actions.
I'm on Twitter.
FAQs
Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine instances where a certain course of action would produce great benefits for society, but they would be clearly unjust.
What are the main arguments against utilitarianism? ›
As discussed earlier, critics of act utilitarianism raise three strong objections against it. According to these critics, act utilitarianism a) approves of actions that are clearly wrong; b) undermines trust among people, and c) is too demanding because it requires people to make excessive levels of sacrifice.
Why is the utilitarian approach bad? ›
This principle is quite controversial since it involves that the moral quality of an action is decided by the size of its consequences. So long as an action produces maximum benefits for the greatest number of people, utilitarianism does not care whether the results are driven by immoral motives.
What are the weaknesses of utilitarianism? ›
Conclusion: Utilitarianism does have some flaws. The biggest is probably its inability to adequately account for human nature. But might be a useful theory to apply on a macro level rather than a micro level (ie for society to consider rather than an individual).
What is the problem with total utilitarianism? ›
The main problem for total utilitarianism is the "mere addition paradox", which argues that a likely outcome of following total utilitarianism is a future where there is a large number of people with very low utility values. Parfit terms this "the repugnant conclusion", believing it to be intuitively undesirable.
What is a problem with utilitarianism? ›
Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine instances where a certain course of action would produce great benefits for society, but they would be clearly unjust.
What is a major criticism of utilitarianism as an ethical theory? ›
A major criticism of utilitarianism as an ethical theory is that: it is rigid. in some important instances it ignores justice. it results in the judgment that a person's actions are always moral for that person and therefore exempt from punishment.
Why do people reject utilitarianism? ›
Critics often allege that utilitarianism objectionably instrumentalizes people—treating us as mere means to the greater good, rather than properly valuing individuals as ends in themselves. In this article, we assess whether this is a fair objection.
What are pros and cons of utilitarianism? ›
While the theory of Utilitarianism might help us more easily reach moral conclusions than what other theories do, and while it emphasizes the neutrality of moral agents, it does nonetheless have a tendency to alienate us from those we are closest to, and might require us to perform actions that, under other moral ...
What is the negative utilitarianism theory? ›
The term "negative utilitarianism" is used by some authors to denote the theory that reducing negative well-being is the only thing that ultimately matters morally.
One: that it opposes happiness to usefulness. Two: that it is only concerned with the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people - unfortunately this mistake has even been made by some who call themselves utilitarians.
What is the main drawback to utilitarian reasoning? ›
The main drawback to utilitarian reasoning is that: It is difficulty to accurately measure both costs and benefits.
What is one problem for rule utilitarianism? ›
Among early proponents were John Austin (The Province of Jurisprudence 1832) and John Stuart Mill (Utilitarianism 1861). One problem with rule-utilitarianism is this: it invites us to consider the consequences of the general following of a particular rule.
Why is utilitarianism unrealistic? ›
Many critics argue that utilitarianism is too demanding, because it requires us to always bring about the best outcome. The theory leaves no room for actions that are permissible yet do not bring about the best consequences.
What is the paradox of utilitarianism? ›
And for such a position it should be evident that if one goes to the extreme of extreme utilitarianism there is a problem. One who on such a position tries to judge while taking account of all the relevant factors finds coherent judgment impossible, and this is the paradox of extreme utilitarianism.
What is one of the main criticisms of utilitarianism? ›
Critics often allege that utilitarianism objectionably instrumentalizes people—treating us as mere means to the greater good, rather than properly valuing individuals as ends in themselves.
What is the main argument of utilitarianism? ›
Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war.
What is the argument for negative utilitarianism? ›
The main argument given for negative utilitarianism is the intuition that extreme suffering is very bad.
