In ethics, the theory that all actions are to be judged by their consequences for the general welfare; the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the sole criterion of moral choice. The classical exponents of the theory are Bentham, the Mills (James and J S), and Sidgwick, and it flourished particularly in the 19th-c.
Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. Though some utilitarian theories might seek to maximize other consequences, these consequences generally have something to do with the welfare of people (or of people and nonhuman animals). For this reason, utilitarianism is often associated with the term welfarist consequentialism.
History of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism was first formally proposed by the Chinese philosopher Mozi, who lived some time between the years of 479-381 B.C.
But in ancient Greece, several hundred years before the Chinese variety of utility emerged, Pythagorean physician philosophers used the oldest ethical principle, "primum non nocere," or "First, Do No Harm!"
European Utilitarianism was originally proposed by Jeremy Bentham. From the principle of utility, Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only absolutes in the world: "nature has put man under the governance of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain." From this he derived the rule of utility: that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
Jeremy Bentham's foremost proponent was James Mill, a significant philosopher in his day and the father of John Stuart Mill.
In his famous (and short) book, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill argued that cultural, intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure, because the former would be valued more highly by competent judges than the latter. Like Bentham's formulation, Mill's utilitarianism is hedonistic, because it deals with pleasure or happiness.
The classic utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill influenced many other philosophers and the development of the broader concept of consequentialism. As a result, the correct definitions of utilitarianism and consequentialism and the exact difference between these two principles are not always entirely clear, even among philosophers.
Other past advocates of utilitarianism include William Godwin and Henry Sidgwick;
Utilitarianism has been used as an argument for many different political views. In his essay On Liberty and other works, John Stuart Mill argued that utilitarianism requires that political arrangements satisfy the "liberty principle", according to which "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Prevention of self-harm by other persons is expressly forbidden, although Utilitarian happiness means Mill states that self-harm is a good reason for other persons to remonstrate with or to try to persuade a person not to do so.
Ludwig von Mises advocated libertarianism using utilitarian arguments.
Types of utilitarianism
Negative utilitarianism
Most utilitarian theories deal with producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number. Negative utilitarianism (NU) requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of harm for the greatest number. In the practical implementation of this idea the following versions can be distinguished:
1. Some advocates of the utilitarian principle were quick to suggest that the ultimate aim of NU would be to engender the quickest and least painful method of killing the entirety of humanity, as this ultimately would effectively minimize pain.
2.
Supporters of moderate NU who do not believe in the promises of transhumanism would prefer a reduction of the population (and in the extreme case an empty world).
3. Finally there are theoreticians who see NU as a branch within classical utilitarianism, demanding for a higher priority in the fight against suffering. NU is precisely characterized by overcoming this theoretical weakness of classical utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism vs. rule utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions, and from that, choose to do what we believe will generate the most happiness. A rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it was constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation: individual actions or rules?
To illustrate, consider the following thought experiment, which can be compared with the survival lottery scenario and the Trolley problem: A surgeon has five terminal patients: one needs a liver, one needs a pancreas, one needs a heart, and two need kidneys.
An act utilitarian would consider the probable consequences of sacrificing the sixth patient that one time, while a rule utilitarian would look at the consequences of performing such a sacrifice every time such a situation arises. One potential rule would be: "whenever a surgeon could kill one relatively healthy person in order to transplant his organs to more than one other person who needs them, he ought to do so." If instituted in society, this rule would obviously lead to bad consequences. Therefore, a rule utilitarian would say we should implement the opposite rule: "don't harvest healthy people's organs to give them to sick people." For a rule utilitarian, therefore, it would be immoral for the surgeon to kill the sixth man. Of course, it is possible that the act utilitarian would decide not to sacrifice the sixth man, but most would agree that rule utiltarianism would provide stronger reasons not to.
Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. To never kill a human might seem to be a good rule, but this could make defense against aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians would then add that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if this increases happiness, one example being self-defense. Critics would then argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism, and the rules become meaningless. Rule utilitarians respond that the rules in the legal system (i.e.
Rule utilitarianism should not be confused with rules of thumb. Many act utilitarians agree that it makes sense to formulate certain rules of thumb to follow if they find themselves in a situation in which the consequences are difficult, costly, or time-consuming to calculate exactly.
And, of course, utilitarianism instructs us to find the one action that will best improve future experiences, not merely any old act that will have positive net benefit, no matter how slight or dicey. And thus utilitarians, of both the act and rule stripe, should be energetic in seeking and finding better alternatives.
Motive Utilitarianism
This approach is an interesting hybrid between act and rule utilitarianism first developed by Robert Adams ("Motive Utilitarianism," Journal of Philosophy, 1976) which attempts to deal realistically with how human beings function psychologically. Motive utilitarianism proposes that our initial moral task be to inculcate motives within ourselves that will be generally useful across the spectrum of the situations we are likely to encounter. For example, similar to the 80-20 rule in business, we might be able to most improve the future package of experiences if we do a large number of activities in honest partnerships with others, rather than doing a few things sneakily ourselves.
Preference utilitarianism
This is a particular type of utilitarianism which defines the good to be maximized as the fulfillment of persons' preferences. Like any utilitarian theory, preference utilitarianism claims that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences;
Preference utilitarianism is favored by the modern utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, who was influenced by R.M.
Other species
Peter Singer, along with animal rights activists, has argued that the well-being of all sentient beings (conscious beings who feel pain, including animals) deserve equal consideration with that given to human beings. Even those utilitarians arguing otherwise note that suffering in animals often causes humans to suffer, thus making it often immoral to harm an animal even if the animal itself is not given a moral status.
Combinations with other ethical schools
In order to overcome perceived shortcomings of both systems, several attempts have been made to combine utilitarianism with Kant's categorical imperative.
Other consequentialists may consider happiness an important consequence, but in addition argue that consequences such as justice or equality should also be valued, regardless if they increase happiness or not.
Biological explanation for utilitarianism
It has been suggested that sociobiology, the study of the evolution of human society, provides support for the utilitarian point of view. For example, in The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer argues that fundamentally utilitarian ethical reasoning has existed from the time primitive foraging bands had to cooperate, compromise, and make group decisions to survive. Singer believes that reason now compels the equal consideration of all people's interests:
| "If I have seen that from an ethical point of view I am just one person among the many in my society, and my interests are no more important, from the point of view of the whole, than the similar interests of others within my society, I am ready to see that, from a still larger point of view, my society is just one among other societies, and the interests of members of my society are no more important, from that larger perspective, than the similar interests of members of other societies… Taking the impartial element in ethical reasoning to its logical conclusion means, first, accepting that we ought to have equal concern for all human beings." |
This conclusion -- that everybody's interests should be considered equally when making decisions -- is a core tenet of utilitarianism.
Singer elaborates that viewing oneself as equal to others in one's society and at the same time viewing one's society as fundamentally superior to other societies may cause an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. Singer has responded that his argument in Expanding the Circle wasn't intended to provide a complete philosophical justification for a utilitarian categorical imperative, but merely to provide a plausible explanation for how some people come to accept utilitarianism.
Criticism and defense of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism and "common sense" morality
Utilitarianism has been criticized for leading to a number of conclusions contrary to "common sense" morality. Utilitarians, however, argue that "common sense" has been used to justify many positions on both sides of controversial issues and varies greatly from individual to individual, making it an unsuitable basis for a "common" morality.
Comparing happiness
Another difficulty with utilitarianism is that of comparing happiness among different people. Defenders of utilitarianism reply that this problem is faced by anyone who has to choose between two alternative states of affairs where both impose burdens to the people involved. Triage is an example of a real world situation where utilitarianism seems to be applied successfully.
That the pleasure of a sadist should have the same importance as the pleasure of an altruist has also been criticized.
Predicting consequences
Daniel Dennett uses the example of Three Mile Island as another example of the difficulty in calculating happiness. His conclusion is that it is still too early (20 years after the event) for utilitarianism to weigh all the evidence and reach a definite conclusion. Utilitarians note that utilitarianism seems to be the unspoken principle used by both advocates and critics of nuclear power.
Utilitarians, however, are not required to have perfect knowledge; If the consequences of a decision are particularly unclear, it might make sense to follow an ethical rule which has promoted the most utility in the past.
The importance of intentions
Utilitarianism has been criticized for only looking at the results of actions, not at the desires or intentions which motivate them, which many people also consider important. However, many utilitarians would argue that utilitarianism applies not only to results, but also to desires and dispositions, praise and blame, rules, institutions, and punishment. Once this is recognized, supporters argue that utilitarianism becomes a much more complex, and rich, moral theory, and may align much more closely with our moral intuitions.
Furthermore, many utilitarians view morality as a personal guide rather as a means to judge the actions of other people or actions which have already been performed.
One philosopher to take this view was Henry Sidgwick in his main work The Methods of Ethics, 1874.
Human rights
Some critics reject utilitarianism, both rule and act, on the basis that it seems to be incompatible with human rights. For example, if slavery or torture is beneficial for the population as a whole, it could theoretically be justified by utilitarianism. A man might achieve such pure ecstasy from killing 100 people so that his positive utility outweighs the negative utility of the 100 people he murdered.
Utilitarians may argue that justification of either slavery, torture or mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to the victims (although some may support one of these practices as being justifiable by the consequences achieved). Utilitarianism would also require the indirect impact of social acceptance of inhumane policies to be taken into consideration;
Act and rule utilitarianisms differ in how they treat human rights themselves. Under rule utilitarianism, a human right can easily be considered a moral rule. Act utilitarians, on the other hand, do not accept human rights as moral principles in and of themselves, but that does not mean they are rejected altogether. First, most act utilitarians, as explained above, would agree that acts such as enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and little happiness. Second, human rights could be considered rules of thumb; Finally, act utilitarians often support human rights in a legal sense, because utilitarians support laws that cause more good than harm.
Sacrifice of an important individual interest for a greater sum of lesser interests
Since utilitarians judge all actions by their ability to maximize good consequences, any harm to one individual can always be justified by a greater gain to other individuals. As explained above, utilitarians may support legal rights or rights as rules of thumb, but they are not considered inherent to morality. This seems problematic to many critics of utilitarianism, one of whom notes that according to utilitarianism there is "nothing intrinsically wrong with sacrificing an important individual interest to a greater sum of lesser interests.
Although the above criticism may not be, two other related criticisms of utilitarianism are based on misconceptions. as noted above, Bentham dropped the misleading "greatest number" part of the principle, replacing the original formulation with the more direct "greatest happiness principle."
Second, some criticize utilitarianism for implying that individuals' interests can be sacrificed for the sake of the "society" or the nation. Modern utilitarianism however proposes that one individual's interests can only be sacrificed for the sake of the interests of other individuals.
Right and wrong dichotomy
A further criticism is in regard to Utilitarianism's judgement of right and wrong. Utilitarianism holds that in any given situation the 'right' act is that which produced the greatest good, while all other acts are wrong. For example, if someone donated $1,000 to a charity that provided starving children with food when that person could have donated the money to a charity that does the same thing but is more efficient, and in doing so created even more good, that action would be judged as wrong by Utilitarianism.
In response to criticism of this nature the contemporary philosopher and utilitarian William Shaw claimed that, although Utilitarianism would clearly dictate the above conclusion, a good utilitarian would still praise the wrongdoer for their charitable donation even though it is wrong.
Furthermore, the decision to donate to charity was still morally good, even if the decision to ignore efficiency was immoral.
Proof
Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it is not proven by science or logic to be the correct ethical system. It might instead be argued that almost all political arguments about a future society use an unspoken utilitarian principle, all sides claiming that their proposed solution is the one that increases human happiness most. Some degree of utilitarianism might very well be genetically hard-coded into humans.
Why be moral?
Critics have also asked why one should follow utilitarianism instead of egoism. The means proposed may incidentally coincide with those prescribed by utilitarianism, though the foundational ethical imperative would not, of course, be utilitarian.
Another reason for an egoist to become a utilitarian was proposed by Peter Singer in Practical Ethics.
Karl Marx's argument concerning the importance of human nature
Karl Marx, in Capital, writes:
Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch.Marx's accusation is twofold.
Marx's criticism is more a criticism of Bentham's views (or similar views) of utility, than utilitarianism itself.
Marx's criticism applies to all analytical philosophy, all philosophy which does not take explicit account of the movement of history (against dialectics).
Also, utilitarianism was originally developed as a (moderate) challenge to the status quo.
Utilitarian criticism of other schools
One criticism is that many other schools cannot even in theory solve real world complex ethical problems when various inviolable principles collide, like triage or if the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the right decision.
A criticism of Kantianism is leveled by R. He argues that a number of different ethical positions could fit with Kant's description of his Categorical Imperative, and although Kant did not agree with this assessment, utilitarianism could be among them.
User Comments Add a comment…