Utilitarianism
Introduction
In a situation where we are faced with moral choice we ask “What should I do?” or “What is the right thing to do?” Thus we may be faced with certain conflicts about keeping promises, telling the truth, and so on. However, in a more philosophical mood we may ask “Are there any fundamental principles which determine right and wrong?” In other words, we may wonder whether there are any principles which form the ultimate court of appeal in morality. To give an idea what is meant here consider some answers which might be given: An action is right if it conforms to the Ten Commandments (and wrong if it doesn't). An action is right if it conforms to the teachings of the Koran. An action is right if it respects people's basic rights. In this context consider the doctrine of utilitarianism.Utilitarianism
The utilitarian answers the question about fundamental principles in the following way: An action is right to the extent that it maximises utility. The term “utility” is usually defined simply as happiness, but also includes the satisfaction of desires, fulfilling of preferences and experiencing of pleasure. The basic principle for utilitarians has been called the “Greatest Happiness Principle”. So for utilitarians maximising utility is all that ultimately matters in ethics.Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. This means that actions are to be judged right or wrong depending only on their consequences. For example, according to this view, to say that you ought to keep your promises (ie keeping promises is right) is to say that the practice of keeping promises has consequences which are morally valuable. And for the utilitarian in particular this value will consist in maximising utility. An example of a moral view which is not consequentialist is the one concerning the Ten Commandments. According to this view, an action such as stealing is wrong no matter what the consequences. It is “intrinsically” wrong by virtue of the fact that it violates one of the commandments.
Some advantages of utilitarianism
Bernard Williams has identified four major attractions of utilitarianism.- It is non-transcendental. This means that its central notion of utility is not something beyond or outside human life. Thus it provides a non religious and hence a non mysterious basis for ethics.
- Utility is easy to understand and something we clearly do value.
- Moral issues can, in principle at least, be settled to a great degree by examining the relevant consequences. For example, if I say that euthanasia is morally OK and you disagree, then by examining the consequences of our positions it may be possible to decide between them. In any case utilitarian ethics gives us some idea as to how to go about it.
- The notion of utility provides a common currency for moral thought. Thus different and conflicting moral views can be discussed, examined and compared in terms of utility.
Some problems for utilitarianism
- Utilitarians talk about maximising utility. For whom? People directly affected by my actions? The people of Sydney? All Australians? The world's population? Future generations? All sentient beings including animals?
- Does “Maximising utility” mean “the greatest total utility” or “the greatest average utility”? There are difficulties for both. Imagine the following three situations.
- 10 people each with 10 units of utility yielding a total of 100 units in all.
- 100000 people each with 0.002 units of utility yielding a total of 200 units in all.
- 10 people 9 of whom have 0.01 units of utility and one with 200 units.
Consider the total utility view and compare (A) with (B). The total view tells us that (B) is preferable to (A). However this seems implausible. A situation like (A) where there are 10 reasonably happy people seems better than a situation such as (B) where there are 100000 very unhappy people. (Assume here that a score of 10 is reasonable happiness, and that anything much less than 1 is considerable unhappiness). The problem is that as the numbers of people are increased the total utility increases, but individual utility may well decrease. Consider the average utility view and compare (A) with (C). The average utility in (A) is 10 but in (C) it's about 20, so that according to the average utility view (C) is preferable to (A). However, again, this seems implausible. The average utility view suffers from the difficulty which besets averaging generally - extremes distort averages.
- Does utilitarian ethics demand too much? To live by utilitarian ethics would seem to require us to spend a lot of our time striving to increase the general happiness of the population. However, isn't this to set an impossibly high standard in ethics, one which would be far too hard to live up to?
- Utilitarianism seems to have unacceptable consequences. For example, we think that it is wrong to punish innocent people. Now imagine the following. Sikh extremists in India blow up a crowded bus killing a lot of people. Suppose that in order to prevent violent mobs going on the rampage seeking revenge a number of Sikhs known to be innocent are arbitrarily arrested. The are summarily tried and imprisoned. If this has the desired consequence then punishing the innocent in this situation has maximised utility and is therefore, according to utilitarianism, the right course of action. Similar examples could be constructed for lying, cheating, torturing, killing or whatever. It seems that utilitarianism can justify anything.
Utilitarians reply to this objection by distinguishing between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Thus in a particular case, punishing the innocent may maximise utility. However, in general to punish the innocent will tend to decrease utility. For it will become known that innocent people may sometimes be punished, and as a result there will be a widespread loss of faith in the legal system which will then collapse. In other words, there are good utilitarian reasons for the rule “Never punish the innocent” even if sometimes particular acts contrary to this rule will maximise utility. Thus utilitarianism justifies general rules rather than particular acts.
- The problem of replaceability: Tom is leading a fairly happy life - 10 units of happiness,say. What would be wrong with secretly, suddenly and painlessly killing Tom and (somehow) using his cells to replace him with Jerry who leads a life of 20 units of happiness? Utility has been increased, so the utilitarian should see nothing wrong with this.
Some questions
- Do you think that utilitarians can reply to the five objections?
- Is the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism a sound one?
- Is happiness or utility the only thing worth valuing? The most important value?