Classical Utilitarianism From Hume to Mill, Article Review Example

Introduction

For many centuries there have arguments for and against what is considered to be the most optimum position in gauging human behavior in a way that will be considered palatable and acceptable in the general sense. It is this debate that has engaged the thoughts and moralists for this long; a debate which seems to extend into several years to come. The position taking by any individual or group of people as to which side to be identified or align with depends on the level of appeal that the far reaching debates are to the conscious of the individual in question. It is against this background that this essay is concerned with discussing all the contending issues in the so-called utilitarian debate. But most importantly besides highlighting all the contending issues, this issue will be narrowed to the question of “act” and “rule” in discussing this question. It will endeavor to take a firm position in support of act-utilitarianism based on a conviction that its merit outweighs the rule component by a very wide degree. On this account the essay will begin by discussing the subject in its general terms, as a way of orienting the reader before delving into the complexities of the diverging opinions surrounding the subject matter. From this point the essay will clearly articulate the act views in a manner that will be both convincing and clearly making fetish the rule utilitarianism school of thought.

Talking about “utilitarianism” in its absolute sense, then attention is being brought to a philosophical understanding of the connection between an individual’s actions and the possible expected worth that it will generate within the moral framework of activities. Mind you, the question of morality remains yet another highly subjective theme, that cannot be exhaustively discussed in this piece, primarily because it is beyond the scope of this paper to do so. Back to the main theme of utilitarianism, it should be noted right from the outset that the main denominator in this theme has to do with utility. Within this context, then it sparks two main indicators that have profound bearings on utility as a moral concept; mention is made of the product of human actions, within the milieu of pleasure and the contrast of pain.

Academicians are united in the attribution of the concept of utilitarian philosophy emerging from the legendary Greek civilization. Prominent among the initiators of utilitarian philosophy is the ace Epicurus (Rosen, 2003). However, within contemporary scholarly terrain, Jeremy Bentham, another scholar of great aptitude is widely credited for being the brain behind the culmination of utilitarianism as an academic school of thought. For instance, his major claim to this position is hinged on a statement he is quoted as saying, “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” Jeremy Bentham and others who owe allegiance to his school of thought are under the collective summary conclusion that in the most absolute sense utility is gauged by the potential positive gains an action brings on the majority of people in the society. It may however be too early in this script to agree or disagree with this assertion whilst a good number of other related issues remain unmentioned. Of course as the discourse advances, the position of the writer will be illuminated.

Come to think of the fact that, the question of human relations to the general concept of utility has been stretched beyond the confines of conventional academic landscape into real and practical facets of society over the years. Of particular mention is the area of politics, economic medicine but to mention a few. It is understood, renowned scholars such as Karl Marx and other communist political gurus did carry wholesale elements of utility philosophy into the process of justifying their respective persuasions.

Act and Rule Utilitarianism Discussed

To begin with, suffice to take an introductory look into what distinguishes both concepts as they apply to academia. In the fist instance, an individual according to act utilitarianism when confronted with a decision to make regarding what has to be done in any given situation, the most paramount factor in influencing the decision has to do with an assessment of the most likely consequences that will arise as a result of that action. This means the action is gauged using the pleasure that will be derived from the action as the standard measuring rod. In contrast to this position, the rule utilitarian is when confronted with a similar choice to make based on a decision to make regarding a situation, unlike the act utilitarian who gives premium to the possible pleasure that will be derived from engaging in the intended act, the adherent of rule utilitarianism on the other begins by assessing the prevailing level of permissibility or otherwise of the intended act, based on the socially defined boundaries regulating such actions.

Having said this, the rule utilitarian is more interested in the implications of following the rule governing his or her intended act within the context of rationalizing what would become of the rule in the event of a vicious cycle of adhering or flouting the rule in question through the intended act. Stated differently, an adherent of rule utilitarianism is more inclined to follow a stated rule if he or she has reasons to believe that doing so will generate happiness at the end of the day, but most importantly it is not in conflict with basic morality. Whilst both sides lay claim to well intended motives, the underlining differences are poles apart, just like guns and roses. What then is the difference between both competing forces? Candidly speaking, of all the pointed differences, the most poignant one has to do with what accompanies the estimation of consequential conclusions in all the given situations that a decision has to be made.

With the foundation set, it is about the right time to set in my strong points against why I am convinced rule utilitarianism is wrought so many inconsistencies and conflicts that makes it clearly deficient in explaining and prescribing behavioral appropriateness for people.  First of all, the blanket allegiance to rules as the primary determinant of human actions is very lame, judging by the fact that rules and laws if you like are and can never be absolute in the interpretation and application under most circumstances. To make matters worse, there are even laws that can be said to be clearly bad laws, without the need for a second thought. In such situations should a person be reduced to a slavish follower of such a law. My biggest worry in the application of rule engagements in human judgments is the absurd excuse of exceptions on grounds that there is abundant proof that the violation of one rule in favor of another one is justified on condition that maximum pleasure will be derived. A case point often cited by advocates of rule utilitarianism has to do with the question of murder.

One does not have to be thought to know that taking the life of another human through accident or design is highly unacceptable. The rule therefore is that murder is wrong: point well made. On the next breadth, we are made to understand that in some cases, murder is justified in the case of self-defense. Meaning, killing each other in combat situations in an open warfare is not considered an act of criminality by any body engaged in it. Why should soldiers be court-martialed when as it were violate the rules of engagement? Take an illustration of a US marine who was charged and convicted for the murder of an Iraq man, who as it were was either a civilian or an insurgent force fighting US soldiers. The story has it that, he was suspected of being part of a group of insurgent group that set up a roadside bomb that killed US soldiers earlier in the day. During interrogation, this suspect refuses to cooperate, even though the US marine was convinced that this suspect was clearly an enemy combatant who will not kowtow to any of the demands he made. In his military warfare judgment, this suspect had no right to life if he could be callous enough to deny his comrades their life. He therefore went ahead to execute him.

Hiding under the cloak of legal jurisprudence that has some rule utility undertones, this officer alleged to be the murderer of the Iraqi man, was court-martialed to answer charges of murder—a murder that is in the justice of self-defense. Taking the case from this point leaves a lot of loopholes in this philosophy. In the same vein, what then becomes the case for human rights advocates who have traditionally being opposed to the death penalty as it is in the penal system of most modern states? The baseline is that taking away life should be either accepted or not. Cutting corners to make isolated justifications is in many ways untenable.

Granted rule utilitarianism is giving the benefit of the doubt on the above questions, there are other subtle points often cited in explaining these awkward positions. Let me mention them here, perhaps it might help the case for rule utility. It is contended that a humble differentiation has to be made in discussing the varying severities on the one hand and the absolutes on the other hand. What does that mean for the advocates of the rule utility concept? It is known that amongst the advocates, are those who are extremely on the right wing, whose position always remains unaltered no matter what happens. In contrast are the moderates who somewhat think under some isolated circumstances, exceptions are not just unavoidable but an equally necessary component of interpreting actions. The former group under the stewardship of philosopher John Stuart Mill is more inclined to tow along the line of precedents as opposed to summary conclusions.  

By and large the case for rule utility is weakened by the provisions for numerous sporadic and undefined exceptions in human judgment with regards to decision making especially when it comes to its impact on the social good.

By this anomalous trend of numerous exceptions that has saddled rule utilitarianism it becomes hard to make a clear distinction of where it begins and where it ends. Stated differently, the trend is indicative of subtle inclination of intrusion into act utilitarianism. Remember in the opening part of this essay, it was made clear that act utilitarianism is clear and explicit on the relevance of the public good in decision making. Positive inclinations right from the outset. It avoids needless overtures in the process of explaining the role of human conduct with regards to creating societal benefits (Smart, 1955).  It therefore lays maximum credence to J.J. Smart’s continuous distrust for rule utility as a credible approach to providing answers to begging questions.

For several decades, the arguments put forward by Smart have remained very formidable amidst mounting academic hostility. It is even strengthened by the inability of rule utility believers to make a concise case in support or dispute of what Smart alluded to many years ago that in the most ideal sense, any rule utility based action will progressively submerge into act utility.

Conclusion

In summing up, I remain convinced that my articulations have being sufficient enough to prove that giving ideal circumstances, the moral questions of our day and age are best answered by an act based approach to understanding social utility. What this essay has however not done however is a blatant denial of the need for utility as a philosophical concept. Its relevance continues to resonate into contemporary realities.

Reference

Rosen, Frederick (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, p. 28. ISBN 0415220947

Mill, John Stuart (1974). ‘On Liberty’, ed. Himmelfarb. Penguin Classics, 1974, Ed.’s introduction, p.11.

Smart, Jack. “River of Time”. in Anthony Kenny. Essays in Conceptual Analysis. pp. 214–215.

J.J.C. Smart, “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism”, Australasian Association of Psychology and Philosophy (Victorian Branch), October 1955.