Utilitarianism and Objections to Utilitarianism, Essay Example

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that generally evaluates a given action by comparing it to a notion of a greater good, which determines if the action is moral or not. Thus, an ethical positivity is to be attributed to an act if it satisfies the standard established by the greater good, such as greater societal happiness. While there are many versions of utilitarianism – such as rule utilitarianism or act utilitarianism – the common feature is the possibility of making interpretations of events, actions, and rules through the appeal to a greater good. In consequence, utilitarianism suggests that the greater good is in fact knowable, and that it is possible to employ it to measure the entire ethical scope of human activity. 

By framing utilitarianism in this manner, some clear counter-arguments to the position become apparent. Primarily, how is it possible for the utilitarianist to know what the greatest good is? This is a crucial point, as the notion of “good” grounds the entire theory. For example, in utilitarianism one of the commonly defined definitions of the greater good is a common happiness. Nevertheless, how does the utilitarianist determine a definition of common happiness? How may the utilitarianist determine with any certainty that such a thing as a common happiness exists? Without an objective knowledge of the greatest good that serves as the measure of the moral worth of any given action, it would seem that the claims of utilitarianism are untenable. 

Rule-based utilitarianism would suggest that the above argument against utilitarianism is insufficient, insofar as the existence of various rules already infers some notion of a common good. Hence, rule-based utilitarianism emphasizes that rules and their correctness shall determine the ethical status of an act. The rule-based utilitarianist would therefore state that the ambiguity of the greater good suggested in the argument is essentially the denial that any possible good rules may be formulated. In other words, the above counter-argument could be understood as an example of moral relativism, as it claims that it is impossible to know what a greater good is. In contrast, rule utilitarianism rather focuses on very particular rules that can produce positive ethical effects in society through adhering to them. Moreover, there is a hidden principle of utility present in the counter-argument: by questioning the possibility to know the greater good, this infers that there is a fear of the possibility of bad rules. The rule utilitarianist shall argue that this fear of the possibility of bad rules evokes a greater good and therefore corresponds to a greater utility. 

The objection of rule utilitarianism, however, does not directly address the problematic of what constitutes the greater good. The standard for determining the correct rule in terms of it referring to a greater good fails to clarify what the greater good is. Nor may rule utilitarianism assume that the fear of bad rules is motivated by some greater good; rather, it can be motivated by the fact that a rule is bad according to its own internal parameters and consequences, such as a case in which some rules lead to human suffering. This is no less true for other forms of utilitarianism such as act utilitarianism: the determination of the ethical positivity of an act or rule always refers back to some ethical principle. In essence, at the center of all utilitarianism is a basic presupposition about what exactly the greater good means. This presupposition is the central impasse to utilitarianism. If utilitarianism, in any of its forms, cannot produce a rigorous account of what the greater good signifies, its ethical pretensions to be able to evaluate rules and acts falters on this ambiguity that is at the heart of its theory.