Utilitarianism, Term Paper Example

Introduction to Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is often associated with British philosophers starting in the 17^th century, including David Hume. But the philosopher probably most associated with utilitarianism is John Stuart Mills, from the early 19^th century.  His utilitarianism was based on the principle that the moral decision is what generates the most good for the most people while doing the minimum harm.  He defined a Greatest Happiness Principle which “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, 2004, p. 9).

The essence of utilitarianism was summed up by Mr. Spock in the second Star Trek movie: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.”  Utilitarianism is a philosophy in which moral decisions try to maximize the greatest good to the most people, while minimizing any negative consequences.  Another example of utilitarian decisions are the ones doctors must make when performing triage:  They identify the maximum number of patients that can be helped and/or saved, and sacrifice the least number of patients who cannot be helped.

Utilitarianism is strongly associated with British philosophers, and often strongly criticized by German ones. This paper considers both the common criticisms of utilitarianism and the rebuttals to those criticisms in an attempt to formulate an overall assessment of utilitarianism.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism has been subject to a variety of criticisms.  The criticisms considered in this paper (more fully developed in the remainder of this section) include: that utilitarianism tramples the rights of individuals and/or minorities; that utilitarianism is consequentialist and thus ignores motivations; that utilitarianism is solely forward-looking, ignoring the past; that utilitarianism can be used to justify any action no matter how morally reprehensible; that utilitarianism is too demanding to be viable for everyday decision-making; that utilitarianism is morally relativistic; that utilitarianism requires individuals to predict the unpredictable; and that utilitarianism suffers from the complexity of computing “greatest happiness” and “least unhappiness.”  (Discussion in this section based on Kivatinos,  Philo 101. Section 005. Outline of Criticisms of Utilitarianism).

Rights of Individuals.  By placing its concern on the rights of the many over the rights of the few, minority groups and individuals can find their interests trampled.  Utilitarianism dictates that the majority’s best interests must take precedence over the interests of the minority, particularly if the minority is considerably fewer than the majority.  In other words, in strictly mathematical terms a 49% minority may not have their interests ignored if the benefit of their interests is stronger than the benefit of the (slight) majority. But for a very small minority, say 1% of the population, the benefit of their interests has to be at least 50 times as great as that of the majority for their interests to hold sway. Thus, the smaller the minority, the more likely their best interests will be contravened in the process of meeting the needs of the majority.

The Consequentalist Nature of Utilitarianism.  Utilitarianism considers only the results—the consequences—of a moral decision. The motivation for that decision plays no part in a utilitarian perspective.  Consider, for example, a person who takes an action to save an individual, but the consequence of that action not only does not save that person, but also damages someone else—a person who swims into danger to rescue a drowning person, but who fails in that effort and himself drowns too.  From a utilitarian point of view,  the action of trying to save the swimmer is immoral because the consequences were that two people died (as opposed to only one).   Yet it is difficult to conceive of such a heroic rescue attempt being called immoral, even if the attempt failed.

The Forward-Looking Perspective of Utilitarianism. Some also criticize utilitarianism because it only considers future results of actions and not past history of the individual.  Again, the total focus on consequences of actions ignores the past history of the person in determining their morality.  Take, for example, serial killer Ted Bundy.  He volunteered at a suicide hot line—a clearly moral action.  Yet, this is the same man who abused animals as a child, and who became one of the country’s most notorious (and successful) serial killers of young women.  Can his actions on the hot line be considered moral, when his other actions are clearly so immoral?

Utilitarianism Is Morally Relativistic. Since utilitarianism focuses solely on consequentialist issues rather than on the actions themselves, no absolute moral result can be ascribed to any individual action.  An action is not moral or immoral, per se, but only the consequences of that action are moral or immoral.  For example, murdering someone else would generally be considered immoral because it causes a loss in happiness to other people.  But does murdering Osama Bin Laden, a man who promotes terrorism and killing innocent people, equally immoral?  In the utilitarian perspective, if more people are made happy from committing the murder than made unhappy from that person’s death, then murdering him is a moral act.  The complete lack of absolute rights and wrongs in a utilitarian morality seems, somehow, wrong.

Utilitarianism Requires Individuals to Predict the Future.  Since actions themselves are never intrinsically moral or immoral, only the consequences of those actions, for a person to determine the correct choice in a given situation requires the person to (literally) be able to predict the future.  Many times, the consequences of a person’s actions are unpredictable or unknowable, yet utilitarianism requires the person to be able to predict those consequences accurately.  Furthermore, there is no respite for a person who simply makes a mistake in judgment—they are considered immoral solely because their actions produce consequences that are unintended. One recent example of this is the actions of the operators at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant after the March 11 earthquake.  Recent reports have revealed that operators misinterpreted the signals from the power plant and made incorrect decisions about what was best to do to bring the reactor back under control. The result was that the core of the power plant was uncovered…and millions of people were put in jeopardy.  Were those operators immoral?  Or were they merely—with the best intentions—acting as morally as they knew how and, in the process, making mistakes in judgment?

Computing the “Greatest Happiness” Is Difficult. A final significant criticism of utilitarianism is that simply determining the “greatest happiness” is extremely difficult.  For example, does the greatest happiness mean the greatest average happiness across the whole population?  Or does it refer to making fewer people ecstatically happy, while doing little or nothing to improve the happiness of others?  There are two aspects to this: first, the world is so complex, and actions of an individual are so interrelated to others that there is no effective way to determine the consequences of any individual action and thus compute the resulting happiness level.  Second, consequences are so intertwined that even if we could predict them, computing the happiness resulting from them is impossible for practical purposes.  There is also a third aspect of this issue:  How far into the future do consequences matter?  Again, using Fukushima as an example, if I build a functioning, safe nuclear power plant so that it generates electricity to millions of people, that might be considered a moral action because it increases happiness for millions of people through providing electricity and jobs.  If, on the other hand, a catastrophe happens 40 years later—two full generations later—as it did in Fukushima, now causing untold environmental destruction for decades to come, was that act of building the power plant moral?  With utilitarianism, where do you stop considering the consequences?  Ten minutes after the action?  An hour?  A day?  A generation?  Native American societies took a utilitarian perspective with the declaration that chiefs must “make every decision that we make related to the welfare and well-being of the seventh generation to come…” (Lyons, 1994, pp. 173-174.)  Is it even possible to understand the consequences of an action 150 or more years in the future?

All these arguments have been levied against utilitarianism. On the other hand, there have been a number of arguments that support this philosophy as well.

The Virtues of Utilitarianism

While utilitarianism has its critics, it also has its supporters.  A variety of arguments in support of utilitarianism include: that utilitarianism is widely applicable and has a broad scope; that utilitarianism is consistent with intuitive sense of right and wrong; that utilitarianism is flexible rather than rigid; that utilitarianism considers the consequences of actions from a moral perspective; that utilitarianism is not rigidly anthropocentric; that utilitarianism justifies a species hierarchy of importance; that utilitarianism is not incompatible with science or atheism.  These arguments are considered in more detail in this section.  (Discussion in this section based on Kivatinos,  Philo 101. Section 005. Outline of Criticisms of Utilitarianism).

Utilitarianism is widely applicable. Proponents of utilitarianism point out that the methodology of applying utilitarianism in real life is intuitive and easy to grasp. Furthermore, utilitarianism is not constrained by a limited type of questions it can address.  The principle of utility (POU) can be used in almost any situation to determine the correct choice of action. As long as consequences are predictable, a utilitarian decision can be made.

Utilitarianism is consistent with intuitive morality. Common sense tells us that if we take an action that benefits a group of people, it’s likely a moral action, even when it is a negative action for a smaller group. This means decisions result from a utilitarian analysis that are either identical with common-sense or intuitive decisions, or at least does not massively contradict such intuition.  Just recently for example, the flood gates along the Mississippi River in Louisiana were opened, causing great distress and flooding to farmers and small towns, yet saving large cities such as New Orleans from major devastation.  This was a clearly utilitarian decision in which the good of the millions in the big cities was opposed to the good of the (relatively) few in small towns and farms.  Commonsense tells us this was the correct decision, no matter how painful it is for those displaced by the resulting floods.

Utilitarianism is flexible.  Moral decisions are rarely fixed and rarely absolute.  As noted earlier, the killing of a person is generally morally wrong, but in the case of an evil person—an Osama Bin Laden, a Hitler, a Ted Bundy—utilitarianism provides a mechanism for making such decisions on the basis of the total set of circumstances.  Thus, rather than being a set of fixed, rigid rules that are adhered to absolutely, utilitarianism also requires the individual (or other entity) to think about the problem, consider the circumstances and the consequences, and only then decide the morally correct decision.  Rauhut points out that generally speaking, it is fairly straightforward to determine the correct moral action to take (Rauhut, p. 236).

Utilitarianism considers consequences of actions. Since utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy, consequences are the important element of choosing to do or not do any given action. The  point of considering the principle of utility in a given situation or set of circumstances is to determine the best course of action.  For example, before deciding to open the floodgates in the Mississippi, the consequences of that action were carefully considered and the POU determined.  What would be the impact on the farmers and small towns if the gates were opened? What would be the consequences if they were not opened.  Considering the consequences of an action also provides an ecological philosophical framework—just as Chief Oren Lyons said, we must  “make every decision that we make related to the welfare and well-being of the seventh generation to come…” (Lyons, 1994, pp. 173-174.)  Only by considering the long-term consequences in a utilitarian perspective can we make decisions that are ecologically wise.

Utilitarianism is not rigidly anthropocentric. Utilitarianism is far less focused on the benefits to humanity alone than other philosophies.  Ecological awareness and global climate change demand that we consider the welfare of beings other than Homo sapiens.  Utilitarianism provides a framework to do precisely that.  Only by considering the consequences of human actions, can we become stewards of the Earth instead of despoilers.

Utilitarianism justifies a hierarchy of species. Utilitarianism also allows us to perceive a hierarchy of species in terms of their ability to perceive happiness and have greater utility. For example, while human beings would almost certainly be at the top of the hierarchical tree (from a human perspective at any rate), species such as cats and dogs (anthropomorphized pets) are considered “like family” to loving pet owners.  Species such as cows and horses and pigs (high utility animals) are equally valid.  Mosquitoes, on the other hand, are generally not considered of high utility, which helps determine the moral rightness of slaughtering them by the tens of millions to prevent human disease.  One caveat of this hierarchy, however, is that because the ecosystem is so complex, with complex interdependencies and interrelationships, it is difficult to assert with certainty where a specific species sits on that hierarchy.

Utilitarianism is consistent with science and atheism.  Finally, utilitarianism is based on the psychological states of the person and the resulting increase (or decrease) in happiness as a result of actions. Science understands the psychology of maximizing pleasure, security, or happiness in a way that is perfectly consistent with utilitarianism.  With the growth of scientism in the Western world since the Enlightenment, utilitarianism provides a moral code that is consistent with the major intellectual trend of the past several centuries.

With the criticisms and virtues of utilitarianism reviewed, it is now time to conclude the overall credibility of utilitarianism as a moral theory.

Conclusions

While the critics of utilitarianism make several valid points, including the difficulty of looking into the future, and the sometimes challenging nature of determining the utility of a given action, overall, the benefits of utilitarianism outweigh the criticisms.  In a pluralistic society, it is always important to consider how major decisions will impact the population—the Mississippi River flood gates is an excellent example of that.  Furthermore, with the growing environmental crises in the world, considering the consequences of actions on the environment and on other species seems a critically important perspective.  The consequentialist nature of utilitarianism is essential to determining correct moral actions in the large scale.  Furthermore, no philosophy that is in opposition to current scientific trend will long survive in the intellectual culture of our times.  Utilitarianism provides that compatibility, and offers a moral code not dependent on religion, not in conflict with scientific thought, and thus is a philosophy that is more credible than questionable.

References

Higgins, Alexander. “In-Depth Technical Overview of the Rapid Nuclear Meltdown at Fukushima Reactor 1.”  Web document: Alexander Higgins Blog. Retrieved from: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/05/16/depth-techical-overview-rapid-nulclear-meltdown-fukushima-reactor-1-22795/

Kivatinos, Thomas; Instructor. Outline of the Theoretical Virtues of UT discussed in Section 005. Online Blackboard posted document: Hunter College, Philosophy 101, Section 005. 2011 Spring Semester.

Kivatinos, Thomas; Instructor. Philo 101. Section 005. Outline of Criticisms of Utilitarianism. Online Blackboard posted document: Hunter College, Philosophy 101, Section 005. 2011 Spring Semester.

Lyons, Oren; Chief of the Onondaga Nation. “An Iroquois Perspective.” In American Indian Environments: Ecological Issues in Native American History. C. Vecsey & R.W. Venables (Editors). 1994. New York, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. The Pennsylvania state University Electronic Classics Series, Jim Manis, Faculty Editor.  2004. (Original publication date: 1879).Reprinted from Frazier’s Magazine, 7^th Edition, London: Longmans, Green, and co.   Online document: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/jsmill/Utilitarianism.pdf

Rauhut, Nils Ch. “Utilitarianism.” Online Blackboard posted document: Hunter College, Philosophy 101, Section 005. 2011 Spring Semester.