Introduction to Classical Utilitarianism
Classical utilitarianism has historically been defined as an ethical system in which happiness is seen as the fundamental value, and the accomplishment of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is held to be the primary objective of action. According to classical utilitarianism, pursuing happiness, defined as “an existence as free from suffering and as rich in pleasure as possible,” lies at the heart of all human acts (Häyry, 2021, p. 343). Everything else is only valuable if it adds to its satisfaction. This leads to the conclusion that morality can only exist as a means to happiness; it is dependent on this objective as a component of the whole.
Happiness “is the moral criterion, because the part necessarily consists in the whole” (Anshari et al., 2022, p. 5). Anshari et al. (2022) mention the statement of some eminent philosophers that pursuing pleasure is a fundamental feature of human nature. The utility principle, which they present, is founded on this goal and “regards the greatest happiness of all those whose interests are at stake as the true and proper aim of human action,” and “the aim which is the only true and proper and in all respects desirable” (Anshari et al., 2022, p. 8) In other words, according to utilitarianism’s standards, an action or phenomenon that adds to happiness is beneficial, whereas one that hinders enjoyment is destructive. The utility principle is the only one that should be obeyed since it is the only one that has objective coercive force.
As the primary qualification of utilitarianism, many current academics consider the transition of happiness with existence as the only practical reference point. Classical utilitarianism is an ethical system with various ideological underpinnings (Teasdale et al., 2021). It occasionally mixes components that are, at best, contentious, if not contradictory. The content of classical utilitarianism was created during an absentee dispute between its founders, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, which accounts for much of its variation (Kolosov & Sigalov, 2020).
As a result, a historical and ethical reconstruction of classical utilitarianism necessarily leads to a comparison of Bentham’s and Mill’s theoretical viewpoints. There are various instances where Bentham and Mill’s perspectives might be contrasted. The analysis of human nature and behaviors suggests that the approach based on achieving the most good for the most people is more rational and reasonable than the desire to achieve a momentary ethical resolution.
The Benefits of Utilitarianism
The first argument favoring utilitarianism is that utilitarians’ goals are not dependent on the presence of God, the soul, or other doubtful and debatable reasons. The concept that the cosmos had some reason and purpose was the foundation of civilization and human life in ancient and medieval times. Many individuals still feel that without these underpinnings, people will be left with laws like “do this,” and “don’t do that,” with ambiguous meanings and purposes (Kolosov & Sigalov, 2020). People seek utilitarianism’s aims, such as happiness, welfare, or well-being, for themselves and those they care about.
Utilitarians merely demand that it be done fairly and for all. Whether religious or not, one cannot dispute that one desires what is best for oneself and chooses happiness over suffering. Utilitarianism demands that individuals analyze whether a certain action performed by an individual or group, or a specific policy implemented by the state, genuinely produces good or damage (Häyry, 2021). Some people declare that something is wicked, for instance, homosexuality or rock music, yet cannot describe that evil.
Utilitarianism provides a straightforward solution to moral and societal issues. People do not need to seek spiritual leaders or study theories of creation and human nature to establish which policy is correct to track improvements in human well-being. Utilitarianism has traditionally been progressive, requiring that centuries-old conventions and authority that have oppressed people be examined to determine if they enhance people’s lives (Kolosov & Sigalov, 2020).
Returning to the primary point, examine a utilitarian theory of political responsibility. According to Jeremy Bentham, people should obey existing rulers if the advantages exceed the costs. This is akin to the belief that people should respect the law if and only if doing so makes society happier than disobeying it.
Example of a Situation
To analyze an ambiguous situation in a philosophical context, one may evaluate the fire in a hypothetical setting. A guy stands in front of a burning home, the roof of which is about to fall. There is a youngster in one room, and a ventilator in the other, which will save the lives of ten people by the conclusion of the epidemic, and the city is currently in severe need of them. A person can either save the baby or the machine.
This is essentially an optimization issue in which one must discover the optimum solution given time or resource restrictions (Aliman & Kester, 2019). A quantitatively sound decision is not always ethically sound. If one views this issue from a utilitarian standpoint, human lives are good, and more life implies more happiness; hence, the equipment must be saved. However, rescuing the item is unethical since the action, not its results, should be moral. This is the argument of proponents of deontology, a competing ethical theory to utilitarianism, which raises the issue of morality as a key determinant of relevant behaviors or actions (Hennig & Hütter, 2020).
Nevertheless, it has its own issue when obligation takes precedence over good. For instance, when doctors who have taken the Hippocratic oath are required to treat murderers or rapists of minors (Véliz, 2020). If it is difficult or impossible to compute the implications of a burning home, it is tough to avoid thoughts of repercussions for the case of a rapist.
Personal Thoughts
Within the context of utilitarianism, the dilemma of selecting between the child’s life and technology may still be solved. If, for example, the decision is not based on numbers, even when human lives are at stake, the choice may be assessed numerically as well as qualitatively. Developing Mill’s reasoning and assessing the implications of the decision, one can conclude that saving lives now is qualitatively different from the prospect of saving lives hereafter (Millgram, 2019).
Alternatively, it is impossible to assess the implications of a crisis; therefore, it is best to develop future guidelines that will ensure excellent and good decisions. “Think of life first, then think of the costs and benefits,” in the spirit of Mill, is an example of a rule that answers a moral quandary (Millgram, 2019, p. 10). These concerns might theoretically be addressed by weighing the consequences of various options regarding the number of lives and the costs.
Conclusion
The evaluation of the prominent philosophers’ ideas of the past allows for arguing that utilitarianism, as a concept that determines the usefulness of a particular act in the long term, is a justified ethical position. Morality, in turn, must thus be drawn from and serve to accomplish this aim. At the same time, Bentham maintains that there is nothing more distinctive to happiness than the existence of pleasure and the absence of misery. The “matter” of happiness is unique to each individual. Conversely, Mill argues that happiness is founded on man’s growth as an innately noble entity.
References
Aliman, N. M., & Kester, L. (2019). Augmented utilitarianism for AGI safety. In Artificial General Intelligence: 12th International Conference, AGI 2019, Shenzhen, China, August 6–9, 2019, Proceedings 12, 11-21. Springer International Publishing. Web.
Anshari, M., Hamdan, M., Ahmad, N., Ali, E., & Haidi, H. (2022). COVID-19, artificial intelligence, ethical challenges and policy implications. AI & Society, 1-14. Web.
Häyry, M. (2021). Just better utilitarianism. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30(2), 343-367. Web.
Hennig, M., & Hütter, M. (2020). Revisiting the divide between deontology and utilitarianism in moral dilemma judgment: A multinomial modeling approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(1), 22-56. Web.
Kolosov, I. V., & Sigalov, K. E. (2020). Was J. Bentham the first legal utilitarian? RUDN Journal of Law, 24(2), 438-471. Web.
Millgram, E. (2019). John Stuart Mill and the meaning of life. Oxford University Press.
Teasdale, S., Roy, M. J., Ziegler, R., Mauksch, S., Dey, P., & Raufflet, E. B. (2021). Everyone a changemaker? Exploring the moral underpinnings of social innovation discourse through real utopias. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 12(3), 417-437. Web.
Véliz, C. (2020). Not the doctor’s business: Privacy, personal responsibility and data rights in medical settings. Bioethics, 34(7), 712-718. Web.