Introduction
Utilitarianism developed in the eighteenth century is still employed in modern society as the central philosophical paradigm that frames the creation of laws and norms. At that, utilitarianism has also been heavily criticized as it is regarded as an idealistic and rather oppressive model. Many thinkers stress that human nature makes utilitarianist approaches impossible to utilize as people always concentrate on their own interests without paying any attention to the good for all (Tännsjö, 2019). It is emphasized that the creation of an ideal society is impossible due to humans’ selfishness, so the ideas of utilitarianism should be abandoned. In this paper, it is argued that the criticism of utilitarianism related to its incompatibility with human nature is ungrounded because humans seek satisfaction of their needs, which can be achieved through compromises and focus on the good for all.
Idealism and Human Nature
One of the pillars of utilitarianism is the assumption that people should act in a way to achieve the highest happiness. In Mill’s terms, a person’s action “is right insofar as it tends to produce pleasure and the absence of pain” (as cited in Payne, 2015, p. 108). This seems the weakest point of the framework in terms of the creation of an ideal society (de Lazari-Radek & Singer, 2017). People are very different and often need quite opposing things, so the happiness of every individual appears to be impossible. The opponents of this viewpoint stress that individuals’ act in their pursuit of happiness inevitably makes at least one person unhappy (Ikegbu & Diana-Abasi, 2017). For example, children playing in the garden may see a fallen apple, and one of them (who will be named John hereafter) will eat it, making many others unhappy as they also wanted an apple. Thus, by acting in a way to achieve happiness, John made the world (other children in the group) unhappy.
This simple example seems to be a good illustration of the idealism of utilitarianism. If one person is happy, others cannot become happy due to the lack of resources or other reasons. However, a compromise can be easily achieved, and the greatest happiness for John and the rest of the children will be apparent. The boy wants an apple and eats it immediately, but he can think that eating an apple will be less pleasant than eating several apples immediately or several apples during the day.
Thus, John, or any other child in the group, may suggest a form of cooperation. Children may shake the tree together or climb a tree holding each other to get more apples. In that way, John and the other children will receive more than one apple. All of them will be much happier than previously, and in a way, the world (the entire group of children) will be happy. Moreover, the act of getting apples can be a fun game for children, so they will be happy to receive delicious fruit and to have fun with peers. Therefore, although in some cases, becoming happier is associated with making other people feel less satisfied, the situation can be turned into beneficial for everyone.
Recent Challenges That Seemingly Undermine the Relevance of Utilitarianism
The critics of utilitarianism may argue that acting may be less relevant to consider than a person’s reluctance to act. By assuming that all people are selfish, it is necessary to admit that individuals will be reluctant to do many things that might be needed for the good of all. Thus, making societies happy is not on an ordinary person’s agenda. It is also important to exclude those who find it pleasant to create an ideal society. If an individual does not want to act, it is impossible and morally wrong (according to utilitarian canons) to make this human being do something (Tännsjö, 2019). However, a compromise is possible, and achieving happiness in the entire society is also probable, if not inevitable.
It is necessary to consider one of the most recent challenges humanity has faced to understand the ungroundedness of the criticism of utilitarianism. The COVID-19 pandemics made people choose between personal comfort (as well as basic rights) and the good for all. Vaccination has become a topic of one of the most heated debates, and different worldviews have clashed in people’s attempts to develop the most effective solution (Giubilini et al., 2018). Governments try to motivate (or even make) people to vaccinate, which is regarded as a way to attain herd immunity and stop the pandemic. Critics of this approach say that those who do not want to get vaccinated cannot be forced to do so as it will make them unhappy. Thus, utilitarianism cannot be applied in such situations, as people would focus on their health, risks, reluctance to do anything, and so on.
Nevertheless, every person may feel happier when vaccinated if they consider a number of aspects. In their pursuit of pleasure and happiness, each person can think of their contribution to the effort to stop pandemics. Importantly, this proved to be an effective measure, so people are likely to be engaged in a successful project leading to a full victory of humanity over a virus. Moreover, those who have some reasons (reluctance, fear, nonconformism) not to be vaccinated can also think of the pleasure of making themselves less receptive to the illness. Feeling empowered can be seen as a certain kind of happiness. Finally, even those who find pleasure in their opposition to the authority can feel happy contributing to the attainment of the good of all. These people may think of health benefits they will get at the expense of the government. In a way, they will be pleased to become stronger while making their enemy (the government pay).
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, it is necessary to note that the assumption that persons cannot create an ideal society as happiness for all is impossible can hardly be viable. People can be happy and help others to get pleasure by compromising and looking at things from different angles. In their pursuit of happiness, people can make the world a better place as although people all want different things, they, basically, need similar things. Individuals can find pleasure in collaborating with others or, vice versa, avoiding any contact. However, their actions can contribute to achieving the entire humanity’s happiness. The paradigm is not idealist, but it may need some additional explanations for modern people. Individualism does not necessarily mean conflict between two people as it may result in fruitful and pleasant collaboration. It is possible to note that utilitarianism is the most appropriate and realistic philosophical basis for modern society able to satisfy the needs of every individual and society as a whole.
References
De Lazari-Radek, K., & Singer, P. (2017). Utilitarianism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Giubilini, A., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2018). The moral obligation to be vaccinated: Utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 21(4), 547-560.
Ikegbu, E. A., & Diana-Abasi, F. I. (2017). Utilitarianism as a veritable vehicle for the promotion of a just society. Lwati: A Journal of Contemporary Research, 14(2), 121-137.
Payne, W. R. (2015). An introduction to philosophy. Bellevue College.
Tännsjö, T. (2019). Hedonistic utilitarianism. Edinburgh University Press.