Introduction
Utilitarianism in its simplest form is a theory of ethics that says the fundamental principle of morality is the principle of utility, in other words a person must choose to do something that is most likely to produce the greatest good of the greatest number of people (LaFave, 2006). This idea is not similar to the golden rule because it aims to please not the other person but the self. Moreover, Mill believed that it should become the ultimate standard of morality. But there are at least two problems that utilitarians must deal with: 1) utilitarian principles can be easily misinterpreted to mean that a person has the license to do wrong because it is in line with his or her pursuit of happiness and 2) utilitarian principles conflict with common sense moral thought because of the rigid nature of this philosophy.
J.S. Mill was able to formulate the answer to these two major criticism of utilitarianism and he argued that the best way to resolve this issue is to understand that there is a distinction between the fundamental principle of morality and subordinate moral principles. In other words, there is a difference between the first principle of morality and secondary rules of morality. There are things that an individual must pursue simply because it is the right thing to do.
Before going any further it is important to understand the significance and implications of Mill’s assertion that utilitarianism must be the standard to be used for making moral decisions and that every person on earth operates on this principle whether they are aware of it or not. This clearly suggests that Mill saw utilitarianism not only as universal law but also as an inescapable force that everyone must bow down to. This is the root of the many criticisms leveled against Mill and his interpretation of what utilitarianism should be.
The Standard
The first major criticism is against the assertion made by Mill that utilitarianism ought to be the rule or the standard when it comes to moral decisions. It is easy to understand the problem with this view considering that there are many belief systems in the world and no one appreciates being told what to do. On the other hand, Mill merely gave his opinion because he believed that the underlying principle of why people do what they do is based on utilitarianism.
The most glaring problem here is application. How can a person determine what is good for him and then what is good for the community? It is pure pleasure for a cannibal to eat his neighbor but the poor neighbor is in dread of his appetite. But more importantly, philosophers point out that utilitarianism is too rigid and so there is very little margin for error. This is based on the principle of “common-sense moral thinking” which adheres to a fourfold deontic distinction:
- Wrong or forbidden
- Permissible
- Obligatory
- Supererogatory
These four concepts cover the actions and activities that everyone can readily observe in the real world. This means that even though there are different belief systems many agree on what is wrong or forbidden such as murder or stealing. There are also things that many consider as ethically wrong but permissible in other cultures. The same thing can be said of obligatory actions. And finally there is the supererogatory which is the actions made by great men and women who did something beyond the call of duty. These four actions are real and readily observable in the real world but with Mill’s idea that utilitarianism is the standard then it can easily create a set of rules where nothing is permissible, obligatory and supererogatory.
Secondary Rules
It would be difficult to live in a world like that where individuals are supposed to be omniscient in order to choose the best action that will lead to the good of self and the community. This is why Mill introduced the idea that there are fundamental principles of morality and there are also subordinate moral principles. This is based on Mill’s argument that states:
I do not mean to assert that the promotion of happiness should be itself the end of all actions, or even all rules of action. It is the justification, and ought to be the controller, of all ends, but it is not itself the sole end. There are many virtuous actions, and even virtuous modes of action (though the cases are, I think, less frequent than is often supposed) by which happiness in the particular instance is sacrificed, more pain being produced than pleasure. But the conduct of which this can be truly asserted admits of justification only because it can be shown that on the whole more happiness will exist in the world, if feelings are cultivated which will make people, in certain cases, regardless of happiness. (Mautner, in A System of Logic)
This is an important strategy to evade the traps set by his critics. This means that Mill admits to the idea that utilitarianism needed modification. There is a need to make it more flexible when it comes to situations and actions wherein the person is not doing anything to create happiness but destruction. However, this will create confusion because Mill seemed to have acknowledged defeat – that doing the right thing does not have to be linked to the pursuit of happiness. This is because Mill is now in agreement with what critics are saying that happiness and pleasure could never be the moral standard and the compass that will lead humanity to utopia.
The critics are given more ammunition when Mill said that a person will achieve happiness if he or she is willing to pursue something that is not directly linked to the pursuit of happiness. These secondary principles are like rules that must be followed such as honesty and fair play. In the short term adherence to these rules can cause pain. For example, a child will admit to setting the playhouse on fire. This will invite some harsh disciplinary action but in the end, the boy will never have to struggle with his guilt. He had let go of this dreadful secret. His playmates and his brother or sister will have nothing against him to accuse him with and so he has a clear conscience and he can go outside and play, to experience the bliss of freedom.
While the idea is good for utilitarianism because it allowed the proponents to cover some weak spots and answer some persistent questions regarding some of the more obvious problems of this ethical theory, on the other hand, it creates another monster so to speak. For example there is a clear disagreement between the assertion of the primary rule of conduct or the standard that men ought to follow and the rather subjective suggestion that there are things that men can pursue that will lead to pain but in the end, will lead to happiness.
But there seems to be no way out for Mill. He was forced to concede the idea concerning the significance of the secondary principles. These are principles that are universal and many people are in agreement when it comes norms such as fair play and honesty. No matter where you are, no matter what tribe or nationality you belong to there are simply “rules” that are understood by all regardless of culture and language differences. This is something that Mill undoubtedly discovered to be difficult to deal with and so he was forced to make concessions.
Conclusion
The idea behind utilitarianism is a controversial one. It talks about the pursuit of happiness as a basis or standard that will help people discover the right way of living. This immediately raised a lot of red flags from critics because the pursuit of pleasure does not always create good things. Drug addicts are always in a state of ecstasy but they destroy themselves, and their community. So Mill had to adjust his theory and began to provide a distinction between the primary rule and the second rule. He said that there are times when men ought to sacrifice what can immediately create pleasure and go through a painful process. This means that men and women should do what is good even if it will create personal problems in the present. A whistleblower will suffer from the backlash of angry superiors when he reported an unethical behavior but later on he will be considered a hero. While this is a good way to explain some of the perceived weaknesses of utilitarianism the concession made by Mill weakens his argument that his theory must be the standard for all.
Works Cited
LaFave, Sandra. Utilitarianism. Web.
Mautner, Thomas, John Stuart Mill.