Introduction
Utilitarianism has attracted ardent opponents and defenders over the years as an approach to ethics and morality in society. Enthusiasts regard the philosophical approach to morality as a liberating and standard theory. Further, the theory practically connects attitude to decision-making and rejects the tyrannical questions about moral conventions. On the other hand, opponents of the approach deem it a pernicious doctrine that undervalues societal principles of sacrifice to expediency. Consequently, some scholars have muted opinions of the philosophical theory remaining neutral on the theory’s appeal and adequacy. Undoubtedly, utilitarianism deals with a significant aspect of human life since it promotes happiness and satisfaction, which are essential attributes of a good life. This essay explores utilitarianism theory by discussing the core principles and ethical forms, which have raised controversial views on the meaning of ethics and morality in society.
Ethical forms of Utilitarianism
The philosophical theory of ethics and morality deals with human happiness and actions that foster the greater good. The approach is associated with John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, who were British philosophers. Scarre defines utilitarianism as a philosophical approach that encourages actions that bring “delight and contentment” instead of actions that cause harm or unhappiness (10). The definition is a standard approach to describing utilitarianism since the theory has been subject to various evolutions and development, giving it diverse meanings. For instance, Bentham’s view of utilitarianism differs slightly from Mill’s in determining the right action from the wrong action giving rise to two forms of utilitarianism.
Bentham’s form of utilitarianism is called “Act” utilitarianism, while Mill’s is called “Rule” utilitarianism. According to Bentham’s act utilitarianism, the end justifies the means, which advocates for actions that bring positive and happy outcomes. The ethical theory suggests that if an action brings greater good than evil, it is right regardless of the sacrifice or means to obtain pleasure and happiness (Savulescu et al. 625). The primary factor is act utilitarianism if the total effects an action causes in fostering happy outcomes. The utilitarian form does not conform to any laws, meaning people have the liberty of choosing the right from the wrong action according to their views and beliefs.
On the other hand, Rule utilitarianism is a utilitarian form that distinguishes right and wrong actions in pursuit of happiness. Contrary to “Act” Utilitarianism, where any action is right if the result brings happiness, Mills “Rule” utilitarianism advocates for conforming to a law that validates the rightness of an action to bring greater good. The philosopher claims that people should cat according to ethical rules, which foster an overall impact of happiness (Savulescu et al. 623). According to this argument, a moral choice is determined by the long-term effects of the feasible option if other people follow the same choice to make the greater good. Thus, morality is not dependent on positive results but the motive of the action, which influences decision-making.
Additionally, rule utilitarianism supports the maximum utility of the right actions to create positive change with a significant impact. The utility is determined by weighing the happiness an action causes versus the suffering or harm an action can cause (Scarre 110). If happiness outweighs sadness, the action is deemed ethical because it has made a significant impact in “supporting and emphasizing” the majority happy (Scarre 111). Generally, rule utilitarianism points out that assumptions and biases may influence people’s actions. Hence following the law prevents wrong actions, resulting in regret due to unwise decisions and wrong choices. Although scholars like to differentiate Mill’s concept from Bentham’s, it is noteworthy that the ideas are inseparable since both forms serve to benefit the majority population’s interests (Daher 25). Likewise, both forms argue that good deeds are the sum of the joy and satisfaction people experiences in a particular setting when an individual or group eliminates the evil that would have caused harm. Therefore, morality results from doing good and creating happier experiences for self and others.
Principles of Utilitarianism
The theory is grounded on three basic principles that have evolved since time and are generally accepted as ethical doctrines. Firstly, the theory is based on the idea that actions that foster happiness are morally right and those that cause unhappiness are wrong or unethical (Savulescu et al. 625). However, what constitutes wrong from wrong is a debatable issue to date, with conflicting arguments that have created a morality crisis. Mill and Bentham’s opinion of good and evil is based on the consequence of people’s actions, where the right action results in happiness while the wrong action leads to sadness or harm. Consequently, the actions should result in the happiness of the greater community or social group. For instance, a utilitarian leader would make political, social, or economic decisions aimed at fostering happiness and betterment of the community as a whole rather than make decisions for self-satisfaction and happiness (Darwall 09). Thus, it is ethical if someone act with the highest service that guarantees positivity and happiness in the end.
The second principle states that pleasure and happiness are aspects that have truly intrinsic value. The concept of utilitarianism is based on happy and pleasurable experiences as a result of a good action. Suggesting that something has intrinsic value means it possesses good in itself. Therefore, the two philosophers argue that people value the things that bring happiness or pleasure. People value experiences and objects intrinsically and instrumentally. According to Mill, sometimes people value things as a means to an end, such as valuing beauty, material wealth, and intelligence (Daher 22). Wealth is associated with influence and high social standing in society, while intelligence leads to outstanding achievements.
Consequently, the consequence of valuing these things is happiness or pleasure from valuing them instrumentally. However, the love for pleasure and happiness is pure and unique for its own sake. Unlike instrumental value, where individuals value something as a means to a happy end, intrinsic value implies that an individual values something because it brings happiness or pleasure from within. People do not need a reason to value happiness because everyone prefers to feel “rather than the agony of joy” over sadness (Daher 22). Therefore, a world with pleasure or happiness is better than a world without since they hold intrinsic value.
Finally, the philosophers argue that happiness should count equally for everyone to foster humanity. The concept may strike as obvious since everyone strives to be happy and satisfied in life. However, the period which saw the establishment of the principle was characterized by populations that were more influential and significant than others. The principle was put forward in the late 18th century when slavery was a norm, and the lives of the enslaved were less valuable than the enslavers (Scarre 106). Therefore, the philosopher established that utilitarianism entails equality, making it a progressive concept at the time. The principle contributed significantly to formulating government policies that equally benefited the elite and the enslaved to ensure happiness for the greater good.
Controversial Issues of the Theory
As an ethical doctrine with abstract ideologies, utilitarianism theory has various critics, opposers, and defenders in the philosophical field. Critics have condemned the theoretical principles as controversial to ethical values of morality. The hedonic ideal of evaluating right from wrong is sometimes considered a practical impossibility by many philosophers (Woodard 152). Theoretically, appropriate actions are characterized by happy endings regardless of values or sacrifices that led to the result. Suggesting greater joy to the majority may cause suffering to a minority population leading to social injustice (Daher 22). Nonetheless, Mill adjusted the theory by the “Rule Utilitarianism,” which advocates for acting according to a conformed rule which serves the greater good (Barrow and Woods 128). At the same time, the third principle opposes notions of injustice by advocating equal happiness for all. Based on the arguments, one can argue that acting right depends on the foreseeable consequence and evaluating the most feasible approach to ensure excellent results that bring happiness.
Critics perceive the principle of equal count to happiness as unrealistic and too demanding to achieve equality. Some philosophers argue that happiness varies from one individual to another and cannot be quantified in general (Woodard 127). Therefore, it is not easy to gauge a good action by quantifying the happiness of a fraction of the population. Mill counterargues that achieving happiness involves including everyone rather than focusing on oneself, which has minimal impact compared to a happy community or group. Being self-centered is egoistic, creating a hostile environment that brings more harm than good.
Defenders of the theory argue that fostering happiness is essential and ethical since it eliminates suffering. According to Barrow, utilitarianism is “the only accepted theory” since it advocates happiness (Barrow and Woods 125). The philosopher argues that Plato recognized the theory and its principles that advocate happiness and the greater good. Thus, morality should aim at causing happiness of pleasure and reducing suffering. Likewise, defenders of the philosophy argue that the principle of equal happiness to all promotes universality by pushing moral values beyond community and national boundaries, which can be essential in the modern day (Savulescu et al. 626). The theory encourages oneness regardless of power, influence, social status, race, and gender, enhancing a common language where nobody claims superiority.
Finally, another problem with the theory is the unavailability of an appropriate approach to quantify consequences that determine the total net happiness and whether the action was right or wrong. Although the calculation of happiness is relatively straightforward, one cannot see or feel others’ happiness if they do not experience it (Woodward 132). Alternatively, many variables make people happy, which may not result from the action. Nevertheless, all ethical theories have flaws because they all determine morality with consequences. The core objective of utilitarianism, stating that an individual has a moral duty to foster happiness and reduce or eliminate harm, is undeniable. Therefore, one ought to decide the practical situations of the theory to ensure happiness within and universally.
Conclusion
To sum up, the moral dilemma of the utilitarianism theory has challenged ethical scholars and philosophers over the years. The concepts are abstract but consider the happiness of the greater community as the ultimate show of good actions, which are morally appropriate. Despite the mixed reactions to the theory, the authors believed that its appeal is the ability to have long-lasting effects that can be adjusted to create permanent ideologies of morality because the approach is used in many schools of philosophy. Therefore, ethics and morality involve creating positivity that significantly impacts the greater population and can recur and become a norm.
Works Cited
Barrow, Robin, and R. G. Woods. An Introduction to Philosophy of Education. Routledge, 2022.
Daher, Hafiz Zafa. “Utilitarianism Theory According to Bentham and Stuart Mill.” International Journal for Empirical Education and Research, 2018, pp. 17–26., doi:10.35935/edr/25.2617.
Darwall, Stephen L. Philosophical Ethics. Routledge, 2019.
Savulescu, Julian, et al. “Utilitarianism and the Pandemic.” Bioethics, vol. 34, no. 6, 2020, pp. 620–632., doi:10.1111/bioe.12771.
Scarre, Geoffrey. Utilitarianism. Routledge, 2020.
Woodard, Christopher. Taking Utilitarianism Seriously. Oxford University Press, 2019.