Idea and Principles of Utilitarianism
As a moral theory, utilitarianism has had a long and prosperous history of discussion, application, and neglection. It is still positively assessed by many American and British philosophers, although the original theoretical form is somewhat modified in its modern version (Abumere). Before elucidating the advantages of utilitarianism over other concepts of ethics, it is worth understanding the essence of the doctrine and its basic principles.
The grounding ideas of utilitarian moral theory are summarized in Mill’s short work Utilitarianism. He tried to dispel the misconception that morality has nothing to do with utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure (Kay 5). Mill was also a staunch supporter of individual Freedom. In his pamphlet On Freedom, he argued that the only reason society can interfere with a person’s life is to prevent a person from harming others (Kay 6). Mills believed that although people may be wrong, making the wrong decisions was better than being coerced by the government (Kay 6). Indeed, it is the crucial principle of liberal politics – freedom to express one’s own opinion would benefit everyone.
The basic moral principle of utilitarianism is called the principle of utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle. Mill formulates it as follows: “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Abumere). The philosopher clarifies that in this sense, “happiness” should be understood as “pleasure,” whereas “unhappiness” means pain and suffering. According to utilitarianism, each person should be taken into account just as much as any other person. Therefore, when making a collective decision or implementing something, everyone’s interest has to be considered. The best solution or outcome, thus, is nothing else as the maximization of the aggregate utility function, which is supposed to bring the greatest happiness to the community.
Advantages of the Theory
Hence, from the discussion of utilitarianist concepts, it becomes evident that the ethic theory has various advantages. Above all, the approach provides a comprehensive guideline towards policy-making and social wellbeing maximization. It states that only accumulating all the preferences and their intensity, impartiality, and equality can be ensured. The idea indeed coincides with democratic principles and, among other things, finds the reflection in the system of minorities representation. In this sense, utilitarianism is designed as an unbiased mechanism that is supposed to support pluralism and includes all classes of society in contrast to what was practiced back in the times of slavery, for example.
More than this, if one thinks of it this way, utilitarianism can be applied to an intergenerational perspective. When accounting for not only the adults but also younger people and future generations who will inherit today’s decisions’ outcomes, it is possible to expand the Greatest Happiness outwards. This reasoning lies in the foundation for the sustainable development concept, which is highly relevant now. In addition, it can be seen that humanity is evolving in line with this trend, incorporating more and more sentient beings when considering the maximization of utility.
Moreover, utilitarianism basically describes conditions under which a society obeys the rules and the government. Thus, obedience and adherence to established norms are only justified if a certain level of happiness and usefulness is satisfied. Otherwise, when the joint utility function is below a particular optimal value, one should expect a revolutionary attitude in society and opposition to the rules. By and large, this logic is really justified and finds confirmation in real politics. That is, in fact, the function of the state is to maintain and maximize the happiness of the population.
For this reason, desire gratification utilitarianism has become the methodological foundation of modern welfare economics. The social justice state of desire gratification utilitarianism can be expressed through the Pareto principle of efficiency, or the Kaldor-Hicks principle. In accordance with the Pareto principle, for example, one social state is better or more fair than another if and only if at least one person has the opportunity to satisfy his preferences better, and all the others do not lose anything.
Moreover, the task of a political reformer becomes partly akin to the task of an impartial observer in the ethical concept of A. Smith. Thus, they must impartially give preference to those social transformations and political actions that are most guaranteed to provide this maximum benefit to the maximum number of people. At the same time, utilitarianism has a significant advantage over the concept of the “invisible hand” of A. Smith (University of Oxford). Utilitarianism supplements this very “invisible hand” of the market with a visible hand. This one can fold into a fist and deliver a merciless blow to the unreasonable and irrational advantages that a certain part of society provides to itself at the expense of others. Utilitarianism was originally an ideology of rational, radical-egalitarian social reforms that were implemented in England during the 19th century. These reforms destroyed the remnants of the feudal privileges of the former parasitic elites.
Critique of Utilitarianism
Critics say utilitarianism (in its pursuit of universal happiness) will often tolerate dire injustices. For example, is can be concluded that the Roman Emperors followed the principles of utilitarianism by holding spectacular shoes that involved tortures of Christians to satisfy the demands of the crowds. An ethical answer provided with utilitarians would be to favor the great pleasure of a hundred thousand Romans that considerably outweigh the sufferings of a couple of Christians (Hayri 357). Especially if an Emperor refuses to hold the show, this might upset the majority. Thus, according to utilitarianism, the life of one, in this case, should be sacrificed.
Moreover, an American philosopher Robert Nozick offered a very interesting way to prove the fallacy of utilitarian ideas. Let one suppose that a “Pleasure Machine” is invented – a device that injects a person with chemicals (completely harmless), causing feelings of incredible bliss. In addition, these will be not only basic but also the most sublime pleasures. A person will feel like eating delicious food and drinking the most delicious drinks, hearing the most beautiful music, admiring the magnificent paintings of artists, or seeing stunning landscapes. It is safe to say that few would indeed agree to spend life like that (Shermer). Many will even prefer death to such a life, considering that this type of spending time is empty and meaningless.
These examples illustrate that people value real things, including creativity, love, trust, and friendship. In fact, happiness comes when a person acquires those things due to the already existing perception that they are valuable and good. In other words, friendship or even a material thing like a house do not bring joy by default. People themselves endow them with meanings and ascribe the emotions expected from them (Shermer). Thus, hedonism often misunderstands the nature of happiness and pleasure (Hayri 358). These are not the highest goal that a person strives for the sake of it alone. In reality, happiness is a reaction to achieving what people consider to be good in itself.
Why Utilitarianism Is Still the Best Moral System
Nonetheless, during the existence of utilitarian doctrine, counter-arguments mitigated weaknesses. Utilitarianism may well introduce a criterion for the rationality of both society and the individual’s desire, thereby excluding sadistic, antisocial desires. This is precisely what the utilitarianism of satisfying rational desire, which was already discussed above, does. Even the principles of Rawls’s deontological concept of justice may well correspond to utilitarianism if only one introduces a suitable criterion for the rationality of desire (Abumere). Furthermore, utilitarianism can take the form of “negative” utilitarianism, according to which losses cannot be exchanged for gains and pain weighs immeasurably more than pleasure. Accordingly, buying happiness at the expense of the suffering of others can become too expensive a pleasure.
Moreover, when dealing with vulnerable ethical issues described in the example with Ancient Rome, utilitarianism may well shift the focus from action to rules. This is precisely what the trend representatives, called Rule utilitarianism, do (Kay 7). According to this school of thought, the rules themselves can be so helpful that breaking them is much more expensive than keeping them, even if there is an immediate benefit. Rigorous observance of the norms of justice is beneficial both for individuals and for society as a whole. Such utilitarianism is closely linked with deontology, demanding inviolable rights.
It also has its intuitive advantages since there cannot be such rules and such rights that could not be revised in the event of a considerable benefit associated with their violation. With all the inviolability of the human right to bodily inviolability, one will be forced to violate it. For example, this is the case if a hair forcibly torn from the head of this individual can save humanity from a nuclear catastrophe. To think otherwise would be to fall into unacceptable rigorism.
Works Cited
Abumere, Frank Aragbonfoh. “Utilitarianism – Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics.” Pressbooks, 2019, Web.
Hayri, Matti. “Just Better Utilitarianism.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 30, no. 2, 2020, pp. 343–67. Crossref, Web.
Kay, Charles D. “Utilitarianism.” Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, 2016, pp. 1–6. Crossref, Web.
Shermer, Michael. “Does the Philosophy Of ‘The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number’ Have Any Merit?” Scientific American, 2018, Web.
University of Oxford. “What Is Utilitarianism? | Utilitarianism.Net.” Utilitarianism, 2020, Web.