Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham is known as the architect of utilitarianism, because he formulated and incorporated the hedonic calculus. Bentham emphasised the importance of emotions[1] and this is why pleasure and pain are considered two intrinsic features of utilitarianism. Therefore, an act is considered moral if it maximises pleasure and minimises pain and vice versa[2]. This is the essence of the ‘principle of utility’. This highlights the importance of the hedonic calculus, because it should be used to help us decide what path we should take when it comes to a specific dilemma.

However, Bentham is not the only key figure in utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill played a huge role too. This is down to his formation of the ‘greatest happiness principle’[3]. In a nutshell, the principle means that which is universally desired is what should be desired. Mill argued that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic evil. Therefore, the moral worth of an action is based upon the outcome of the action – hence why utilitarianism is known as a consequentialist theory[4].

Utilitarianism is quite a broad ethical theory, because there are subdivisions. Bentham was known as an act utilitarian whereas Mill was known as a rule utilitarian. Although the two are very similar, there is a subtle difference. Act utilitarianism states that a person’s act is morally right if it produces the best possible results in that specific situation. This differs from rule utilitarianism which states that an act is good if it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good[5].

Utilitarianism has not only been heavily influential in moral philosophy, it has also been influential in politics. Utilitarians support democracy as a way of making the interest of government coincide with the general interest of all in society[6]. However, they face criticism in politics, because the philosophy of utilitarianism grew out of socialism[7] and therefore like any political theory, it is subject to criticism.

As utilitarianism is a naturalistic theory, it appeals too many in this day and age because it does not depend on a supernatural entity. It therefore operates independently of religion[8].

In principle, utilitarianism appears a relatively fair and just theory. The notion of trying to maximise pleasure and minimising pain is by no means illogical. However, the application of utilitarianism is where the cracks start to show. As H.A. Hodges stated, “utilitarianism has at least its heart in the right place, though its head is muddled”[9]. The application of utilitarianism is complex, because there is never a clear-cut answer.

Moreover, as utilitarianism to an extent takes away one’s individual liberty, there are situations that would appear immoral to the majority of us, which would be technically justifiable to Utilitarians. If a doctor can save five people from death by killing one healthy person and using that person’s organs for life-saving transplants, then act utilitarianism implies that the doctor should kill the one person to save the five[10].

Furthermore, utilitarianism can be exploited by immoral people to manipulate and justify immoral acts. In heinous crimes such as gang rape, the majority participating in the act are gaining pleasure and the individual being abused is experiencing pain. However, because the majority are gaining pleasure, it therefore passes the utilitarian threshold of pleasure vs pain[11].

One may also argue that there is a lack of transparency. For example, do we always know what will give us pleasure and what will give us pain before we make a decision? Additionally, the hedonic calculus is problematic. If an individual was forced into making a quick decision, they don’t have time to be rational and go through each stage of the calculus. It is simply distant from reality.

However, utilitarianism has enabled social change. As Peter Vardy highlighted, the pleasure principle was influential in changing sexual attitudes[12]. Utilitarianism was used to support the movement to not only socially accept but to also provide more effective contraception[13].

In addition, utilitarianism can be useful for dilemmas in wars and conflicts. For example, with the British government beginning to target chemical sites in Syria in order to degrade Assad’s weapons capabilities, there may be casualties. However, by destroying the chemical weapons, more lives in the long run will be saved. Therefore, the pleasure of the majority would override the pain of the few in this situation and therefore this act may be considered justifiable.

Whilst utilitarianism understandably has its critics, there is not one ethical theory that does not. The fact that it is consequential and not deontological is appealing in itself as it avoids exploitation and oppression. Moreover, the belief that we should seek pleasure and avoid pain is intuitive. If utilitarianism was reformed, it would become an even stronger theory. Reforms could include giving the individual more liberty as the theory focuses on society or a group of people as a whole. Nevertheless, utilitarianism is a relatively coherent theory.

[1] James E. Crimmins, Jeremy Bentham (2017) <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/> [accessed 1 May 2018].

[2] A.K. Bierman and James A.Gould, Philosophy for a new generation (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973), p. 118.

[3] George Allen, History of Western Philosophy, 2nd edn (Woking: Unwin Brothers Limited, 1947), p. 808.

[4] Colin Heydt, John Stuart Mill (1806—1873) (2018) <https://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/> [accessed 7 May 2018].

[5] Stephen Nathanson, Act and Rule Utilitarianism (2018) <https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/> [accessed 7 May 2018].

[6] Jonathan Riley, 'Utilitarian Ethics and Democratic Government', Ethics, 100.2, (1990), 335-348 (p. 335).

[7] Allen, p. 808.

[8] Lucius Garvin, 'Normative Utilitarianism and Naturalism', Ethics, 60.1, (1949), pp. 49-54.

[9] Bierman and A. Gould, p.126.

[10] Benjamin Studebaker, Killing People for their Organs (2013) <https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2013/07/27/killing-people-for-their-organs/> [accessed 10 May 2018].

[11] William L. Barnes, 'Revenge on Utilitarianism: Renouncing a Comprehensive Economic Theory of Crime and Punishment', Indiana Law Journal, 74.2, (1999), 626-651.

[12] Peter Vardy, The Puzzle of Sex, 2nd edn (London: SCM Press, 2009), p. 121.

[13] Ibid.