A thorugh analysis of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a broad ethical theory that qualifies an action’s rightness or wrongness by the standard of how much utility it produces. In simple terms, actions that produce more pleasure than pain are right and vice versa. Unlike egoism, utilitarianism seeks the greatest pleasure possible for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham introduced the Hedonic Calculus as a way to know how to make moral decisions. His ethical model postulates that all pleasures are equal. However, John Stuart Mill dismissed this idea and thought that some pleasures are higher than others. Later thinkers have developed Rule Utilitarianism as a response to the criticisms that were made to Benthamite’s model. This ethical theory illustrates that an action is right if it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest happiness. Unlike, Benthamite’s model, this model promotes an ethical framework that seeks to protect the rights and freedom of the individuals. They argue that the existence of the rules in society produces more pleasure, because people don’t live in a state of fear, but rather feel protected and free, and therefore obtain more pleasure for being protected. Furthermore, Preference Utilitarianism is the later version of this ethical theory that is based on the equal consideration of interests, rather than the simplistic model of pain and pleasure. From my view, Rule Utilitarianism as an ethical system, is far more plausible than the other types, simply because there are rules that would stop people pursuing pleasure at the cost of others. Though, it is almost contradictory to place the concept of rule next to utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham believed that our actions could be justified if they produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. As a consequentialist ethical system, everything that matters is related to an actions’ consequence and therefore, according to his model, there are no right or wrong actions. In better terms, actions are not objectively wrong or right, but their rightness or wrongness depends on each unique circumstance. The way to decipher the right action is through the use of the Hedonic calculus. However, the problem arises since every pleasure regardless of their type are ought to be counted as one unit. Therefore, there are no lower and higher pleasures and pains, but they are only subjective to the person. The Hedonic Calculus cannot accurately calculate the pleasure that we gain from relationships or any other pleasure that is complex. The calculus is flawed in many levels as some pleasures can be extremely superficial, but can at the same time, give pleasure to people. An act utilitarian would support such an ethical theory. If we prioritise extent over fecundity, then giving cakes to thousands of people is better than saving the lives of 10 people. Therefore, the outcome could be rather absurd and illogical. Also, according to this ethical model, when receiving our salary, we must go and give all of our money to the sick or homeless, as our action would produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. Therefore, this ethical model isn’t suitable for making moral decisions. Yet, its significance can be seen in the process of medical triage as people are prioritised in order to maximise the number of survivors. However, in general, this ethical model cannot be used as a basis of legislation for a country.

However, John Stuart Mill improved Bentham’s model of utilitarianism by postulating that there are higher and lower pleasures. Mill believed in the rights and freedom of the individuals and without the rule of law, there is no freedom. People will be happier if they feel protected and safe under the law, rather than being under an ethical system that is subjective to each circumstance. Such an ethical system generates fear and uncertainty. He was later labeled as a Rule Utilitarian. He preferred the quality of pleasures over quantity. Mill failed to explain how some pleasures can be better than others since the Hedonic Calculus is solely based on quantitative calculation and pleasures gained from relationships and social interactions cannot be calculated using numbers. Even if we attempt to calculate those kinds of pleasures, we would have to concede to the nature of its subjectivity, and thus it is difficult to make a right ethical decision in a particular circumstance. For Mill pleasures that are acquired using higher faculty or the mind are superior to those pleasures that animals are capable of experiencing. However, in a world of relativism, some people cannot be ever convinced that for instance, reading or writing is more pleasurable than sex or eating. As so far as there is no objective truth, it is up to the individuals to decide the types of pleasures that are more beneficial for them. Overall, Act utilitarianism looks good on the paper, stating that individuals are equal as they can all experience pleasure and pain. However, this ethical system could not be used as a basis for legislation, simply because it is so open to interpretation for each unique circumstance; that its outcome could create a society where people are living in a constant state of fear. A society where even the police would walk around with hedonic calculators, making decisions on each particular situation, simply because no one would comply with the ideal concept of the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. People’s interests are for themselves not for everyone else’s. Therefore, Act Utilitarianism is not a reasonable ethical model to be followed for our society. Mill’s approach is also problematic but at least, he recognizes that there are higher and lower pleasures. We know that an attempt to prove this is almost impossible since it is thoroughly subjective to the person. Furthermore, complex pleasures cannot be calculated in the same way as simple pleasures. Overall, Mill’s approach also fails to provide a decent ethical model, because the hedonic calculus is not designed for the perplexity of pleasure and pain. With every circumstance being different, ethical decisions cannot be the matter of adding up pain and pleasure in the hedonic calculus.

Utilitarianism is also criticised for the extent in which people can justify their actions based on the potential consequences. According to the maxim of utilitarianism, stealing is justified if one person was to steal from a very wealthy individual and give away the money to the poor or donate the money to hospitals in African countries. Such an action is surely justified since it results in the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. The wealthy individual wouldn’t be even affected by any means apart from a short-term anger which would be assuaged very quickly. On the other hand, hundreds of patients in hospitals can receive their treatments. Therefore, in this scenario, stealing is not wrong, in fact, it is necessary if you have been provided the opportunity to steal. However, Rule Utilitarianism can resolve all these problems, since there would be rules that don’t allow stealing of any kind. The existence of such rules in themselves provide the greatest pleasure for the greatest number because people feel protected by the existence of those rules. Therefore, unlike act utilitarianism that focuses on immediate consequences, Rule utilitarianism focuses on the potential long-term consequences and seeks to maximise pleasure through a set of rules. In this scenario, stealing from a wealthy person would not be justified since there would be rules that condemn such an action. People would live in a constant state of fear if staling was justified in certain circumstances. This is perhaps due to the psychological effect that an action can happen again if it has happened once, and surely it can happen to them. Therefore, Rule Utilitarianism can resolve many of the problems within act utilitarianism. However, this isn’t to say that Rule Utilitarianism is the right ethical theory for our society. The minorities under a rule utilitarian would be disadvantaged as this ethical system seeks to maximise pleasure for the greatest number and many of those people who have different beliefs and values can suffer from the decisions made. For example, in a country where Jews are hated and the majority of the people have a genuine fear of the Jews for an unknown reason, Rule utilitarianism does not provide any solutions to equalize the people. In fact, Rule utilitarianism because of its principle of the greatest pleasure for the greatest number would happily ignore them as long as the majority are happy. In such a country, equalization would irritate the majority as they are afraid of the Jews, thus it produces pain in the form of fear and anxiety. As a result, a Rule Utilitarian has to ignore the minorities, in order to maximise the aggregate pleasure for the majority. Also, the concept of rule contradicts utilitarianism, simply because utilitarianism is about maximizing utility in every circumstance and concepts such as rights or a set of rules do not exist. Also, for ordinary people to make decisions that maximise utility, they cannot be certain of the potentiality of their actions in a long-term but they can only be certain of the immediate consequences. Therefore, it is highly improbable that people would follow principles of Rule utilitarianism, besides the fact the two concepts contradict each other. Some would prioritise the importance of rule over pleasure, in order to maximise utility in a long-term for the majority. While others would prioritise the importance of pleasure over the rule, in order to maximise utility in a long term for the majority. The latter can do this by assuming that their actions do not affect the wider population. For instance, in my previous scenario, the thief can justify his action by thinking that no one would know that he stole from the wealthy individual. Also, he might think that the wealthy individual would not even bother to report the theft since he is so wealthy and does not want the hassle of pursuing a legal procedure against him. Therefore, the contradiction within Rule Utilitarianism is slightly problematic. We could conclude that Rule utilitarianism with all its benefits and answers to the criticisms, cannot be a plausible ethical system for our society. Though, I still think that it is the most reasonable among the other types.

Peter Singer, a contemporary philosopher introduced the idea of equal consideration of interests. He argued that actions are right if they fulfill the interests of those being involved. Preference Utilitarianism is also maximising, meaning that it seeks to meet the majority of people’s interests. This ethical model allows a high degree of relativistic thinking, meaning that what is right or wrong depends solely on the interests of the majority. In a country where pedophiles are the majority, preference utilitarianism would support it, as long as the majority of people have an interest in pedophilia. Of course, peter singer would not subscribe to that. However, the problem of interpretation can justify certain wrong actions on the basis that the interest of the majority is what makes an action right or wrong. Preference Utilitarianism also seems to give higher priority to those of higher volition or those capable of holding complex preferences. For instance, in cases of abortion, the mother who has a higher degree volition or is capable of holding higher preferences is superior to the child inside her body and can get rid of the child if she likes to. However, this is utterly barbaric, unreasonable and irrational, since one could argue that the child is a potential human being. A potential human is, in other words, a human being, because if you don’t kill the child, the child will be born and would have the opportunity to experience life just like his or her mother. Also, according to such an irrational ethical model, a five-year-old child could also be killed if the mother has an interest in killing the child for any reason since the mother is more capable of holding higher preferences. Therefore, Preference Utilitarianism is not a suitable model to be followed by society.

Furthermore, Peter Singer argues that it is important to take into account the preference of the individual, except where those preferences come into conflict with the preference of others and the right thing to do is, therefore, to maximise the chance that everyone’s preference will be satisfied. In a real life, we would not make decisions that do not benefit us, as partiality seems to be desirable. As a result, in a preference utilitarian society, people would not conform to the basic principles of it. Therefore, this ethical theory would be self-defeating. In addition to this, it is utterly confusing how someone is able to calculate the preferences of people, let alone the preference of animals. Also, in a preference utilitarian society, the minority are likely to suppress their preferences in order to live better. In the scenario of the paedophilic country, those who are not pedophiles are likely to declare themselves pedophiles in order to be protected from the majority. However, Richard Brandt provided a solution. He argued that “rational preferences were those that might survive cognitive psychotherapy”. If we concede that this solution fixes some problems, it is still a question how we should maximise utility, when people have different interests and how you would calculate the preferences of people. Therefore, Preference utilitarianism is extremely flawed in many levels and cannot ever be a suitable ethics for a society.

In conclusion, Mill provided a better and more coherent ethical model which was later labeled as Rule Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism is by far the most plausible type among the others since the existence of some certain rules can effectively make people feel safe and protected. People would rather live in a society where their property, lives, and money is protected. In other words, they gain more pleasure just for being in a society where there are rules protecting their interests. Moreover, Bentham’s model is highly animalistic and cannot be applied to a society. It can also force people to have a justified reason for their wrong action, which could then potentially create a society where people fear for their lives and properties. Therefore, his ethical model if far more unreasonable than the one Mill provided. Preference Utilitarianism is a contemporary version of Utilitarianism. It had many similarities with Bentham’s model, but it is more concerned about people’s interests, rather than their desire to gain pleasure and avoid pain. I believe that preference Utilitarianism is just as flawed as Act utilitarianism because, under such an ethical system, the minority’s interests are oppressed, the majority’s interests are what ought to be followed regardless of the negative impact on the minority. Furthermore, people are self-interested, and in practice, preference utilitarianism is not operable because partiality seems desirable. Overall, Preference Utilitarianism, as well as Benthamite’s Model, fails to provide a just and reasonable ethical system. Though, in some cases, Utilitarianism can have positive effects in a society, such as the procedure of medical triage.