This essay will deal with the problems and prospects for Utilitarianism, outlining the basic tenants of its philosophy and the problems that can occur while using it as a basis for moral living. It will outline, evaluate, and dismiss three different strands; act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism and the last which is a combination of both. The history should be illustrated putting into context why utilitarianism was initially attractive; this will also demonstrate where the modern thought originated. This essay will prove that as a basis for moral living, utilitarianism is not a viable option as it currently stands. It is also advocated that one of the greatest thinker and writers of this movement, JS Mill, was not even utilitarian, despite his assertions to the contrary.
Jeremy Bentham was the modern father of utilitarianism, but he has his antecedents in the Epicureans, and influence from the writings John Hume, as well as his contemporary, William Paley. Paley advocated a type of Utilitarianism that was influenced by Christian theology. However Bentham was the first to bring all the theory together as a cohesive whole under the heading of act utilitarianism. “[the utilitarian movement was] essentially practical in outlook, orientated towards legal, penal, and political reform.”[1] Bentham started his career following his father at the Bar. It is noted by Coplestone that this was not the career he desired and what he preferred was “the life of reflection to that of a practicing lawyer.”[2] His interest was directed towards reform of the law with regard to the utility of the law in dealing with offenders; his reflection was directed towards the most desirable consequences in the penal system. Due to the opposition and rejection of his ideas he became convinced that the whole system needed a radical overhaul; therefore political reform was required.[3] As a result of opposition to his ideas act utilitarianism was codified. This led to a calculus moral system written by Bentham based on utility.
Bentham’s form of Utilitarianism is known as Act Utilitarianism, this is his definition:
“By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disproves of every other action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever; and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.”[4]
The essence of his philosophy is to consider the possible outcome of every act and then to make a choice on the basis of possible happiness or avoidance of pain, as the result of each consideration. He is not referring to the decision makers own happiness but “…to augment or to diminish the happiness of the community…”[5] It is obvious that a way of measuring happiness must then be universal. Bentham conceives of a number of ways of measuring pleasure or happiness, four of these ways are measurements of pleasure (intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, and propinquity or remoteness), two are circumstances (fecundity and purity) and the last is the extent, i.e. the number of people affected by the act.[6] This is the basis of utilitarianism. It should be kept in mind that this theory evolved during the period of Victorian optimism and the perceived idea of the ability of man to be perfect or near perfect.
One of the first arguments against act utilitarianism is the time and effort it takes to apply it to every situation. Bentham himself lays out a plan in how the theory should be utilised: begin the measuring with regards to one person only, then 1st the value of each pleasure, 2nd the value of each pain, 3rd the fecundity of the first pleasure and the impurity of the first pain, 4th the value of each pain produced after the first, this is the fecundity of the first pain and the impurity of the first pleasure, 5th create a balance sheet of all pains and pleasures, if highest balance is on pleasure then the act will give a good tendency and a bad tendency if the balance is on pain, 6th (and finally) repeat the process to the number of people that will be affected by the act.[7]
Bentham admits that this is cumbersome and impractical in every situation. “It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued previously to every moral judgement, or to every legislative or judicial operation.”[8] Why not? Is the first response to the assertion he makes. If his theory is to be considered as a moral theory then it must have the ability to be used in all situations, otherwise some decisions are made on other grounds. It is necessary to ask which decisions we should use it for. Perhaps just for the important ones or due to its impractical nature just for the unimportant decisions, this he does not answer or make clear. This is not a logical or comprehensive argument on Bentham’s part.
Later in the same piece of work Bentham writes “As to the intensity of the pleasure… [it] …cannot be estimated till the particular pleasure he may come to derive from it, or the particular pains he may come to exclude by means of it are brought to view.”[9] What he now suggests is that the method he used for measuring the pleasure or pain cannot be properly applied due to lack of factual information concerning the actual value of the pleasure or pain. Therefore there is a problem in evaluating the value of pain and pleasure, another problem that is pointed out by other later critics of his work. This undermines entirely his first step in the decision making process of good or bad acts. Without the base the rest of his process for evaluating an act is undermined. This is only two criticisms and the theory is in difficulty.
Another problem with utilitarianism is the unpredictability of the future. Act utilitarianism demands that the actor have knowledge of something that he can have no knowledge of; that is, the outcome of his actions. If this causes difficulty, then the actor must make some presumptions about the future and the outcome of his action as to whether happiness or pain will be produced. Therefore the actor is left acting without knowing if his actions are ethical until the act has finished. This leads to another problem; when does the act finish? It can be argued that each action acted may then cause other affect; this is known as the ripple effect.
Can Act Utilitarianism be dismissed as an unworkable moral theory, perhaps, but two more examples will suffice to bury it in this form permanently. The first is that the theory demands the agent have no other influence on his decision making, therefore it does not allow for taking care of oneself or ones family over others if the others will get more pleasure from you acting against your family or yourself, this is counter-intuitive and does not allow for family ties or love or friendship. The last objection that I will list here comes from JS Mill, who will be dealt with later in this essay. Mill states his objection that all pleasure should be measured equally, Mill believes in higher and lower pleasures,[10] this is in direct contradiction to Bentham who believed there was no difference between them.
Rule utilitarianism is defined generally as “the best act is the one that would be enjoined by whichever rule would yield the most utility.”[11] In essence this mean that instead of having to consider each act there would be a rule that can be referred to concerning each act. These rules are derived from act utilitarianism: the consequences beyond the single act are considered into a wider sphere; thereby producing rules that the utilitarian can adhere to. Rule utilitarianism is then in Austin’s words “… [rules are] fashioned on utility; our conduct on rules.”[12]
One major problem with rule utilitarianism is as Mackie states in his essay The Ethics of Fantasy;
“that it is extensionally equivalent to act utilitarianism in that the outcome of its two-stage procedure, consistently carried out, will always coincide with that of a direct test of an individual act by reference to its own utility.”
Therefore there is no real difference in the theory, only some difference in the practice. This though leaves rule utilitarianism open to all the same problems of act utilitarianism, except of course the unwieldiness in dealing with each separate act, the amount of rules could become a problem though and which one to apply in the particular situation. At this point it can be considered fair to also dismiss rule utilitarianism as a moral theory that is unworkable.
J.S. Mill a major writer on utilitarianism disagreed with Bentham’s psychological view on human kind, from which Bentham derived his ethics. Therefore Mill, still advocating utilitarianism, proposes an inclusion of rules as one of the major changes in the moral philosophy. Mill is often read as a rule-utilitarian, but he is not. Some of the rules he advocates adding to act utilitarianism are not added due to their utility but due to the fact he is trying to overcome some of the counter-intuitive criticisms made of act utilitarianism. This is echoed by Coplestone “he [Mill] grafts on to Benthamism a moral theory which has little or nothing to do with the balancing of pleasures and pains…”[13]
Only two quotes are required from Mill to illustrate his own confusion as to what label he wishes to his moral philosophy to come under. First is his definition of utilitarianism: “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.”[14] There is no real difference from Bentham in his definition of utilitarianism, what Mill does though is add on his rules to the original Benthamite version, and make a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. All this would be interesting in his theory if it was not for the next quote; “happiness is not attained by seeking it directly…one finds it by striving after some goal or idea other than ones own happiness or pleasure.”[15] This quote illustrates Mill advocating goals that are not utilitarian in nature. Therefore at some point in his thinking he thought that to achieve happiness that it was a by-product of aiming at something else and using some other method for decision making.
In summation it has been proven above that the theory of utilitarianism is not a viable workable theory. There are too many problems attached to it: measurement of happiness or pain, counter-intuitive, agent must be neutral, time required for the decision making process, unwieldiness, knowledge of future; these are only some of the more obvious problems. Therefore the obstacles, as illustrated, for utilitarianism are numerous and out way the benefits. The prospects, as the theory currently exist, to be used as a moral theory is not good, if any exist at all.
Bibliography
Anthony Kelbrook, Ed, Mill, Plain Text from Key Thinkers, (Parma Books: London, 1997).
Frederick Coplestone, S.J. A History of Philosophy, Volume VIII, (Doubleday: London, 1994).
Ted Honderich, Ed, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (OUP: Oxford, 1995).
http:enwikipedia.org/wiki/Utiitarianism
Mark Timmons, Conduct and Character, (Thomson Wadsworth: Belmont, 2003).
[1] p2, A History of Philosophy, Vol VIII.
[2] p4, ibid.
[3] P5, ibid.
[4] P102, Conduct and Character
[5] P103, ibid.
[6] pp 105-106 ibid.
[7] p107, ibid
[8] P107, ibid
[9] P108, ibid.
[10] p110, ibid
[11] http:enwikipedia.org/wiki/Utiitarianism
[12] p143, Conduct and Character.
[13] P32, A History of Philosophy, Vol VIII
[14] p12, Mill, Plain Text from Key Thinkers
[15] p26, A History of Philosophy, Vol VIII
Related posts:
