Utilitarianism seems easy to define. At its basis it's simply a matter of trying to achieve the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number. And who can argue with that? It seems like arguing about the merits of motherhood (though today that happens) or apple pie (which in my mind is unassailable.)
But like most things, you just have to dig below the surface a bit. What, after all, is happiness? Can we agree on a definition? And is happiness the highest good? What do we mean by "the highest good" anyway? As you'll see, the way in which utilitarians answer these questions and how they seek happiness for the "greatest number" can pose a problem.
The generally ackowledged fathers of utilitarianism are Mill and Bentham (though Sidgwick and others have had their influence.) They suggested a system of morality that is based on consequence rather than focusing on the nature of the act or the intent of the person. They seek the greatest possible happiness (or the greatest possible fulfillment of people's desires, Sidgwick's refinement of the system.) For that reason they are often called consequentialists.
There are a couple of problems with that consequentialism that I'd like to address here. I won't suggest an alternate system (that comes later); I'll just throw a few rocks at this one.
One problem with consequentialism as a moral system is its lack of morality. By that I mean that it boils too much down to numbers. Consequentialists (those happy utilitarian bean-counters) go through a lot of effort to quantify the greater good and how much bad you can inflict before it becomes - well- bad. It's like using a slide-rule to figure out whether something is good or bad: I've inflicted 15 units of suffering and gained 100 units of happiness. A net gain! But if the right thing is based entirely on some numerical quantity then the individual is lost. For example:
Groups often identitify themselves along cultural or ethnic lines. And who's to judge that this is wrong, so long as they're happy? But what if you have a small minority within a community. Should they suffer if the larger group wills it? What if the larger group is afraid or suffering and don't know where to turn. What if seeing a common enemy unites them and gives them a sense of comfort, a greater sense of solidarity that allows them to pull through difficult times? The modern utilitarian will balk at that, worried that you're about to invoke Nazis and Jews. But he can only resist by appealing to the relative intensity of the Jewish suffering and the mildness (and questionable veractiy) of the comfort or economic gain of those people forcing them to work slave-labour in the ghettoes. His complaint is still quantifiable and not moral. At some point, in the Utilitarian mind, few enough people are suffering that the scale tips and atrocity becomes allowable.
The classic objection to Utilitarianism is the reference to a group of people who are all going to die if they don't get their own unique organ transplants. With the utilitarian slide rule it becomes allowable to kill the one healthy man outright in order tosave the many, whether he volunteers or not. The greater happiness of the greater number rules. Numbers rule. The good of the many, yada yada... But wait - if the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, the many rule the few.
So, utilitarianism is simply rule by numbers, a moral twist on the old "might is right." (Admittedly, Democracy itself is a twist of "might is right" by weight of numbers. That's why democracy is a politcal system and not a moral one.)
The second objection is simply this: Utilitarianism destroys any sane philosophy the West has presented. More on that in another post.
And what the heck: a third objection. One reason that utilitarianism isn't sane is that anything goes. If the harm isn't there, or if it's outweighed by the benefit, anything goes. But while the "anything goes" part is straightforward the rest of it is all so impractical. How do you measure happiness anyway? How do you compare the intensity of suffering in one person and the level of happiness in another? What IS happiness? Is it simply a bio-chemical state of the person, or something else? Utilitarianism doesn't even try to answer these things.
All in all the system is a mess. It assumes a lot about certain questions, primarily the spiritual ones. And if I were to throw two systems at Utilitarianism they would be Aristotelianism and the entire Judeo-Christian ethic. (to be continued...)
3 comments:
Wow, I'm the first one to comment!! First of all, I would like to address your comments about Facebook (you still haven't added me by the way). It was never intended to be discussion forum. It was originally supposed to be a network where university students could share their notes, chat and make plans. If you were looking for a more discussion-friendly social networking site, Livejournal would probably have been a safer bet.
As for utilitarianism, thanks for the definition, I never really understood what it was. I agree with you that the sheer impossibility of defining love, happiness or despair by quantifiable means pretty much kills this belief system. All the same, I have to ask: Do you think that the ends NEVER justify the means?? As in, its never okay to do a little bit of "evil" or "wrong" in order to achieve something really good. For instance in Les Misérables (which I'm assuming you've read), do you think that Jean Valjean deserved what he got for stealing?
That's probably a really crappy example, but I'm sure you get the gist of it.
Finally, great idea to start a blog! I usually find most of your ideas interesting and its nice that now there is a more lasting version of your arguments than what I can remember from Latin class.
-Caitlin M
The Facebook comment is fair, Caitlin. I state things in class more strongly than I feel. And no, I don't think the ends justify the means. But that's complicated. And I think Jean Valjean's theft isn't necessarily an immoral act, not based on outcome but based on his intent and the nature of the act. I'll have to write on that.
Johnson, well said about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism could be used to justify morally abhorrent things. For instance, if the murder of 10 babies could secure the live of 100 more, well than a utilitarian would argue this would be the action of choice assuming of course that the murder would create more happiness for the families of the 100 people than sadness for the unfortunate families of the 10 people. Extreme example, I know, but I think it gets the point across.
As you touched upon, happiness is a very subjective thing. The whole concept of happiness is something that I am sure varies culture to culture and nation to nation. What we here in the western world would think would be a criteria for happiness, such as a 50" plasma TV, wouldn't even enter the mind of someone from Sierra Leone who finds happiness just from having a meal every couple of days. This reality definitely says something about western ideas of happiness. Three square meals in a day for someone is seen as "normal" for many of us here in the so-called economic north.
Is 50 people are satisfied with a decision and 49 suffer as a result of it, can anyone with a conscience and a shred of morality justify the action taken? A utilitarian could, but I couldn't.
Wait a second...I think I know how happiness can be measured! Get a measuring tape, do something to make someone smile, put the measuring tape around the inside circumference of the lips of the said smiling person. Viola, happiness measured! Of course, you'll need baseline measures from people who are ecstatic, really happy, happy, not very happy, melancholy and extremely depressed. I think that's a usable scale. Take 1000 people from each category, measure their smile circumferences to get an average for each category. From here, we can measure other's smiles and determine their level of happiness.
Johnson...I smell a research grant here!
Post a Comment