The fundamental principles of utilitarianism are morality and the welfare of the majority. Utilitarianism believes that morality will make the world a better place to live in. Any act that produces a good consequence is considered as morally good. The nature or intention of the act is not important in utilitarianism. Human beings are expected to act in a manner that produces benefits to the majority. Utilitarianism places more emphasis on consequence and not on the intension. People are expected to put away self-interest for the sake of common good that benefits all. Common interests are given importance over personal interests. Any action that does not result in a common good is not morally correct. The advantage of utilitarianism is that it helps to eliminate disagreement on what is morally right and wrong. Any action that did not result in the benefit of a larger population is not morally right. (Barrow, 2015)
Morals that help the world become a better place are measured in terms of intrinsic value. Example of intrinsic values is: happiness, pleasure, preferences and ideals. The intrinsic value associated with morality raises a number of criticisms. For example, if the aim of morality was to increase the pleasure most people in the world, much higher values would be ignored and people would be living like “pigs”. This is because, intrinsic values like pleasure are associated with the body and it lasts for short duration. The pleasure ends once it is fulfilled. Hence it was difficult to base utilitarianism principles, on the grounds of common pleasure. (Barrow, 2015)
The English philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), opined that happiness, rather than pleasure is a good measure to gauge common good and thus should be set as a standard of measure in utilitarianism. But the problem with choosing happiness is that, it is difficult to measure and there is always competing interest on what makes a person happy. There is a need to realize goals that make people happy. The goals that make most people happy are treated morally correct by this theory. (Saward, 2010)
The English philosopher, recommended ideals as the intrinsic value on which morality should be based. Under ideals, he identified justice, freedom and beauty as values that ideals should possess. He suggested that the world would become a better place with justice, freedom and beauty. The difficulty with accepting Moore’s ideals is that they are difficult to quantify. (Saward, 2010)
Later, the Nobel prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow suggested that ‘preference satisfaction’ as the best measure of morality that would result in the common good. The advantage with this measure is that it allows individuals to choose the values that give them satisfaction. What most people choose will help make a better world. (Arrow, Sen, & Suzumura, 2002)
All the intrinsic values offer certain advantages and certain disadvantages. Thus, while calculating the utility of an action, the contribution of each intrinsic value of morality and their proportion is considered. The positive effect of the act is measured on a hedonic scale and the negative effects of the action are measured on a dolor scale. All the intrinsic values like pleasure, happiness, ideals and preference can be measured by a hedonic scale. For example, the number of people affected positively by an action will be measured as ‘hedons’ and the number of people negatively affected by the action will be measured as ‘dolors’. Then the value of the hedons, will be subtracted from dolors, and actions that have the more hedon value, will benefit more people and result in a common good. Such calculations enable the assessment of the intensity associated with each action.
Thoughts about the greatest good for the greatest number: Let us assume that I want to make a utilitarian decision about the construction of an over bridge that will help to reduce overcrowding and traffic jam. To begin with I will weigh the benefits like: the number of travelers who would be benefitted by this effort, to what extent does it improve the present situation and the number of stakeholders (contractor, builders, etc) who would be benefitted. This will be the positive aspect of the scale. Then I would calculate the dolor or the cost involved to accomplish such a project. Factors that affect cost are: the money paid by each taxpayer, other ways to solve the problem in a better way, etc. Each factor will be multiplied by the number of people affected and the total dolor will be calculated. The net result will then be calculated by subtracting the hedons from dolors.
Though this is a good idea of making decision, I am doubtfully as to whether it will work in all situations. For example, let’s consider that a man wants to divorce his wife to marry his lover, whom he meets after marriage. How can you apply utilitarianism principle to this situation? If a man wants to marry another woman, then the first wife and two children are affected by his decision. In case he is prevented from doing so, still his wife, children and lover are affected by his decision. This is because, relationships are not always made on utilitarianism principles.
Thoughts on negative responsibility: All of us make utilitarianism calculation in some way or the other. Each action we plan is made in expectation of a consequence. We expect the consequence to be in line with our intrinsic values. But everyone in this word does not follow the same rules and they differ in their intrinsic values or morality. This makes utilitarianism a difficult concept to practice.
Let’s consider that a very prominent and much sought after scientist is seriously ill, and he needs a heart for survival. There is no suitable donor. However, there is a poor homeless man who is admitted to the emergency ward and is having a heart that matches the leader’s need. The poor man is unconscious and the doctor predicts that he will die anyway. Is it right for the hospital to hasten the death of the homeless poor man, harvest his organ and save the prominent leader who will be more useful to the society. Who takes up the responsibility of deciding which is good for the masses in the utilitarian rule. Utilitarian does not consider individual rights. There is always justification that can be provided for choosing a moral or for not choosing it. For example, people who choose the leader will argue that more people are benefitted by the acts of the leader. Those who choose the poor man’s rights will argue that such acts by the hospital will undermine the trust of the masses in the health care system.
In utilitarianism, people can violate the rules if the situation demands so. The individual calculation of consequence is the most dominant factor in making a decision. It takes responsible individuals to make responsible calculation, and it is very difficult to find such leaders. The person who makes the decision or choice, is held responsible for the consequence associated with the choice. It is not always possible to foresee consequences, especially when it is associated with another person’s action. The problem with utilitarianism is that the person making the choice is held responsible for the consequence generated by another person. Some time, the consequence of the action of one person, is born by another person who does not approve of the first person’s action. For example, let’s consider the example of a terrorist who threatens to kill hostages if I do not meet his demand. If I make a decision of not approving the terrorist’s demands, I may have to face the consequence of terrorist killing the hostages, which I do not approve of. It is difficult to say who will be responsible for the negative consequence.
Does the case study support or deter utilitarianism ethics: The success of the utilitarian system, depends on the integrity of the person practicing? If a utilitarian leader lacks integrity, all his decisions will be directed towards self-interest. It is the fundamental nature of the person to act in his own interest. Moral convictions are made by the society to regulate the activities of its people. So, it is difficult to impose and supervise the morals of a person, as these are very intimate and private concepts. A person’s commitment towards something will dictate his integrity, and it is very difficult to know what a person is at the core.
The utilitarian concept completely ignores intension. It is difficult for me to understand moral values without intention. It is difficult for a person with bad intension to have a good moral and make the right decision. If all decisions are made only after a consequence has occurred, it would be a costly way to run a society. A component of luck can make a bad decision produce good consequences, while a component of luck can make a good decision produce bad consequences. Luck is a very important factor. It is not always possible to wait for the final consequence, before deciding an action as right and wrong. Utilitarianism principles make morality a matter of luck, rather than something which is planned and done out of good intention. This is the biggest drawback of the theory. Good action can fail from unforeseeable consequences.
In the example of British colonization, the colonizer decided what was best for the host country. This led to exploitation of the host country and people struggling for independence. A colonizer cannot understand the value of independence. Though utilitarian principals are good while making decisions on policies, it cannot be good for protecting human rights.
While considering human rights, the rights contributed by nature, religion and society are considered to make appropriate decisions. Every theory has a double effect: there will always be a bad and good for an action. Whenever a choice is to be made between natural and artificial, most people prefer natural, unless the natural choice is harmful. Then they use their discretion to choose artificial. Thus, a definite principle like utilitarianism cannot offer a solution to all problems.
References:
Arrow, K., Sen, A., & Suzumura, K. (2002). Handbook of social choice and welfare. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Barrow, R. (2015). Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement (pp. 39-92). New Work: Routledge.
Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
