Philosophy: Utilitarianism

J.S. Mill's definition of 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." (Mill, 18). Jeremy Bentham in his defining of utilitarianism noted that man bases nearly all of his decisions on what will give him the most pleasure and what will provide him with the least pain. (Bentham, 85). Therefore, pleasure is the most intrinsic good and pain or privation of pleasure is the most intrinsic evil. While Bentham regards all pleasures as equal regardless of form, Mills utilitarianism varies slightly in that he regards certain pleasures as more desirable than others, placing intellectual pleasures (reading a book) over sensual pleasures (eating a tasty meal). After considering the pros and cons of Mill's utilitarianism it becomes obvious that utilitarianism is a successful theory by virtue of its everyday pervasiveness.

Essentially, the principle of utility follows the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number' principle. Whatever provides the most pleasure for the most people is what is morally correct. To determine what 'pleasure' is we use our own experiences. Mill acknowledged that to analyze every consequence of every action would be tedious, time-consuming, and nearly impossible, so Mill put forth that instead, we should live by general moral rules such as 'One should not lie,' and 'One should not murder.' Only when there arises a conflict between those moral rules and a person's current situation should the utility principle be applied. (Stumpf, 345)

Consider the situation wherein a man has no way to feed his family but to steal food. A general moral rule would dictate that one should not steal. Another general moral rule would dictate that one should care for one's family. For this man, there is a deep conflict between two general moral rules. In this situation, it would be appropriate to apply the utility principle in order to resolve the conflict. So, according to Mill's version of utilitarianism, what is right is what results in the greatest good (happiness, pleasure etc.) for the greatest amount of people, but we need not apply the utility principle to every situation and/or possible action. We need only apply it to those situations and/or actions wherein a serious conflict arises between the general moral rules and ones current state of affairs.

In order to properly apply the utility principle one must consider what pain and what pleasure would result from ones action. In the example above, the man considers stealing some bread from a big retailer like Wal-mart. When consider this action the man notes that Wal-mart is a huge chain and won't really notice a decrease in profits if he steals some bread. He also notes that if he does steal the bread he will be able to feed his family. If he does not steal the bread his family may starve and die resulting in a lot of pain for the extended family and friends. In this scenario, it would be deemed morally correct for the man to steal the bread because more people would be made happy by the theft than made upset by the theft. Essentially, if the consequences of ones action results in more pain than pleasure than the action is deemed morally wrong. However, if the consequences result in more pleasure than pain, then the action is deemed morally correct.

However, as with all philosophical viewpoints, utilitarianism has its faults as well. Inherent in the utilitarian philosophy is the propensity to ignore minority interests for the sake of the majority. In this way, it ignores justice and fairness and can in fact lead to serious oppression of opposing or alternate opinions. This oppression of a minority can also lead to an endorsement of unjust acts. For many years slavery was endorsed as a just act simply because more people derived happiness and well-being from it than suffered from it. Mill would claim that because the presence of slavery resulted in more pleasure for more people than the absence of slavery then it was morally correct. However, slavery is now viewed as a great injustice.

Mill acknowledged this particular flaw of utilitarianism and addressed in another essay entitled On Liberty. In this essay, he addressed the dangers of utilitarianism in what he considered the best system of government, a democracy. In Mill's essay On Liberty he recognized "that it is entirely possible for the will of the majority to oppress minorities. In addition, democracies have a kind of tyranny of opinion... Even in a democracy, therefore, it is necessary to set up safeguards against the forces that would deny individual freedom." (Stumpf, 346) Mill recognizes that, even in the best of circumstances, oppression is possible simply because there may be more people who benefit from it and so safeguards, like our Bill of Rights, are absolutely necessary.

Another major objection to utilitarianism is that it is nearly impossible to anticipate all the long-term or short-term consequences of a particular action. Individuals have no way of knowing what all of the short-term or immediate effects of their action will be and they also have no way of knowing how people will respond in the future to the precedent that they set. The best example of this is found in the court system. One court's ruling may influence another court's ruling in a way that the first court could not have possibly anticipated. For better or worse, there is no way for courts to anticipate how others will interpret their ruling years later.

Also, in utilitarianism, many times the morality of an action is based on others being knowledgeable about the action. However, if a particular action is never discovered it can be judged as good because it caused no adverse effects. However, that same action if later discovered could be judged as immoral because its discovery caused adverse consequences. Consider the dog-walker who is also a casual peeping-tom. In this situation, the dogs are happy because they are being walked and the man is also gaining happiness. If no one is aware of the peeping-tom, the action is deemed to be morally fit as it provides pleasure for the peeping-tom and the dogs being walked. However, immediately upon discovery, that same action becomes morally irresponsible because it violates the privacy of others and causes great displeasure. Essentially, the morality of an action is dependant on its discovery or non-discovery, which is in many cases an uncontrollable event.

The above situation also demonstrates Mill's distinction between intellectual and sensual pleasure and pain. The pleasure that the peeping-tom receives during his nightly dog walks is of a sensual nature. However, the pain produced when the peeping-tom is discovered is of an intellectual nature. In this case, it is a loss of dignity and privacy. Even if the number of people receiving pleasure (the one man) or pain (the one woman) are numerically equal, Mill would contend that the pain produced is still greater because the pain is of an intellectual nature whereas the happiness is a base sensual pleasure.

With regard to one's inability to accurately anticipate all the consequences of one's actions Mill argued that knowing all the consequences of an action simply isn't necessary for the average individual. Mill stated that, "Those alone the influence of whose actions extends to society in general need concern themselves habitually about so large an object." (Mill, 26) In effect, only those individuals whose decisions have the possibility of drastically effecting society as a whole need to be concerned with the total consequences of their actions. These individuals would include people such as Supreme Court justices, presidents, and other world officials. More modern utilitarian theorists have further refined the philosophy so that there are two kinds of utility: expected utility and actual utility. The more modern defense of this flaw is that the morality of an action is to be judged on the expected utility rather than the actual utility. That is, an individual need not know the actual repercussions of his actions; he can instead depend on what he is capable of anticipating (expected utility) and use that knowledge to determine the ethical and moral worthiness of an action. (Feldman)

The objections to utilitarianism that remain in contention, namely uncontrollable situational variances that control whether or not an action is deemed as moral, present themselves as valid objections. Indeed, it makes sense that one should take into account the situational variables when considering a particular action. How else would one account for differing reactions to the same action? However, this one objection is vastly outweighed by the strengths of Mill's utilitarianism. We must also consider that most of the other objections were discussed and solved by Mill in other essay's or the theory has been revised to account for those objections.

Perhaps the greatest argument for utilitarianism is its everyday usage. After all, when considering the actions of their young children, parents don't consider the motives so much as the effects and consequences of those actions. When a child strikes a sibling, regardless of the child's reason for hitting, the offending child is reprimanded because their actions hurt another. No parent would condone hitting a sibling on the basis of a worthy motive. For parents and many others including teachers, police officers, and judges it is the consequences of an action that truly matter. By mere everyday usage, utilitarianism would seem to be a widely useful, appropriate, and successful theory.