Criticisms of Utilitarianism

I. Absolute Duties Irrelevant

Moral duties such as truth-telling are no longer absolute, necessary duties.

While Kant argues that we should never tell a lie no matter what the consequences,
utilitarians would first calculate the positive and negative effects from either telling the
truth or telling a lie.

If telling a lie will maximize more happiness or pleasure for the number of people
involved, then telling a lie is the morally right thing to do.

Thus, certain moral duties are not absolute, but relative to the positive outcome of a given moral
action.
II. Theory Demands Too Much
Utilitarianism states that we are morally required to act in such a way to bring about the best
consequences. As a result, youre morally responsible for:
a.
b.
c.

The things that you didnt do but could have done to maximize happiness.
The things that you could have prevented others from doing that decrease overall
happiness.
What you actually do to maximize/increase happiness.

Thus, it appears that utilitarianism is an excessively demanding moral theory. If youre required
to maximize happiness, then you would have to make very different choices in your life. In fact,
you may need to give up a lot, if not everything, in order to do the moral thing.
Example #1
How should you spend 10 dollars? Should you go watch a movie with a friend? Would this
increase the overall happiness of the world? If not, then perhaps you donate the money to
charity.
According to utilitarianism, it would be the right thing to do to maximize happiness by
giving the money to charity. If you watch a movie instead or buy yourself lunch, then
youd be acting immorally.
III. Required to Commit Morally Reprehensible Acts
Utilitarianism can justify many actions which are usually thought immoral.
Example #1 (Executing the Innocent to Deter Crime)

If it could be proven that imposing the death penalty on an innocent person would deter potential
criminal acts, and thus maximize overall happiness, then a utilitarian would have to say that
executing the innocent person was the morally right thing to do.
Example #2 (Prisoners of War)
Suppose youre a combatant at war and youre handed a gun and forced to shoot the leader of
some terrorist organization. If you dont shoot this prisoner, then its possible that hundreds of
others will eventually die since the terrorist leader will still be alive.

What should you do? Utilitarianism would require that you shoot the prisoner since, on
the basis of maximizing overall happiness, hundreds of lives are better than 1.

Example #3 (NY or Kid?)

Suppose a terrorist leader is pointing a nuclear weapon at NY, and you happen to have
his only child. You also happen to have a gun in your hand. What should you do? Do you
threaten to shoot and kill his precious kid in order to save millions of lives?
Example #4 (Organ Donor)
Imagine that five patients in a hospital will soon die without an organ transplant. The first two
patients need a kidney, the third patient needs a heart, one patient needs a liver, and the other one
needs some corneas (the front part of the eye that covers the pupil).

Luckily, theres a healthy patient in Room 6 for a standard check-up procedure. It turns
out that his tissue is compatible with the other five patients. Now, the healthy patient is a
mean philosophy professor who has no living relatives (and if he does, they all dont like
him)

The question is: if youre the doctor of the healthy patient, and if no one would know about it,
should you kill the professor in order to donate the organs for transplants?

There would be happiness created by every sick patient who needs the organs, their
family and friends, and the students of the mean professor would also be happy.

Therefore, utilitarianism says that you should kill the healthy philosophy professor.

Note: How would Kant respond if you were to perform the operation on the mean professor?
Consider his second formulation of the categorical imperative.
A possible reply to the above four examples (regarding 4th criticism): these scenarios are highly
unlikely and amount to nothing but mere fanciful fiction. Utilitarianism works for clear-cut
cases such as whether I ought to help an old man or woman on the street or keep my promise to
my friend whos in the hospital.