Andrea Campbell

Classical Problems in Philosophy

Vaggalis

13 December 2017

Utilitarianism

We exist in a world in which no document details the universal standards set for determining

ethical expectations and the moral right from the moral wrong. At times, this ethical judgment

seems to rest in the hands of each individual, while for others the guidance appears to be derived

from the presence of a sort of deity or greater power. John Stuart Mill explored the philosophical

phenomenon known as utilitarianism which refers to the idea of actions being right if they are

able to be of use or benefit to the majority. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory as it

examines the consequences of actions in order judge rightness or wrongness. This focuses on the

ends rather than the means, a direct opposite of the Kantian Moral Theory which is concerned

with the ways in which one reaches morality, not just the end. This idea of utility as the base for

morality by Mill has both strengths and weaknesses in its ability to uphold ethical conduct.

Altruism or happiness is the ultimate end goal of utilitarianism. The idea of impartiality is an

essential component of utilitarianism and refers to all persons’ happiness or claim to happiness

being considered as equal. While some argue that this argument is flawed due to the assumption

that happiness is attainable by all, however, Mill insists that happiness, in the form of

accumulative moments over a span of time, is in fact possible. This happiness is not to be self-

serving and one should act as a benevolent, disinterested spectator when assessing actions of

utility in order to provide the most unbiased perspective of moral decision making. Mill observes
that the standard for judgment of an act by a utilitarian is the happiness of all people, not of the

one.

Unitarianism, like most ethical theories. strives to be morally inclusive and act as an equal

ethical standard for all. The Principle of Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle considers

that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to

produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 1861). Such is not egoistic but rather other-regarding in

that one should pursue pleasure or happiness, not just for themselves, but for as many sentient

beings as possible. Where morality is concerned, one is indeed special but no more special than

anyone else.

The Principle of Utility is a product of Mill’s attempt to address the misconceptions which

exist in regard to utilitarianism and pleasure. Mill explains that actions are right when they

promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number and pleasure and the absence of pain exist

as the only desirable ends and the only things which can be deemed as inherently “good”.

Further, Mill details that there exist two different types of pleasures: higher pleasures and lower

pleasures. We as humans differ from animals in that we are able to experience pleasure in things

other than appetites. That is to say, when given the option between intellectual life and gluttony,

we have a greater desire for the intellectual life as it provides us with a greater pleasure, even if

harder to obtain. Mill illustrates this when he states, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied

than a pig satisfied” (Mill 1861). He delineates that individuals would choose higher quality

pleasures which are accompanied with discomfort over other pleasures and that, when given

access to all kinds of pleasures, people choose those pleasures of higher quality. There may exist

some limit to these pleasures, however, life itself can be pleasurable enough and the existence of

dissatisfaction can exist as a reminder of the value of such pleasure.

 However, there is room to argue against Mill’s insistence of utility as a pleasure and

foundational measurement for pleasure. One may say that the comparison of differing pleasures

creates a certain artificiality and lessens the value of an experience. An example could be

comparing the amount of pleasure eating a Big Mac brings to that pleasure of reading Pride &

Prejudice. Another potential issue is the pure subjectivity of “pleasure” as it can differ between

individuals. The inability to distinguish between pleasure and pain is plausible and, thus, utility

is unable to be reached. Perhaps pleasure itself is an inadequate foundation from which ethical

standards can be constructed, and results in selfish duty rather than duty for duty's sake as

suggested by Immanuel Kant’s moral theory.

The Trolley Problem is a common situation which is posed for ethical consideration in terms

of utilitarianism. It begins with two train tracks with five people working in the distance at one

end on the right and a little boy standing in the middle of the other on the left. A trolley car is

careening in their direction and you have a lever which decides if it goes to the right or left (Foot

1967). A utilitarian would choose the left, killing the little boy and saving the other five as this

ensures the most good for the greatest number of people and upholds their moral responsibility.

This problem brings to light the spectrum of righteousness which is defined by morality and

expediency. Morality is, of course, those actions which are ethical and right. Expediency is used

in reference to those actions which are done out of self-interest with the ends justifying the

means. Mill, however, declares that such does not encompass utility as one inflicting pain is to

act against society’s best interest and thus, to behave immorally. The Trolley Problem exposes a

weakness of utilitarianism as no moral theory ought to demand the taking of an innocent life,

however, Mill insists that the other-regarding nature of utilitarianism and the ensuring of the

minimum amount of pain constitutes morality.

 Utilitarianism is often mocked as being too reliant on the “good” of mankind, however, Mill

is aware that an ethical philosophy is unable to be incumbent if there is no consideration for

those who do not uphold the standards. There exist both internal and external sanctions which

can be imposed. External sanctions occur outside of the person and take form as peer pressure or

the fear of the disapproval or scrutiny of others. Internal sanctions form within one’s conscience

and include both the discomfort of the mind which one feels as well as religious self-

condemnation for not upholding the moral expectations. This internal feeling can be defined as

moral conscience or the feeling of pain which is more less intense, that comes when we think of

violating the moral laws. Mill believes that the only way to prevent one from breaking the

philosophical rules is to educate all individuals on moral good and impress upon them the

internal desire to endorse such values as their own standard. He also states that the idea of moral

conscience is not known through education but rather is our own self-awareness and empathy for

those who are morally wronged.

As it is an ethical theory, the Principle of Utility must also be examined in terms of

justice. Mill states that “Just must have an existence in Nature as something absolute” (Mill

1861). One could not imagine allowing injustice for the mere maximization of utility. Mill

includes that humans have certain rights which must be guaranteed in order to ensure that no

injustice occurs as well as to receive what one deserves both in terms of good and evil. If one is

to do something good then they deserve a good consequence, however, if one behaves evilly,

then they deserve a bad consequence. It is also deemed unjust to violate any agreement or to not

uphold equality. Mill details these examples which the upholding of such is the only way justice

can be ensured.
 Each individual has the moral obligation in the form of a duty. There exist both imperfect

and perfect duties. An imperfect duty is one which we should do but it cannot be enforced or

specified in terms of who and when, such as charity. Perfect duties are those which must be done

and which a person may demand of another such as raising a child. Mill argues that an

understanding of these duties allows for justice to distinguished from other forms of morality.

However, the simple awareness of those standards which are just do not ensure their moral

enforcement. Mill observes that there is a certain rule of conduct society expects to be upheld

and sentiment which sanctions that rule. We must each seek to enforce sanctions on those who

behave morally wrong and we harm those whom we don’t punish for their immoral behavior.

The biggest weakness of utilitarianism in terms of right actions is the moral obligation to

leave some individual suffering because it benefits the greater good. Injustice is thought to be

appropriate in scenarios such as an innocent man being taken into custody for committing

numerous crimes which the locals have become very distressed over. The arresting brings peace

and contentment to the people despite it being inequitable. A utilitarian says one must allow for

such to occur despite knowing his innocence as it ensures the greatest amount of good for the

greatest number of people. This results in rightness being transitive with each right action being

trumped by another of greater value, lessening the value of the other. It as if to say that one

individual suffering from a preventable death has lesser value than one trillion individuals

suffering from a preventable headache. Utilitarianism calls for us to aid those one trillion over

the one, a clearly immoral behavior. This ideal constitutes for torture in order to gain

intelligence, again obligating immorality in order to ensure the happiness of the greater number.

There exist possible scenarios outside of the realm of morality which cannot be allowed to occur

despite the duties of utility.

 While utilitarianism is centered upon the universally shared value of happiness and can be

argued is the most intuitive theory for ethical standards, it is not the most applicable in our

reality. There exists an over assumption of one’s personal moral standards and emotions as well

as the consequences which will occur in every situation. The mere fact that we cannot guarantee

our consequences makes Mill’s utilitarianism difficult to uphold. When compared to other

ethical ideals, utilitarianism is not as applicable to reality due to its subjectivity. Kant’s ethical

theory, for instance, is much more cut and dry, with morally right and wrong actions being

consistent across the board. Intent plays a huge role in the carrying out of one’s moral duties,

with utility resulting in injustice due to the subjective standard of happiness.

 Works Cited

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Edited by Ben Eggleston, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc,
2017.

Foot, Philippa. The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect. Oxford, 1967.