Introduction
Classical utilitarianism is a specific type of Ancient Greek hedonistic eudemonism. It continues the tradition of moral philosophy, coming from Aristotle and Epicurus, in which morality is derived from the highest goal of human activity, identified with happiness and pleasure. From the original version of Jeremiah Bentham, John Stuart Mill defines utilitarianism as an ethical model that postulates a greater good for a more significant number of people. It requires measurements of this good and a popular vote. In the situation described with the purchase of a bag and a TV, the utilitarian ethic recommends that you donate to a charitable foundation, as this will increase happiness for more people.
Utilitarian Opinion
The protagonists of the described situation are the hero finishing school, his parents, and the Africans, who will receive food from the donated money. According to research, “Utilitarianism insists that everyone affected by an action must be included in any proper calculation of overall consequences” (Vaughn 67). If we consider the participants as a group of people united by an everyday context, then the donation of money will be the most utilitarian and correct approach. If the protagonist buys a bag or a TV, only one person benefits from this purchase, contrary to the goal of spreading the good. Moreover, the value of such a purchase for the protagonist is debatable. It is suggested that he lives in a developed, civilized country, where things like a branded bag are only symbolic capital and not physical value. Charitable work is a utilitarian approach since a donation will make more than one person happy. These Africans may be entire large families, tens and hundreds of people.
Theoretical Objection
The first theoretical objection to utilitarianism is related to the fact that it starts with individuals’ interests, but then individuals become its bargaining chip. Initially, utilitarians proceed for the good of the individual, but, especially in John Stuart Mill, their happiness becomes a pawn for the sake of the community’s happiness (Mitsis). The following fundamental objection is based on the fact that utilitarianism is consequentialism; that is, it gives all estimates based on the consequences of an act. The third real objection relates to the problem of interpersonal comparisons and preferences. Here it is necessary to decipher and explain: the unique comparison of pain or happiness can vary significantly from person to person. Many people have particular experiences for whom a minor illness will be a blow. At the same time, some people can survive severe traumas without regrets and without depriving themselves of the meaning of life. People perceive losses and benefits differently, and measuring their size is nothing more than a utopia.
The Answer
To the first assumption, utilitarians answer that in the summed interest of the collective, the interests of the individual do not dissolve but are only subjected to a test for universal validity. Real interests necessarily dominate the summation; if an individual cannot discern his interests in the interests of the public whole, then either he does not have enough reason, or his interests are superficial and insignificant (Scarre). To the second objection, utilitarians usually respond with the principle of probabilistic consequences. It is impossible to accurately calculate and foresee the consequences of actions in several situations, but it is always possible to assume the values. By these assumptions, a helpful action model will be built. If the action suffered negative consequences but should not have, that is, an extraordinary situation occurred, then the action is still considered beneficial. When making assumptions, all people usually use common sense. The answer to the third objection may be the method proposed by the economist Kenneth Arrow: the transition from quantitative to ordering calculation of collective utility. Instead of summing up the pleasures, people must produce a collective ordering of them.
Legitimate Philosophical Argument
Epicureanism could justify the purchase of a bag or TV because it is axiological teaching, much more so than utilitarianism. This philosophical concept is closer to hedonism in terms of axiological foundations (Savulescu et al.). Epicurus and his followers expounded a theory of enjoying life, which could save people from anxiety and fear of death. Here, the connection of the concept with the end, its awareness, and humility will be fundamental. According to Epicurus, the greatest enjoyment of life allows people to let go of life in the future and calmly and freely accept life. In this sense, buying a bag is just the search for the greatest pleasure. Donating to poor African children will not relieve them of severe anxieties and problems of survival; that is, it will not relieve the fear of death.
Conclusion
In the considered case, the ethics of utilitarianism shows that buying a TV or a bag is not a blessing. On the contrary, donating to a fund to help Africans will help spread happiness within the larger community of the continent. Buying a bag or a TV is not a direct blessing but only a tiny manifestation of symbolic capital. There is a serious question about what utility the case’s protagonist will be in these acquisitions.
Works Cited
Mitsis, Phillip, ed. Oxford Handbook of Epicurus and Epicureanism. Oxford University Press, 2020.
Savulescu, Julian, Ingmar Persson, and Dominic Wilkinson. “Utilitarianism and the pandemic.” Bioethics, vol. 34, no. 6, 2020.
Scarre, Geoffrey. Utilitarianism. Routledge, 2020.
Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. Fifth, W. W. Norton and Company, 2019.