Theory Description
Utilitarianism is the most influential version of consequentialist normative ethics, a theory in which the nature of its consequences determines the moral correctness of an action. Utilitarianism opposes deontological ethics and the ethics of virtue, as well as other versions of consequentialism, which base moral assessment not only on utility but also on other benefits, such as individual moral principles, the objective quality of human life, and others.
The basic moral principle of utilitarianism is known as the principle of utility, also referred to as the principle of the greatest happiness. By the word “happiness,” proponents of utilitarianism meant pleasure and the absence of suffering. Thus, Mill argued that only pleasure and the absence of suffering were desirable in themselves as a goal, and that everything else was desirable either because it contained pleasure or because it was used for obtaining pleasure and eliminating suffering (Woodard, 2019).
The “usefulness” of an act is determined by the amount of happiness it brings. Applying this principle, people must consider the probable results of each possible action option (Woodard, 2019). Then, people who make decisions must choose the action that yields the greatest utility or happiness at the lowest cost.
It is worth remembering that, according to utilitarianism, utility is measurable and can be aggregated. However, every person should be considered exactly as much as anyone else. When people decide how to act, everyone’s interest should be considered (Woodard, 2019). According to utilitarianism, the action is right when it brings the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Benefits and Dangers of the Theory
The merits of the theory of utilitarianism lie in the fact that it was the first theory to introduce the notion of common good to which people should strive. It has significantly influenced a wide range of methods of evaluating politics. Many national and local governments adopt the idea of a system that benefits the most people at the least cost.
While the founders of the theory, Mill and Bentham, may have been overly optimistic about people’s ability and desire to increase human happiness and reduce suffering, there is no doubt that their ideal was good. Many people want to use the theory because it aims to make oneself and others happier at the lowest possible cost. However, there are some issues that the theory struggles to explain, which critics use to highlight the weaknesses of utilitarianism.
Thus, the intensity of pleasure, happiness, satisfaction of desires, and preferences is a subjective factor. It is challenging to compare it among individuals exposed to the same factors, but it is even more challenging to compare it among those affected by different influences (Woodard, 2019). Not only does the sensitivity to the sources of suffering and pleasure differ in different individuals, but there are no objective tools to measure it.
Secondly, summing up the utility, which is the core concept of utilitarianism, is not only technically challenging but also causes serious complaints from those who adhere to generally accepted moral beliefs. This circumstance is one of the most common starting points for criticism of modern utilitarianism from other normative ethical perspectives.
Thirdly, utilitarianism, like other consequentialist theories, faces difficulties due to the weakness of a person’s ability to predict the consequences of his actions and the boundlessness of the time perspective of such consequences (Woodard, 2019). The answer to the difficulties of the first kind is the formation of utilitarianism of expected utility. Thus, the actions are believed to be correct if they are likely to have the most beneficial consequences from the perspective of a person with average predictive abilities. The answer to the difficulties associated with the limitless time perspective of consequences lies in the fact that, in today’s utility calculations, the receipt of benefits in the future and future harm should be discounted by a significant factor (Woodard, 2019). This allows people to neglect the consequences of the action, which are related to a distant time perspective.
Reference
Woodard, C. (2019). Taking utilitarianism seriously. Oxford University Press.