The Ultimate Utilitarian
So last post I talked about the fundamental aspects of Utilitarianism, if you haven’t checked it out, I highly suggest you do. Go check out my post 1 on Utilitarianism. Today I’m going to talk about the pro’s and con’s of utilitarianism and my arguments as to why it is so clearly a great way to run your own personal moral compass.
Why Philosophy Snobs don’t like Utilitarianism
Many philosophy snobs see utilitarianism as an ethical dinosaur and lacking any clear ideology. Deontological ethics which does not see the consequences of an action as its moral determinant; and virtue ethics which focuses on the character of individuals to guide actions rather then looking at each action individually, pretty much think utilitarianism is bullshit. I have had heated discussions with many philosophers on the subject and here are the major critiques and my rebuttals.
The Qualitative Nature of Happiness
Utilitarianism sees people’s happiness as a single factor when in reality each person experiences pain and happiness individually and cannot therefore be aggregated into a single variable. It is impossible to quantitatively compare one person’s pain to another person, therefore choosing action that creates pain or happiness based on more than a single persons happiness cannot be aggregated and therefore should not be taken action upon.
I agree that we cannot adequately measure two people’s pain and pleasure cumulatively. However, I do know that both people experience pain and pleasure regardless of its degree. Therefore, although one person may experience more pain or pleasure in comparison to the next, from a calculations standpoint I must give each person the same variability of pain and pleasure. It doesn’t matter if one person experiences pain more than another. I can’t measure it so I don’t even think about it.
Points of View in Utilitarianism
Utilitarian calculations differ based on the scale of time in which it is presented. Therefore, using the Jewish holocaust as an example, the near eradication of the Jews as time progressed was from a utilitarian context creating more aggregate happiness. The world waking up to the horrors of the Jewish genocide all of a sudden realized that racism was tearing the world apart and implemented post world war international anti-racial policies that helped launch the United Nations, a new age of acceptance and inclusion in western society.
I completely agree. The Jewish genocide may have actually created aggregate happiness. Although one must weigh each source of pain in the Second World War against the aggregate happiness of people today. Some utilitarian’s would suggest the price was too high, others wouldn’t. I got this example from a guy who was obviously trying to show my lack of moral virtue. However, he presupposed that moral virtue was important in terms of calculation; utilitarian’s don’t apply ideology because it locks an individual into a certain train of thought. Therefore a utilitarian is open to any action, no matter how perceptibly evil if they believe it will lead to aggregate happiness which leads me to my next critique.
Utilitarianism does not take intentions into Account
Utilitarianism does not take intentions into account. Utilitarian’s only look at the results of an action instead of the intentions that motivated them. Therefore, an action which was meant to create harm but actually created aggregate good does not differ from an intended good action that resulted in aggregate pain.
It is true that utilitarian’s do not take intention into consideration. But this can only be found in actions that have already occurred. Therefore, suggesting that a utilitarian would choose to go ahead with the holocaust is a false argument. Based on the information presented to a utilitarian before the action took place, the utilitarian would obviously see more projected pain resulting from the holocaust.
Pain and Pleasure isn’t well defined
Utilitarianism’s concept of ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ lack specificity and are therefore a qualitative, groundless and imprecise measure. IE, pleasure is something you want but cannot be described. There is no ultimate justification for valuing pleasure therefore why should we value it? Why don’t we value honor or bravery? Why is pleasure more important than those other concepts?
To be honest with you I don’t have that good of an explanation as to why pleasure is primary; other than the belief that pleasure for me is my primary principle because that is what I want to enjoy. It comes down to a personal choice. I enjoy pleasure therefore I want to maximize it, whatever that idea of pleasure is for me.
Check out the wiki entry on Utilitarianism if you’re interested in learning more.
So what do you think? Do you like utilitarianism or is there another form of ethics you prescribe to? Leave a comment and I’ll try to answer as many questions as I can. Also if you like these types of posts, say so and I’ll put up some more.
As always check out my online tutoring program so I can pay my bills.
