Utilitarianism— A Flawed Moral Theory
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. This theory stresses the greatest happiness principle. Actions that promote happiness are seen as morally acceptable while things that fail to promote happiness are seen as morally unacceptable. The pursuit of happiness is the key concept in utilitarianism. Rachel’s further explains this idea in The Right Thing to Do, “Utilitarianism is the theory that we should always try to bring about as much happiness as possible”(Rachels, 40). The term happiness when used by Rachels means the absence of pain or the presence of pleasure. I will argue against the theory of utilitarianism simply because it is too demanding and directly conflicts with moral common sense. At first glance, utilitarianism seems like an acceptable theory. The idea of promoting happiness is simple and widely appealing. Unfortunately, utilitarianism is not as simple as it seems. The concept should be rejects as it is not morally plausible. The first objection with the theory stems from the general structure where it directly conflicts with moral common sense. Using utilitarianism, when there are two different options being considered, moral common sense is one option, while utilitarianism is the opposite option. An example of this is seen while riots occur. Suppose riots are occurring in a town because citizens are being killed by an unknown suspect. As the person in charge, there are two options: throw an innocent person in jail and end the riots or continue to search for the suspect, prolonging the riots. The utilitarian theory supports the first option of throwing an innocent person in jail to end the riots because that would generate the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. While one person suffers, the entire population benefits, thus the good outweighs the bad. Although this solution generates the greatest good, it is morally wrong to persecute an innocent man. In this example, the utilitarian solution is morally unacceptable. Advocates of the utilitarian theory have a list of rebuttals for this argument. First, they will try and completely deny the conflict with moral common sense. However, the above example with riots occurring shows that this is in fact a direct conflict. Using the utilitarian theory, the happiness of the majority outweighs the suffering of the individual. Utilitarianism ethics see morality in the greater good rather than individual right and wrong. Proponents of the utilitarianism theory would choose an option that is morally unacceptable. Once they realize that they cannot completely deny the conflict, they attempt to change to a new type of utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is the idea that an action is right if it generally promotes happiness. Rule utilitarianism is supposed to deal with the conflict with moral common sense by first establishing a set of rules that promote happiness. Act Utilitarianism conflicts with moral common sense while Rule utilitarianism eliminates the conflict. An example of a rule that could be established that does not conflict with moral common sense would be to not bare false witness against the innocent. Generally, this rule promotes happiness. Therefore, advocates of rule utilitarianism would conclude that the general happiness will be greater if this rule is among the rules to be followed. The rule to not bare false witness against the innocent is a rule that agrees with moral commonsense. With this set of rules, there does not seem to be a conflict between utilitarianism and moral common sense. Unfortunately the change from Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism does not end the conflict with moral common sense. Rule Utilitarianism collapses back into Act Utilitarianism. Following a rule may not always promote the most happiness. Consequently, Rule Utilitarianism will add a star or exception to a specific rule to make sure that following the rule promotes happiness. Sooner rather than later, there will be exceptions for all rules. Advocates of this theory will be doing nothing bedsides following a set of rules and then acting. In essence, Rule Utilitarianism is an indirect process that collapse back into Act Utilitarianism which directly conflicts with moral common sense. This theory needs to be rejected because the reply to the general structure objection does not end the conflict with moral common sense. The second objection for Utilitarianism that makes it clear that this theory should be denounced stems from the equality principle. The equality principle states that everyone’s happiness counts the same. Unfortunately, utilitarianism is too demanding because it is not possible to account for everyone’s happiness. Taking everyone’s happiness into account would force supports of this theory into a lower level of living and ultimately poverty. For example, every weekend, individuals are faced with the decision on what to do for the weekend. Suppose a group of friends decide to spend $10 at the local movie theater. Going to see a movie would provide them with about 20 units of happiness. Instead of spending the $10 at the movies, the group of friends could give their money to Invisible Children, an organization that sends relief to children in impoverished nations. All of the friends’ money together would promote a lot more than 20 units of happiness for these impoverished children. The starving children would state that this money provides needed food and other necessities that provide them with around 100 units of happiness. As a proponent of the utilitarian theory, one would need to stay at home every weekend and send all disposable income to charitable organizations as their happiness is equal to your personal happiness. This cycle would continue and after an extended period of time, once privileged individuals would become poor because they donated all of their money to charities. Consequently, this theory of Utilitarianism becomes too demanding. Supporters of utilitarianism would reply and claim that this theory is not too demanding. They believe that giving all of your money to charities is what is required of privileged individuals. It is morally correct to donate your disposable income as this creates the greatest amount of happiness for everyone. This theory proves to be too demanding because donating all of your money to charities will force privileged individuals into a lower quality of life for the sake of all others. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism is not morally plausible and should be rejected. This theory should be rejected on two principles. The first reason to reject this theory is because it directly conflicts with moral common sense. As we saw in the riot example, the imprisonment of an innocent individual is morally unacceptable but provides happiness for the majority of people. The second reason to denounce utilitarianism is because it promotes an overextension of a person’s financial means. It is not morally plausible to accept a theory that would force all supports and advocates into a lower quality of life. For these two reasons, the utilitarianism theory should be rejected.