The Effectiveness Of Utilitarianism Theory On Practice
Introduction
Life is filled with unanswered questions that affect our daily life. Some attempt to research these sometimes-mysterious questions in a quest for truth and oblivion.
Fields of knowledge, such as ethics and philosophy for an example deal with broad questions that involve feelings, morality and justice for an example.
One main topic that is still unanswered to this day, is how we ought to live our lives, so we get the most out of it.
One may consider utilitarianism for this, since it proposes a normative theory, which involves its very own doctrine of actions, in which is deemed to be the best possible way to live one’s life, that gains the most happiness for as many people as possible.
Whether or not this is reliable or not, I will attempt to answer in this paper, by determining if the theory is as well functioning in practice as it is in theory; This will be proceeded with putting the theory into different practical, ethical issues.
As well as this, an attempt to connect the good life with the aspect of happiness, that is the fundamental source in utilitarianism, will be made, to fully establish the true function of utilitarianism and its’ accountability with the term of happiness.
What is Utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism is a branch of normative ethics and is also a form of consequentialism; As well it is both an ethical and philosophical theory that proposes the use of a doctrine, in which an action is defined as right, as it promotes the highest possible degree of utility or happiness for the mass majority of people involved in a situation where an actor needs good conduct decision making.
This is hereby used in a guiding principle of conduct, so the utilitarian actor should always keep this guideline in mind while deciding what is right.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of ethics, which may also be mentioned as a teleological theory, determines what accommodates value, where after it indicates a proposed obligation to which one must do whatever possible to gain the determined value.
The process of the theory is to analyze and determine what truly is of value in order to seek it out and propose a way of achieving it.
The theory constitutes different purposes, that inhabit various aspects, that need to be dealt with in different manners. So, as utilitarianism is both an ethical and philosophical theory, it is important to acknowledge the divergent analysis that accompany the theoretical research.
All of morality should be based on the principle
Utilitarianism captures the moral idea that happiness should be promoted, and suffering should be eliminated. Suffering is bad for all living beings.
Strength: Utilitarianism is built on empathy. Empathy is connected to a morally good emotion, which motivates people to promote utilized good actions, since it would mean, that it would promote happiness and reduce suffering. This is central in utilitarianism; the moral doctrine is based on the empathic aspect. Some may argue, that this is untrue, since the distinction between killing and let die, is irrelevant to utilitarians, if it does not impact the consequences the death bares with it. Utilitarianism is at this point not seen as a very empathic theory, which is why it can be argued to function as more of a guideline instead of an actual doctrine.
Ethical & philosophical
As Utilitarianism was first constituted as an ethical theory, it would seem, that since it inhabits these different characteristics, there is a need for different research done on to how to apply the theory in practice. Meaning, that as I understand it, the theory was adapted by Philosophy, as a preliminary attempt to answer the many questionable features it consists, that raise awareness to ethical questions that follow. Both ethics and philosophy intertwine on many accounts, since both fields analyze most of the same matters, only in slightly or sometimes widely different ranges. Indicating, that you cannot have on without the other, if one is searching for solutions or answers to complex quasi dilemmas.
As well as being a theory, it slowly haltered to adapt more features of a doctrine, which is somewhat more fitting, since it is an individual choice, to follow the doctrine.
All people inhabit various moral and ethical compasses within themselves, and utilitarian instead rely their inner compass onto the utilitarian doctrine, since they believe it is the best presented attempt to reach the maximization of utility as possible.
Since happiness or utility is an ethical term, it also exists in the philosophy of happiness. Happiness is such a fundamental element within the spectrum of life, that the theme needs to be researched with different analytical tools, to misconstrue what it in reality is and how to apply that research into the field of knowledge. In this case, both in an ethical and philosophical field of knowledge.
How to understand utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that is a branch of the normative ethics. solely focuses on the result or the consequences of actions; Which thereby treats intentions as being somewhat irrelevant, since it is not intentions that decide what happens, only actions do. Due to the role of the consequences, it is clear, that utilitarianism is related to consequentialism, whereas the right action is understood entirely in terms of the following consequences.
Consequentialism is used to clarify, whether an action can be deemed to be morally good or bad, based on the consequences.
- Good consequences = Good actions
- Bad consequences = Bad actions
This is to make clear, that Utilitarianism and consequentialism are one and the same ism.
Although, it may not be as simple as that for all, since making decisions, acting upon instinct or choosing to stay as a passive innocent bystander, are all parts of being human with a well-functioning nervous system; Where choosing to do right or wrong actions, adhere to guilt. Whereas the normative ethical theory, Utilitarianism, can produce the “best possible” doctrine, that ought to maximize the happiness in situations where actors need to take action, so one does not follow their own set of personal rules. The reason for this, is that, the Utilitarian view ought to maximize the happiness of others, as well as one’s own good.
The function of utilitarianism
As utilitarianism functions as a theory, it presents an attempt of creating equality amongst people. I say this, as it is my interpretation of, what is presented; Since a utilitarian does not demarcate between a person of high class in society and one who might be on a down lowered spiral. It functions as being relatively impartial, so it could, in theory, be applied on all scenarios, regarding all people. “I Choose to apply this to people in general, since they function as the decision makers. Making it easier to construe, since the point of view is narrowed down from etc. All living beings to solely human beings. ”
I find this to be so, since it is grounded in the intuitive part of human beings, that is to seek pleasure and avoid pain at all costs; Which is directly linked to the concept of maximized happiness for the majority of people.
Smarts Utilitarianism
Smart exemplifies various pros and cons of the utilitarian system of ethics, while including a value theory, namely hedonism, to form a perspective discussion on the concept of happiness. Yet restricts himself to explaining how utilitarianism is an attractive ethical system for anyone of general benevolence.
Smart mentions also that: “The utilitarian’s ultimate moral principle, let it be remembered, expresses sentiment not of altruism, but of benevolence, the agent counting himself neither more nor less than any other person. ”
In chapter 3: “Hedonistic and non-hedonistic utilitarianism”, Smart presents different aspects of hedonism and his critique of the consequences that follow this value theory.
Diverse interpretations
Utilitarianism can be seen as the best possible solution to moral issues for some and for others it may seem like a faulty theory, that is closed off to extreme scenarios.
Here, Smart approaches what he calls: “Extreme and restricted utilitarianism”, which is also called act and rule utilitarianism.
These are two different approaches with the same aim: To create the best results, that induces the most possible happiness as possible within a situation. These situations can differ from being a choice between removing a big rock from a busy road, if you pass by it, so it will not cause harm to others or in an extreme situation, such as in thought experiments where you will need to choose the life of one over another; as in the thought experiment that originated from Philippa Foot and was later further analyzed by Judith Thomson amongst others.
The act and rule utilitarian differ when deciding how to go about their aim.
Act utilitarianism:
When discussing act utilitarianism, we may associate it with Jeremy Bentham. In his essay “Utilitarianism for and against” he specifically mentions, that he believes that one should treat each moral situation as unique, meaning, that one should not compare it to other previously handled situations, since there can be so many factors that differ from others, even though they tend to be so alike.
He presented his own method, to establish each individual act to decide whether it would produce the maximum amount of happiness as well as a minimum amount of pain to those affected by the choices that were made. Bentham’s believes that it is the intrinsic forms that are most valuable
In the eyes of a utilitarian, any action can be right, if it follows the necessarily principle of creating the maximum amount of happiness within a given situation.
Smart puts the act utilitarian doctrine forward in a hedonistic form in chapter 6.
Rule Utilitarianism:
Rule utilitarianism is most often associated with John Stuart Mill.
A rule utilitarian would tend to draw up the general rules that are based on the utility principle and thereby apply them to any given situation. These rules can tend to be more absolutist instead of relativist, since they are based almost purely on past experiences and thereby function as a moral doctrine to be applied to all upcoming situations, there is nothing that differs from one situation to another, meaning that they all get treated in the same manner.
Although the rule utilitarianism appears in two different forms, that it can be divided into:
- Strong rule utilitarian
- Weak rule utilitarian
Whereas for the person acting by the strong rule, there is nothing that can differ from the doctrine, since there is a rule that has been established, that therefore should be emulated to the last bit. By not following the established rule, one may not gain the ultimate impact of happiness, that is the aim; Otherwise the rule would not have been made, if not for the sake of happiness.
As for the weak rule utilitarian, there are some circumstances where it is requisite to break or bend the existing rule to do the morally or ethically right deed, if happiness is better achieved through it.
Injustice: if the total amount of happiness is increased by violating the rights of a few, then utilitarianism seems to condone unjust acts (act utilitarianism). But if such acts were to become the rule, there would be less happiness. So, according to rule utilitarianism, we should do only what produces the greatest amount of happiness if it is done generally or as a rule.
But what if following the rule would yield worse consequences than violating the rule? If we depend on consequences to make moral judgments, shouldn't we violate the rule?--in which case, what is the point of having an ethical theory?
Smart
However, Smart expresses hedonism as faulty, since the values it represents places its focus mainly on being content instead of happy, which Smart understands to be the highest accessible utility.
The main idea that Smart is somewhat successful in trying to persuade the reader of, is that utilitarianism in the form of act utilitarianism is his version of the ultimate ethical value system. This being caused by him weighing the scales of the good and bad of utilitarianism, where his scale tips widely in favor of it.
In his essay, Smart puts everything on the table as he sees it, but in my personal opinion, he is lacking a critical eye, which I find necessary for the importance of a truthful ethos.
Since this essay is biased I would say, that Smart is missing the truthfulness, since his ethos is hanging in loose air. It gives the reader the opportunity to function as the critic himself, since Smart’s essays has a lack thereof, which is a shame.
To understand the normative ethical interpretations, one should not only take someone else’s word for it. Perhaps being influenced by this essay, that functions as a great introduction to various utilitarian systems and how they fit together, it might not be a bad start.
Trolley dilemma
The though experiment focuses on the moral compass within us, whether one chooses to save a higher number of lives instead of one life, that has a great impact on us.
By following the utilitarian doctrine, one must save the higher number of lives, since it creates a higher expectancy of utility for the majority, instead of the one life that has a higher individual utility for the actor, that needs to make the decision, within a short amount of time.
Whether or not that is true, will always be up for debate, since it touches the core subjectivity of our inner normative moral. Not all adapt the utilitarian doctrine, seeing that it can create individual dilemmas, that not all are able to precede.
To utilize or not to utilize… that is the question
The necessity of the moral theory of happiness within the utilitarian doctrine pushes those who encounter it in one way or the other to ask themselves questions like these. Since a utilitarian can seem barbaric and somewhat cult like benevolent, when deciding what actions to make, based on their doctrine. Utilitarianism raises more questions and deviations from the actual goal it claims to endeavor. Since it is an ethical theory it should be clear that there are a lot more issues and aspects to deal with, with utilitarianism, since it is such a complex and one sighted moral theory. To utilize or not to utilize… that is the question. Who are we to judge moral actions by placing the faith of other and ourselves onto a doctrine, we are unsure of, may or may not actually utilize happiness?
Sure, it is a good attempt. To utilize most happiness for as many as possible seems like the perfect solution to dilemmas… Brilliant theory, yet a mess in practice. With that said, I will attempt to further explain why this is so, in the simplest way possible.
To try and create happiness for others with almost no regard to intrinsic happiness of one self and others, is not true happiness. Happiness is at first individualistic, one finds happiness in sorrow, another finds happiness in activities as one finds happiness in helping, it cannot be measured by others, what one deems happy.
To initiate the trolley dilemma as an example of utilized happiness is beside point that is attempted. One is not able to tell what the future brings, although the utilitarian doctrine proposes this to be indirectly true; By saying, that killing off a person by choice is better than letting others die by chance. Who is to say, if this single person was not to be the cause of a higher utility for a higher number of people than the others? One cannot say, and thereby I deem the theory of utilitarianism to be malfunctioning.
Extrinsic and intrinsic valued happiness
Furthermore, Smart articulates, that pleasures cannot be measured as being intrinsically bad, which he believes is common to mistake what is intrinsically bad and extrinsically bad due to various associations with other concepts, such as sadism for an example.
For pleasure to be intrinsically bad, one would have to realize, that it is in fact not real pleasure, the same goes for extrinsically measured pleasure, since the intertwine with other concepts. Intrinsic value is more reliable than extrinsic, due to the morality that comes with the feeling of pleasure. For what may seem to be pleasurable, may only be a façade, such as with social media for example.
Intrinsically good values for a classical utilitarian is happiness. This is where hedonism is connected to the utilitarian ethics, since this view that utilitarianism bears is hedonism. The issue with the word “hedonism” is, that it bears many meanings in different contexts, so when it is used in a colloquial sense or in a non-philosophical manner, it may bear the sense of irresponsibility or a destructive pursuit of pleasure; Instead of the philosophical term, where it means, that hedonism in itself is an ethical theory that claims that pleasure is in fact the highest aim of a good life – both in an individualistic matter as well as in a social matter.
Hedonism
Non-hedonism
Human utility, pleasure or happiness cannot be measured by a doctrine, theory or anything else; It is individualistic, hence intrinsic! Utilitarian happiness scale is, as previously mentioned a very good theory, but a mess in practice, since it does not capture the true essence of happiness, which is intrinsic, yet rather focuses on the extrinsic part of it.
This is an issue, since utilitarianism is practiced daily by various philosophers and ordinary people, who attempt to maximize, what they believe, to be happiness for the majority. Meaning, that all they do is mask the extrinsic value, they deem to be the best for the benevolent public… So, the aim will never be reached, since they intrinsic value of happiness will most likely not be reached, it replacements in the doctrine will not take place.
Although, this can be argued, the utilitarian doctrine of determining whether or not an action is deemed to be good or bad, will solely be weighed out by the consequences of that action. If an action promotes good consequences, it is deemed to be a good action, vice versa.
