By Eden Halperin

Should we all be Utilitarians? By Eden Halperin (L6S2)

Utilitarianism can be defined in three statements: 1) An act is right if it maximises what is good; 2) Happiness is the only good, which is pleasure and the absence of pain; and 3) No one’s happiness is more important than another’s.

There are different forms of utilitarianism. For example, Act Utilitarianism is to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. This is the type I explained above, where in all circumstances, one should aim to maximise happiness. Rule Utilitarianism is to follow general rules to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. A good example of this is the 10 commandments. Preference utilitarianism is to maximise people’s preferences, even if it doesn’t maximise happiness. In this essay I will argue for utilitarianism, to the extent that everyone should be Utilitarians in their everyday lives, and how it can be used universally.

Jeremy Bentham lived from 1748 until 1832 as a philosopher, economist, jurist, and legal reformer, and was the founder of modern Utilitarianism. He specified in act, Quantitative Utilitarianism. He argued that we can measure pleasure and pain using the Felicific Calculus (also known as the Utility Calculus). This calculates total happiness by subtracting total pain from total happiness. The size of pleasures and pains are affected by the

55

intensity, duration, frequency, certainty, and minimising evil. Bentham created this calculus so that people can evaluate situations and choose the one with the highest positive number.

John Stuart Mill lived from 1806 to 1873, and was an English philosopher, economist, and exponent of Act Utilitarianism. He was prominent as a publicist in the reforming age of the 19th century and remains of lasting interest as a logician and an ethical theorist. Mill rejected Bentham’s views that pleasure and pains are equal. Instead, he argued that people who have experienced “higher pleasures” will always prefer them to “lower pleasures”. A higher pleasure is one of the thoughts, feelings, or imagination, whereas a lower pleasure would be one of the body or senses. As shown, Mill is a Qualitative Utilitarian, rather than a Quantitative Utilitarian like Bentham, who believes that it is better to be a “dissatisfied human, than a satisfied pig” .

Mill aims to prove the greatest happiness principle, and that happiness is the only value, using two stages. The first is that happiness is good. The only proof that an object is visible is that people see it; therefore, the sole evidence that something is desirable is that people desire it. No reason can be given why happiness is desirable except that everyone desires their own happiness. Each person takes their own happiness to be good, so adding each person’s happiness to others, general happiness of everyone is good in general.

56

The second stage is proving happiness is the only good. If I only desired happiness, happiness would be the only good; however, people desire many different things. Mill states that happiness has many ingredients, such as truth and freedom, which are desirable. By using Nozick’s experience machine argument, we can prove that people don’t want happiness because of the psychological effects that it has on us, but that we desire truth. Mill argues that knowing the truth doesn’t cause happiness, but people’s happiness consists in them knowing the truth. Mill says it is impossible not to desire pleasure, and since pleasure is happiness, we only desire happiness, therefore it is the only good.

Despite Mill and Bentham putting forward two different views, they both believe that happiness is the main goal and that everyone should strive to maximise it. Both argue convincing cases; however, there are several objections. Many of these objections originate from other types of Utilitarianism, which provides further evidence of the theory’s adaptability according to subjective preferences.

One objection to Utilitarianism is that it is difficult to calculate the Felicific Calculus. It seems impractically complicated to use every situation or decision that is not obvious. Also, to quantify and compare all the variables of pleasures and pain, and deciding between which is worth more, is almost impossible and entirely down to subjective opinion. Lastly, how could we know how

57

intense a pleasure or pain is, since these are subjective emotions. This objection is strong and difficult to defend; however, Mill’s theory would suggest that higher and lower pleasures don’t require a calculus and just a matter of judgement, and so his theory still succeeds, even if Bentham’s fails. This objection was strong; however, Mill is able to defend Utilitarianism so far.

A second objection is the tyranny of the majority, and this can be explained in an example. A murder has happened, and an angry crowd want revenge by watching the perpetrator punished for their actions. If the police did not catch the murder, would it be right to frame an innocent man? The crowd would believe the murderer has been caught, even if it wasn’t really him, which would bring just as much happiness to if it was the real murderer or not. This happiness is likely to out-weigh the man being framed. According to Utilitarianism, it would say that it is morally right to frame the innocent man, and it would be morally wrong not to.

This objection can be responded to by Rule Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of general rules, instead of specific actions, like Act Utilitarianism. Although in a specific instance like explained above, punishing the man leads to greater happiness, as a general rule it would lead to more unhappiness. For example, if we lived in a society where we knew innocent people were regularly framed, you would worry that it might happen to you. There would be no satisfaction in

58

seeing criminals “brought to justice”, since there would be no way to know if they were guilty or not. Although the objection was strong and cannot be defended by act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism successfully defends utilitarianism.

In balance, everyone should be Utilitarians because Utilitarianism gives people the perfect guidance on how to approach life and its situations. It is not too detailed and complicated that it can only be used in certain circumstances; it is broad and can be adjusted accordingly. It also ensures human equality, so that people aren’t judged based on any values or properties. Finally, Utilitarianism has different forms, including Act, Rule and Preference, which people can decide which is the most convincing and correct, to use through situations in their life.

59