Asses the Merits of Utilitarianism

Assess the merits of Utilitarianism (24 Marks)

Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human's natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the father of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 into a family of lawyers and was himself, training to join the profession. During this process however, he became disillusioned by the state British law was in and set out to reform the system into a perfect one based on the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle,' ‘the idea that pleasurable consequences are what qualify an action as being morally good'. Bentham observed that we are all governed by pain and pleasure; we all naturally aim to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He then decided that the best moral principle for governing our lives is one which uses this, the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle.' This is that the amount of overall happiness or unhappiness that is caused by an action should determine whether an action is right or wrong. He stated,
‘the greatest happiness of all those whose interest is in question is the right and proper, and only right and proper end of human action'
Here Bentham is saying that the principle is the only valid of deciding and justifying our actions, that the principle should be applied regardless of any others, as it is the only true and reliable way of defining whether an action is right or wrong. An advantage of utilitarianism is that it can be applied to any situation. Unlike many moral approaches you are not restricted by rules such as ‘it is always wrong to lie,' or ‘killing is never right.' This allows the philosopher to consider any dilemma or problem in it's own specific context. For example applying Kantian ethics, abortion or euthanasia would have to be defined as wrong, however a utilitarian has the scope to make there own decision considering a range of factors and situations. Bentham realised that because this theory is based on the outcome of our actions it may be difficult to assess fairly which action will produce the most happiness. He therefore developed the ‘hedonistic calculus', a form of calculating the happiness resulting from an act by assessing 7 different factors of the pleasure produced such as intensity and duration. In doing this Bentham was attempting to create some sort of happiness ‘currency' which would allow us to compare happiness as if it were measured in numbers, this of course cannot be possible, the thought of being able to compare different pleasures almost scientifically is just not feasible, and of course many pleasures rely on the context they occur in for example, if I were starving, a sandwich might seem the greatest thing in the world, however, if I went out for an expensive gourmet meal and was served a simple sandwich I expect I would be quite disappointed! Another problem with Bentham's philosophy is that he would not distinguish between pleasure and pain, seemingly defining them as the same thing. In my opinion pleasure is generally a momentary thing whilst happiness is a more lasting and consistent thing. One might gain pleasure from sitting watching TV all day long. However in doing he is missing work and so will end up with no job and no money to support himself (and pay his TV licence!) and will presumably be left unhappy. So, as demonstrated by this example, pleasure is not necessarily happiness and Bentham, was mistaken to define them together
The usefulness of his calculus, and the way Bentham defined pleasure came into question from one of his students, J.S. Mill who found his approach too general and simplistic. Mill rejected Bentham's idea that all pleasures are the same and can be compared, he felt that there were different types or ‘levels' of pleasure, and that some are more desirable or valuable than others. He decided that some pleasures or more desirable and meaningful than others, that there are ‘higher' and ‘lower' pleasures, the lower being animal pleasures such as the satisfaction of a full stomach, having a drink when your thirsty, sex etc. These are the same kinds of pleasures that an animal would experience and therefore if one only strives for these pleasures they are not much different to an animal. The other pleasures Mill described were ‘higher' more desirable, pleasures such as reading a good book or enjoying the opera. This concept however poses a big problem. How can one reasonably calculate pleasure as a whole if there are different ‘levels' of pleasure, and how much more worth does a higher pleasure carry than a lower pleasure? These pleasures would also be rated differently by different people, some might much rather watch TV than a play so TV would therefore make them happier. If an act is right because it makes one feel happy, then for the person watching TV would therefore be the right thing to do.
There are sometimes slightly different criterions used in Utilitarianism. There are two different forms, ‘positive' and ‘negative' utilitarianism, ‘positive' seeking to maximise good and ‘negative' to minimise suffering or harm. The latter however seems to defeat the concept of the ‘greatest good' as minimising harm is not necessarily making people happy, for example not inflicting harm on someone is not really going to contribute to their happiness, it may prevent them from being unhappy, but as specified earlier, the goal of utilitarianism is happiness. ‘Negative' utilitarianism seems to encourage laziness, to enforce the attitude that it is better to do nothing than take an action that could possibly cause pain.
There are two general types of utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is basically what Bentham discussed, an act being right if it creates the greatest happiness, it relies on this one simple formula being applied to every single act. This method is one that virtually comes naturally and is scientific in its approach, however it has been criticised as sometimes justifying something which one would intuitively regard as wrong. An example often used to demonstrate this; in a neighbourhood where there is a lot of racially motivated disruption and violence a member of one of the involved races is raped by a member of the ‘rival' race. The chief officer of the law knows exactly who committed the crime and it can easily be proven. However by sentencing this man the community will learn of the crime and there would almost certainly be a riot causing mass destruction and probably multiple deaths. However he could easily dismiss the case and the crime would go unnoticed. According to act utilitarianism it would be best to ignore the case and not press charges, as it would lead to the maximum happiness to the community – no riots, death etc. This obviously seems to completely go against what most people see as right and fair and completely contradict ones natural moral response. In an effort to try and avoid these incidents rule utilitarianism was created. This is where rules are drawn up using utilitarian principles. Rule utilitarians assess a specific act such as ignoring crime and not providing justice to the victim, rather than investigating every single act in its own individual context. Rule utilitarianism seems to avoid the potential injustices that could be permitted with act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism seems to exclude the aspects of utilitarianism that make it more appealing than other theories of morality, the freedom to assess every single act in its own individual context. Act Utilitarianism, like any other ‘list of rules' approach to morality can be wrong in certain situations and encourages people to blindly follow rules. Utilitarianism is a reality, not just a theory like many other philosophies; it is practiced every day, for instance the vote system. This ongoing practice of utilitarianism in society has show that it is flawed. Just because the masses vote for something, doesn't make it right. The masses can be fooled, as in Nazi Germany for example, thousands of people were behind Hitler even though his actions were undeniably evil. Utilitarianism is a logical system, but it requires some sort of basic, firm rules to prevent such gross injustices, violations of human rights, and just obviously wrong thing ever being allowed. This could be the ‘harm principle' which Mill devised.
‘Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavorable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.'