Utilitarianism and Argument Regarding A Critique

Instructor C. A. Berkey-Abbott Notes for Chapter 9[footnoteRef:1] [1: Items in black represent text material; items in blue are items for consideration or notes to myself about the course. ]

I. Is Happiness the Sole Ultimate Good?

a. Introduction: Mill thinks that he has shown that happiness is the sole good. We will explore this claim and look at a range of objections raised by other philosophers aiming to show that Mill is wrong.

b. The Narrowness Objection: The narrowness objection is that the utilitarian theory of the good is too narrow because happiness is only one type of good that is sought for its sake. Sidgwick (1830 – 1900) suggests that excellence is similarly sought. Art is another possibility. Sidgwick acknowledges that we could seek excellence for the happiness of others, but it is also possible to seek excellence entirely for its sake, but it would be irrational to do so. Is it obviously irrational to want to produce something just to see what you are capable of doing without caring whether others appreciate it? (145-146).

c. The Agency Objection: A second objection is: what matters is not just the subjective feelings of pleasure and pain we have, but also how we act. Nozick’s suggestion is that what matters is not so much how things feel to us, but whether we really have accomplished the things we set out to accomplish in our lives.

d. The Evil Pleasures Objection: This third objection is that “not all pleasures are good…Does the pleasure of a sadistic torturer deserve to be called good, and weighed against the pains of the victim?” (147). Knowing that some people take delight in other’s suffering seems to make things worse rather than better.

e. The Quality Objection: Mill himself worried about a fourth challenge: that Bentham’s view that all pleasures are to be evaluated purely according to their intensity and length. Mill claims that quality matters too. One pleasure is higher than another if those who have experienced both would not give up the higher pleasure for any amount of the lower. “Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” – Mill.

Somehow [no argument given] Wolff suggests that “Mill could be accused of confusing differences in quality with the point that we all see variety in our lives. Most pleasure fade, the more often they are done – diminishing marginal utility. Utilitarian Peter Singer utilizes this concept arguing that a dollar in the hand of a poor person gives her far more utility that a dollar in the hand of the rich and therefore it would maximize total happiness to redistribute from the rich to the poor.

At the least, it seems that there is some pro-human arrogance happening here and at times of stress, a pig’s life may even seem more attractive. With this distinction, it is starting to look more like an elitist view than the democratic approach of Bentham. There is concern over how this distinction would influence a utilitarian calculation.

f. The Irrelevance Objection: Finally, there is a possibility that happiness is not a good at all and has nothing to do with morality.

II. Maximizing Happiness

a. Introduction: Even if happiness is the sole ultimate good, does it follow that it must be maximized? This question is raised, but not really addressed here by the author. Instead, we go off onto a discussion about consequentialism and non-consequentialism. The focus solely on consequences (consequentialist tradition) can lead to a utilitarian to a counterintuitive conclusion. Another concern is that utilitarians might get to the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason; the problem of contingency.

b. Counterintuitive Consequences: Some counter-intuitive possibilities involve punishment, the Trolley Car Problem, and Death Bed Promises. Regarding punishment, we might need a scapegoat to calm the fears of the public and/or punishment for crimes that are not likely to be repeated (crimes of passion) might be absolved. Regarding the Trolley Car Problem: we might sacrifice (or murder) one person to save the lives of others. Regarding death bed promises, we might make them and intend to keep them, but then decide that it is too much effort [Lonesome Dove]. The point is that at times utilitarianism may sometimes requires injustice. Utilitarians may argue about the circumstances, but these theoretical (at least) criticisms are regarded as probably the most serious faced by the utilitarian (151-153).

III. Modifying Utilitarianism

a. Introduction: The possibility of these injustices has led to several attempts to try to improve utilitarianism.

b. Act and Rule Utilitarianism: Act utilitarians apply the greatest happiness principle (theory) to individual decisions (applied) level. Rule utilitarians apply the greatest happiness principle (theory) at the rule-making (normative) level. For some reason Roy Harrod (1900 -78) an economist, is given credit for rule-utilitarianism even though the author acknowledges it is present in Bentham and Mill and (in the next chapter) that Harrod’s position was heavily influenced by Kant. Anyway, there is an insistence on moral rules and laws for the rule-utilitarian; a single instance of lying might generate more pleasure, but approving of lying as a rule would not. Similarly, this provides a utilitarian response to the “scapegoating” example previously considered and perhaps the other injustice examples.

Some critics charge that rule-utilitarianism is irrational. Milder punishment in the scapegoating example could be a good rule, but ends up in an act utilitarian consideration. Sidgwick (1874) makes a similar assertion. A utilitarian would need to estimate how likely each outcome is, and what the consequences would be. Can one imagine all of the possible futures? Are we sure we can access them properly? Won’t miscalculation likely favor my interests?

c. Two-level Utilitarianism:

i. Government House Utilitarianism: Sigwick proposes the idea that for utilitarian reasons, ordinary people have to be taught that utilitarianism is false. Only the moral elite – presumably professors of moral philosophy and people of similar standing – can be trusted with the moral truth. Since this level of elitism seems like colonial rulers living in the government house to oversee colonial subjects, it has come to be known as: Government House Utilitarianism. Giving people rules (rather than principles) may bring about the greater moral outcome.

ii. Critical-Ordinary Self: Richard Hare (1919-2002) proposes a different two-level utilitarianism where each of us has two levels of moral thinking: Critical and ordinary / intuitive moral thinking. Utilitarianism may recommend that we murder in a particular situation where if we are well schooled in intuitive morality, we will find it almost impossible to kill an actual person. Question: By permitting act-utilitarian consideration sin only the most extreme circumstances, we may allow for the sacrifice as innocent and secondly can we split ourselves into two in the way Hare suggests?

IV. The Problem of Contingency; Gender and Race

Another concern with utilitarianism suggests that it is simply wrong it itself. In this view, utilitarianism is irrelevant. Getting to the right answer about women’s liberation for example, but on the wrong basis (not because women deserve equality of treatment) is an example of a problem of contingency. The problem of contingency suggests that utilitarians often sort of accidently come to the correct moral answer through a faulty justification.

The final section of this chapter highlights that even as a strong defender of liberation and non-state paternalism, Mill allowed an exception as a member of the British East Indian Trading Company for those “barbarian” races that were not able to manage themselves. Despite India being more civilized than Mill supposed, that the civilized may be more happy, that limiting individual rights is more likely to lead away from civilization, and 4) regardless of how the barbarians acted, they have a right to self-determination.

This understanding that utilitarianism is antithetical to human rights is the reason many people find it fundamentally flawed as a moral theory.

V. Chapter Review

Please read the chapter review, consider the discussion questions, and be familiar with the key terms from the chapter and from class: