Values and Society - Utilitarianism - Literature review Example

Utilitarianism as a concept seems at first a hard idea to argue one way or the other. A form of consequentialism, it says that the morality of any action we do is judged by its utility, or how well it provides happiness or pleasure. That’s how it was described by one of its strongest backers, Jeremy Bentham (1789): “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” (5) It is that statement that causes doubts and arguments against the philosophy. What means morality, happiness and pleasure to one person may not be to another. Bentham (1789) in talking about the principle of “the greatest happiness” admits its has flaws. Quoting Alexander Wetterburn, Bentham writes, “This principle [the greater happiness principle] is a dangerous one” (Note 1; p.5). Bentham goes on that in “Saying so, he [Wetterburn] said that which, to a certain extent, is strictly true” (Note 1: p.5). Because of his misgivings it is hard to make further arguments for Utilitarianism, since Bentham himself sees problems in its application. He still believes it is a good philosophy however, and he argues for the principle and that in the end will prove a very beneficial idea to man when all is said and done: “that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question” (Bentham, 1789: 2) The theory calls an action right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the opposite of happiness—not just the happiness of the person who performs the action but also the happiness of everyone affected by it. This theory is the opposite of egoism: the idea that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others. We must admit that this does not sound like a good idea for all the people and makes Utilitarianism seem like a better idea in general. No one really likes people that only think of themselves. Utilitarianism is also different from ethical theories that say the rightness or wrongness of an act depends upon why the person doing the action is doing it. According to Utilitarians, it is possible for someone to do right thing for a bad reason. It is an escape clause, as it seems, from criticism of those in power who might pass laws that benefit a majority while secretly helping their own interests along. It is hard to argue from a basic idea against this position, since if everyone is happy why do we have to know or care why they are happy? Why would we care if the power people who make the decision care if we are happy, as long as we are? It might be argued from an extrapolated viewpoint if, in making the decision, its negative impacts are well disguised and hidden through deceit and mass manipulation. As far as state power and its use of utilitarian methodologies, Bailey (1997) argues “...that utilitarianism is somehow better suited for making decisions about affairs of state than it is about ones personal life” such decisions “will ultimately affect ones personal life, often in intimate and painful ways” (28). The implications here for mass manipulation of people seems obvious. And even if the decisions do not have a negative impact they are full of possibilities for abuse. Even if abusive decisions are allowed to go forward, and they appear to provide greater happiness for large numbers of people, they may result in abusive practices that also affect large numbers of people. As hedonists, Bentham and John Stuart Mill analyzed happiness from the standpoint of pleasure or pain. In looking at the consequences of actions, Utilitarianism relies upon some theory of its intrinsic value: something is seen as being good in itself, no matter the consequences. The worth of all other values are gotten from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end—happiness. This is at best a confusing. An example would be that although a widespread practice of lying and stealing would have bad consequences, resulting in a loss of trustworthiness and security, an occasional lie to avoid embarrassment or a theft from a rich person would not have good consequences. A major sticking point here is that both Bentham and Mills, moralists, proposed that people ought to desire those things that will maximise their utility, utility being pleasure or pain. Ought is a relative word, and one that seems to limit further conclusions. As a scholarly theory providing a standard by which an individual ought to act, and by which the existing practices of society, including its moral code, ought to be evaluated and improved, Utilitarianism is simply to vague to be considered as a valid system of thinking that would do anyone any real good. It doesn’t have any proofs that anyone can rely on. Its effect, good or bad, can not be measured. “Simply knowing what people want will not tell us what they should have” (Read, 2004:5). It is no wonder, then, that the pure view of utilitarianism over time had to be replaced with more definite concepts and definitions useable in the evolving and changing modern world. As such, “Bentham’s utilitarian project was eventually abandoned in favour of structural accounts of rationality and formal definitions of utility such as rational choice theory” (Read, 2004: para. 2). Rational choice theory has proven valuable in modern studies from politics to economics. Findings have proved somewhat important to the understanding of the foundations of democracy, the logic of majority rule, and new ways of looking at the workings of democratic institutions. (Green and Shapiro, 1994) Yet, “It has yet to get off the ground as a rigorous empirical enterprise” (Green and Shapiro, 1994: 7). ...the bulk of empirical rational choice scholarship...is marred by unscientifically chosen samples, poorly conducted tests, and tendentious interpretation of results. As a consequence, despite its enormous and growing prestige..., rational choice theory has yet to deliver on its promise to advance the empirical study of [in this instance] politics. (Green and Shapiro, 1994: 7) The application of Utilitarian theory has been applied in all of its different ways over the years in all areas of life: law, politics and economics to name a few. But perhaps the most obvious and widely applied theories have been in the area of criminal justice. Standing firmly upon “the greatest good for the greatest number,” Utilitarian theory of the justification of punishment instead of retribution stands out as a main and often very criticized aspect of Utilitarian thought. According to the Utilitarian, the promotion of punishment is entirely to prevent further crime by either reforming the criminal [which makes him happy] or protecting society [which makes it happy]. The consequence of the action is supposed to make the criminal think twice about doing it again. One can see that there are many modern critics of this position in the field of criminology “Given the amount of criticism that Utilitarianism as a theory of justice has taken over the last few decades...” (Bailey, 1997: 28). Part of the criticism is aimed at the Utilitarian notion of consequentialism as it relates to justice. Bailey (1997) writes, “It is possible to have a consequentialist moral theory in which the intrinsic character of acts and not just their physical consequences can be said to contribute to the amount of goodness or badness in the world” (4) That being the case, it is hard to justify a theory that seems to affirm just the opposite, for the most part anyway. Consider the off-handed societal “feeling” that death by murder is worse than death by accident, even if the accident was preventable. In the justice system, murdering someone contributes more badness to the world than simply letting that person die. (4) Yet euthanasia remains a prohibited practice despite its beneficial or “happy” outcome, especially if the individual is suffering. Here the Utilitarian view--consequentialist moral views—allow agents [people in power] to determining the overall positive result of letting someone die, since it is not obvious. This is where the Utilitarian notion falls short. There are simply too many factors to be considered, which is why the theory itself keeps changing to suit the situation. And there is a reason why it changes so often. It is because the original idea has flaws and is, in a way, to simple to cover everything that happens. While Bentham and Mills held fast to their original ideas, Utilitarianism really has too many pitfalls in a complicated world to work. It does not allow for the many factors that enter individual situations. While the punishment part of criminal justice, including capital punishment can be justified morally and ethically if one wants to justify them, there is little evidence that the practice in any way suites fits the notion of “greatest good for the greatest number.” A final critique comes from American playwright and writer, Arthur Miller. His quote about Utilitarianism as a sterile tool of governments and bureaucrats hardly supports its claim as seeking “the greatest good for the greatest numbers.” He in fact believed the modern application of Utilitarianism was just that, sterile, and that in the process we had all become robots to a theory that took the life out of everything, especially our appreciation of the arts. He said, “The dreamer whose dreams are non-utilitarian has no place in this world. In this world the poet is anathema, the thinker a fool, the artist an escapist, the man of vision a criminal.” Works Cited Bailey, J.W. (1997),Utilitarianism, institutions and justice. Contributors: New York: Oxford University Press. Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. 1789. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Green, D. P. & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory. Yale University Press. Miller, A. ThinkExist.com. quote. http://thinkexist.com/quotation/the_dreamer_whose_dreams_are_non- utilitarian_has/256132.html Read, D. (2004) Utility theory from Jeremy Bentham to Daniel Kahneman. Great Britain: Department of Operational Research, London School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/operationalResearch/pdf/working%20paper%20 OR64.pdf Read More