Against Utilitarianism
The Purpose
The basis of this post is my seething angst toward Utilitarianism. I think it has a lot of problems in all of its forms. For anyone who doesn't know, Utilitarianism is a moral theory that claims that the good thing to do is the thing that maximizes the social utility. For example, if I am faced with the choice to either feed myself or feed a starving family, if I subscribe to Utilitarianism then I would be morally obligated to feed the starving family no matter what condition I was in. Even if I were starving too, I would still have to feed the family. In other words, I get no say in my actions, I have to do what is best for the whole instead of the individual.
That is just one of the issues I take with Utilitarianism. Another big one is something I call the 'unspeakable good.' This is Utilitarianism’s ability to demand the unspeakable and call it moral. This post will be addressing what I call simple utilitarianism. This is the theory of utilitarianism broken down into what I believe to be its most basic general principles and practices. Simple utilitarianism I define as; the moral theory in which one ought to do what maximizes the pleasurable states for the most creatures possible. I recognize this is not representing the theory as best as possible. I have elected to do this in an effort to keep this essay short.
The Unspeakable Good
I believe that the biggest problem of the unspeakable good is that it doesn’t bring about good people. It may bring about a society that on the whole is good, but it does not bring about good people. A classic example of this could be organ harvesting. I think few would doubt that killing one person to save three has the potential to yield a greater amount of total pleasure.
My problem with utilitarianism in situations like this is not in the amount of total pleasure yielded. It is in the making of good people. A person who actively steals food from one to save three hurts their character. Irreparable damage has been done to both his character and to the person they stole from. This stealer may now have guilt or trauma that may never leave them. Perhaps they may become so catatonic that they can no longer function as a person and therefore do no good again, thus in the end doing more harm than good.
Another option for the stealer is that they become callous and can now justify stealing whenever they desire so long as they give to more than they steal from. This may sound like a Robin Hood, but if Robin steals from the rich until everyone has the same amount of money then eventually it gets to the point where each theft produces more harm than pleasure. At which point Robin becomes a burden to society, but is obligated to keep stealing from anyone who gains more than another and redistribute this gain to everyone else.
These are the two paths that the stealer may take. The utilitarian may state that it is actually a good thing for the stealer to be able to steal and distribute easier because then the next time it is required less harm may be done and therefore there will be more overall happiness. To this, I would bring back my original argument that the stealer's character has been damaged, and in this state they can no longer experience as much pleasure as they once could, lowering the overall pleasure possible.
This gets to my 1st point. A moral theory that does not take into account the betterment of the individual is lacking in substance. As we can see in the two posed paths of the stealer, either way, utilitarianism ends up damaging the total amount of pleasure that can be experienced when it asks someone to do the unspeakable good.
Lest I be accused of the slippery slope or poor representation, I feel it is important for me to say that I realize more complex forms of utilitarianism have definite safeguards against this kind of thing. Even my simple utilitarianism may have it implied. I am not arguing against those. I am merely arguing that the general utilitarianism I pose has this flaw.
Something I have thus far neglected to address is why I believe a moral theory needs to make people virtuous. This would be a support to why I don’t think utilitarianism's unspeakable good is acceptable. This is because it seems to me there are two parts that need to be addressed when talking about morals. These parts are the individual and the community aspects of morality.
In brief, I believe that a moral theory needs to address both of these because they are reliant on each other. Having morals in a community requires shared individual beliefs. At the same time, the shared community morals influence the individual’s beliefs. Therefore a good theory has as much obligation to the individual as it does to the community.
Utilitarianism, as defined in this post, does not seem to give much care to the moral development of the individual. It asks one to do whatever is best for the whole, giving no thought to what it asks of the one. Therefore I count its ability to require the unspeakable good as a fatal flaw. It is missing half of the equation in focusing only on the good of the whole.
Conclusion
I close by stating that an algebra equation with only one half cannot be properly solved. As always I hope that any flaws are pointed out (I'll only respond if it's in a respectful way) and any questions are asked (again, respectfully.)
0 Comments