Utilitarian Theory in the Pursuit of Happiness: Praise and Objections

Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility, satisfaction and happiness.  There are two main features of utilitarianism.  The first, the consequentialist principle, states that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the results that come from such a decision.  According to this principle, moral value can be assessed by the outcome of certain decisions, with the most favorable outcome suggesting the most correct act.  The utility principle, the second major feature, claims that the only thing that is actually good is some specific type of state of mind, contentment or bliss for example.  Decisions are judged moral if they tend to improve one’s state of mind.  Utilitarianism embraces the greatest happiness principle; that is, actions are right only if they tend to promote happiness and wrong if they produce the opposite.  This view holds that morally correct actions are those that supply the greatest amount of satisfaction for the greatest amount of people.  Utilitarian’s would assume the ultimate goal of humanity to be fully maximizing this principle.  But what is happiness anyway?

Utilitarianism differs primarily on the basis of how one defines the maximization of happiness.  Although there are many different variations of this theory, Sterling Harwood specifically picks five types to which he shows their contrast: Hedonistic, Preference-Satisfaction, Ideal, Negative, and Welfare Utilitarianism.  Respectively, these types can be defined as having goals of happiness stressing pleasure, the satisfaction of preferences, what would be desired under ideal conditions, avoiding dissatisfaction, and what is in the best interest of those in question.

As one of the most commonly accepted moral theories today, Utilitarianism has been constantly debated amongst philosophers. I find many aspects to be quite attractive and others to be somewhat upsetting. Of course, the idea that happiness is the theory’s most fundamental goal seems to be favorable. I couldn’t really understand anyone rejecting an opportunity for happiness. Utilitarianism does not only claim to promote satisfaction within an individual but universal happiness as well. When making utilitarian decisions, one must consider how his actions might affect the well being of others while also taking into account his own. Many people would argue that they act in this way instinctively to preserve human welfare, “do unto others as you would like to be treated.” Conflict arises within the theory of utilitarianism for this very reason. In society, happiness prospers amongst individuals for many different reasons; therefore, acting in a way that supports universal utility is quite a controversial topic. War for example, is an act that often results from a clash in moral beliefs.

If a country determines that war is the best option to resolve conflicts, they have found the temporary suffering of death and murder to best benefit universal happiness in the long run; allowing the majority to obtain happiness while others suffer. In the case of WWII, it was better for Allied Forces to kill the Axis soldiers in order for the majority of the world to live in freedom. Utilitarianism holds at its core, the belief that the ends justify the means.

The idea of Utilitarianism is attractive because in theory, it allows everyone to be happy. If everyone acts in a way that makes themselves happy, while also keeping in mind the happiness of others, one could assume that all people would be generally happy. This theory seems viable because who would not want ultimate satisfaction in life?

I know that if I make decisions that will help others and increase their own personal satisfaction, I increase the probability that others will be more likely to make decisions that will help me. Although this could be considered a somewhat egoistical view of life, in that I am acting to increase the benefits for myself, mutually beneficial decisions are definitely utilitarian. By developing an end of increased societal happiness, I validate my own fulfillment of self interests. This only furthers the attractiveness of utilitarian morals that propose by helping others, I help myself.

Most of my critiques of utilitarianism have been derived from Harwood’s eleven objections.  As I have stated above, there are many different forms of utilitarianism.  Harwood claims that although many of these forms still have faults, they are attempts to correct the faults of the original form of act utilitarianism.  In general, one could argue that all forms of utilitarianism encompass the “act” form and so he states the objections in accordance to such an argument. 

The first fault in basic, or act, utilitarianism is that the theory is overly demanding.  If one is expected to act in a way that above all increases universal happiness, this theory would expect him to do so even if the act makes him unhappy.  For example, if I were to give all of my money to those less fortunate, I would surely increase the happiness of others at a detriment of my own.  This objection seems to fail because humans naturally make every effort to survive.  But I say this is false.  Religion has always been one of the most powerful motivators of behavior.  Perhaps future societies might experience a form of religion that requires them to care not for themselves but only for others.  Wouldn’t this society then be completely susceptible to a utilitarian objection that one could not possibly survive by such standards?  I feel that to truly make progress towards a perfect moral theory, every possible situation must be accounted for.

Act utilitarianism also places too much emphasis on happiness rather than fairness.  I found John Hospers’ baseball example to fit perfectly.  When the last batter of the more popular team receives his third strike and therefore loses the game, a utilitarian might argue that if the batter were allowed a fourth try, more people would be happy.  That decision would be chaotic!  There are strict rules to the game of baseball and to compromise these rules would not only be unjust, but it would also make the game pointless.  What is the point of competing if the rules can be changed for the purpose of happiness?

Just as in these objections, all refutations to utilitarianism are based on the premise that strictly seeking happiness can often be illogical and unreasonable. One who bases his entire sense of morality on satisfaction maintains a very narrow view of actual purpose. Robert Nozick calls this alternate sense of reality the experience machine. In a way, this could be comparable to the movie titled The Matrix. This story depicts a world where humans live in tubs full of slime while their minds are plugged into a virtual world. Although they may feel as if they are living a worthwhile life, humanities entire existence is based on sensation. A utilitarian, who acts only to promote happiness, may receive the sensation of life, but Harwood argues that he would fail to place any value upon the fundamentals of truth, knowledge, or reality. By focusing merely on bliss, satisfaction seekers disconnect from reality and cannot see the world as it actually exists.

The utilitarian theory allows decisions, that when made, can be contradictory in nature. If breaking a promise would result in greater satisfaction, should the promise be broken? If so there would be no purpose or value in a promise. If breaking a law would result in greater satisfaction, should the law be broken? If so there would be no purpose or value of any law. If one finds satisfaction by his own twisted or cruel morals (Bundy, Kaczynski, or Ridgway for example), should he be allowed to act in such a way? Of course not! The objections are endless and so utilitarian theory has been manipulated and restructured as to eliminate such claims.

In his conclusion, Harwood determines that four of his objections are invalid due to instinctive human behavior.  I disagree however, because I feel that human behavior can easily change over the course of time and to reach one of philosophies ultimate goals, developing the perfect moral theory for humanity, these objections must be considered.

Act utilitarianism is very basic. Actions are judged right or wrong simply by the consequences of each individual act. As shown by the objections above, an act can certainly be wrong even if the result is seemingly beneficial (i.e. changing the rules during a baseball game). In contrast, an act can most definitely be right even if the result is seemingly negative (i.e. war). Many utilitarian’s have recognized these malfunctions and shifted their beliefs towards rule utilitarianism. Rather than focusing on the consequences of every action, the goal of utility is used to develop a system of rules that guide universal morality. Rule utilitarianism eliminates many of the flaws previously examined in the act form by creating a more complex system of judgment. Honesty, trust, and selflessness are traits that hold great value in a rule-based society because they affect how people interact. Rule utilitarianism recognizes the importance of these dynamic factors that contribute to universal happiness. If existing in a utilitarian society, these laws, rules, and guidelines would tend to promote the most happiness for the most people. Therefore, regardless of the consequences, a rule utilitarian would claim that every act must be made in accordance with a set of rules that aim to maximize utility.

Rule utilitarianism seems to resemble Kantian ethics with respect to structure. Both suggest that morality should be based on universal laws. The main difference between the two forms of thought is by how the laws are determined. Kant designed his ethics to be deontological in nature, meaning that he believes laws should be based on reason rather than sensation; whereas utilitarianism is based on consequences. Both are improvements upon simple morality theories such as act utilitarianism and egoism in that they are applicable to a much broader range of people, but still have some major defects. Most importantly, universal moral theories account little room for exceptions. Perhaps it may actually be beneficial for humanity to break a rule once in a while.

Think about it.