Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
In Defense of Utilitarianism
Many on Ricochet think utilitarianism is bad. I understand. I’ve been there myself. But I’m not there anymore.
Now, don’t worry–I’m still Baptist. I still dig virtue ethics, Kant, Confucius, Augustine, and all that. I like Tolkien. I like C. S. Lewis. I like Batman. I’m nearly everything we think is not utilitarianism. But there’s at least one version of utilitarianism that doesn’t deserve most (or all) of the objections people have (or think they have) to utilitarianism.
Now say what you like about Peter Singer–his philosophy likely enough deserves it. Say what you like about Jeremy Bentham–his philosophy probably doesn’t deserve it, but anyway, it is flawed. Don’t say anything about Henry Sidgewick, unless you actually know something. I don’t. I haven’t got around to studying him yet, although I hear wonderful things about him–and what a great philosophy beard!
No, I’m talking about Mill. John Stuart Mill! Before you diss utilitarianism, you should know a few things about Mill. But let’s keep it simple. Nothing too systematic. Let’s just do a few pointers, and a quick question.
Pointer 1: The Golden Rule
Mill said that in the Golden Rule “we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility.” He says, “To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”
Pointer 2: Intellectual pleasure
Mill said that intellectual pleasure is more important than physical pleasure:
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.
Pointer 3: Honesty
Mill said that honesty matters in one enormous and wonderful sentence. (I analyze it in a YouTube video below.)
Pointer 4: Liberty
Mill said that, as a rule, liberty and taking care of yourself serve the greater good.
Enough pointers. Now for that question.
A quick question: Don’t you want the greatest happiness?
Utilitarianism says the right thing to do is the thing that leads to the greatest happiness. Now will you do something for me, please? Please think of some principle, some policy, or some course of action in some tricky situation where you think the utilitarian answer is wrong. And then think of what you think is the right answer.
And my question is: Do you think that that right answer is not the one that leads to the greatest happiness in the long run?
I talk about philosophy on YouTube and Rumble. Here’s where you can subscribe to me on Rumble, and here’s my YouTube playlist on Mill’s book Utilitarianism. Some sample videos are below. But the book is better than the movies!
.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
You raise the question,
Is “utilitarianism” bad?*
Let’s engage in a dialog about it, without suggesting that we think that dialog is in any way superior to what is ordinarily considered socially acceptable.
Concerning dialogs, which can be said to always involve a search for the true answer to a given implicit or explicit question, I always say…
“To get a meaningful answer, start with a meaningful question: define the terms used.“
With that in mind, let’s consider the fact that in common usage, utilitarianism refers to whatever the ethical doctrine of, say, John Stuart Mill, is. In other words, “utilitarianism is that which utilitarians say”, which is very much in the spirit of the great natural philosophers**.
So we can very reasonably agree to find that author’s fundamental statement of his ethics, and use that definition in the question, “Is utilitarianism bad?”
Here’s the statement that you found for us.
Then my answer is
= = = = = = = =
*”You raise the question, Is ‘utilitarianism’ bad?”
You raise it when you write…
**”which is very much in the spirit of the great natural philosophers”
For example, Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg. They’d likely agree that they use this definition of “space” when expressing certain facts about nature:
Sounds ok to me. Except I’m not going to try to master that last bit about space.
But I think I could give a more technical definition of utilitarianism: the doctrine that what is right is what brings about the greatest happiness.
That is a fine definition, but apparently John Stuart Mill disagrees with it.
He says that, on the contrary, “To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”
Being simple minded and easily confessed, I would rather keep all my rights and wrongs together and in line. Not that I ever do it……. But then again I have found it is a lot easier for the two wrongs to come together than the two rights :)
They’re the same thing, he thinks. If you wanna get technical, it’s the one about the greatest possible happiness. But that requires us to be impartial between the our own happiness and the happiness of others, which entails the Golden Rule.
I dispute that but I’ll let it go.
(I am still stinging from learning, just the other day, that I’m still incomprehensible. I’m hoping that if I’m patient, I will grow out of it.)
Much as I want to simply pity you and thank G-d I don’t have that problem, I seem to have that problem.
At least with 7 people on Ricochet. Maybe 8, but that one person never wants to talk about the topics where we can’t communicate any more.
It seems that my problem is at least twice as common as I’d thought. What to do, what to do?! There’s nothing that can be done, I guess. Even a group class on Esperanto wouldn’t help. We would all just be incomprehensible in a different language.
There is a presumption of objective measure in the utilitarian approach that always struck me as simplistic as if an objective, enlightened observer would tend to approve of outcomes based on utilitarian considerations.
If, in reality, you have a majority of lefties who have a very high utility for seeing people reduced to primitive means of transportation, diet and shelter, the greatest pleasure for the greatest number would be something like Woodstock as organized and managed by the Gestapo.
Utilitarians take preferences (“utility”) as a given when the real ethical work is about what does or ought to shape those preferences.
This comes awfully close to: True happiness comes from living / arranging society ethically. Utilitarianism is about happiness. Therefore utilitarianism is ethical.
Organizing Principles of Ethics:
1. Autonomy: right to noninterference, self-determination
2. Beneficence: mercy, kindness, charity to others
3. Empathy: experience the experience of others
4. Fidelity: faithfulness to duties or obligations
5. Justice: benefits, risks, costs distributed fairly
6. Non-maleficence: avoid harm or risk of harm
7. Universalizability: all moral principles/judgments have universal applicability
Despite #7, these are pretty Western in their thinking. However, I am Western, so I think they make sense.
Concepts in Ethical Decision-Making
We look at three areas when involved in Ethical Decision Making:
1 Personal Values:
Those qualities of behavior, thought, and character that society regards as being intrinsically good, having desirable results, and worthy of emulation by others.
2 Morals:
Modes of conduct that are taught and accepted as embodying principles of right and good.
3 Non-ethical considerations:
Motivations that are not based on right or wrong, but on considerations of survival, fear, well-being, such as health, security, love, wealth, or self-esteem.
Unfortunately, I think we spend most of our time in #3.
Ethical Conflict: When two ethical principles demand opposite results in the same situation, this is an ethical conflict. (Classic for therapists is Confidentiality vs. Duty to Warn)
Ethical Gray Area: Gray areas are situations and problems that don’t fit neatly into any existing mode of ethical analysis. (End of Life discussions)
Reciprocity: The Golden Rule (Already Discussed)
The Gödel Incompleteness Principle
Kurt Gödel proved that at the margins of any large logical system, such as arithmetic, or conceptual construct, problems would arise that could not be solved without going outside the system itself.
This means that no one ethical system will work for every problem, and that the fact that such a system does not solve a particular problem does not mean the system is invalid.
A good approach for Ethical Decision making:
Corey, G., Corey, M, & Haynes, R. (1998).
1. Identify the problem
2. Identify potential Issues involved
3. Review relevant ethical codes and guidelines
4. Consult!
5. Weigh the possible and probable courses of action
6. List the consequences
7. Decide on a Course of Action
8. Act!
I thank you for this post. It may obviate one I have been working on, but I am not yet sure. Rather it may point a way out of an argument cut-de-sac that I have gotten myself into. We’ll see.
Regarding the “quick question”:
No, I don’t want the greatest “happiness.”
I know that this phrase, “pursuit of happiness,” ended up in our Declaration of Independence for some reason. As I recall, the Lockean formulation was more like life, liberty, and property. (Mark, correct me if I’m wrong about this — you’re much more of an expert in Locke specifically, and philosophy generally.)
I used to like Jefferson’s formulation. Back when I was young and foolish. At least, from my present point of view, it seems young and foolish to me. Elevating “happiness” to the highest virtue seems juvenile, to me. It’s not that I’m opposed to happiness, not exactly, it just seems to me that:
Focusing on “happiness” seems, to me, to lead to an amusement-park view of life. Though it will generally end up being an adult amusement park, which generally turns out to be pretty depraved. Vegas is the example, isn’t it? Sin city. Sex and drugs and alcohol and gambling, and rock-n-roll, of course.
As followers of Jesus, shouldn’t our focus be more on living a virtuous life? On righteousness and holiness? On obedience to the commands of God, and the will of God?
Regarding the final question:
I’m not sure what you mean by “greatest happiness in the long run.” How long is the long run? What is the trade-off between short-term pleasure and a contented life of joy and achievement?
Moreover, as believers, this life isn’t the “long run.” The long run is the eternal state, in heaven, in harmony and communion with God. That should be our focus, shouldn’t it?
Considering this further, though, leads to the question of free will as against predestination. Much of Scripture is quite clear that those who obtain “happiness” in the “long run” are chosen by God, and given a gift. We don’t choose it, and we don’t do anything to earn it. This leads me to suggest that our effort to determine how we can bring about the “greatest happiness in the long run” is hubris. We have neither the knowledge nor the power to do so.
I sure disagree with #1. Do you really think that the first principle of ethics is autonomy? Is this what Christianity teaches? No accountability whatsoever, no legitimate authority?
Well, they are listed 1-7, but frankly, I don’t give much credence to their order of one being more important than the others. I would say that #2 and #7 are quite Christian in their thinking.
Of course, so is #1. Human beings made in the image of God have the absolute right to Autonomy. Indeed, we have free will and the ability given to us by God to choose right and wrong. I strongly believe we have the right, given to us by God, to chose how to live our own lives. In that sense, maybe it should be #1, because if we have no God given freedom to Autonomy, what difference does any decision we make mean.
Now, you seem to think that Autonomy means somehow means “No accountability whatsoever” and “no legitimate authority”. I reject both of those, as does the ethical decision making process I laid out. The whole idea of Autonomy in this instance means that I, as the person going through the ethical decision making process, should respect the Autonomy of the people involved, even if I think they are making choices that are bad for them. That does not mean I will always give them that Autonomy, but I have to take it into consideration.
Let me use a therapy example:
If a client tells me that she is planning to kill herself tonight with an overdose of pills, I will respect her Autonomy, but I will not honor her wishes. I will take the step of filling out a form and calling the Sherriff’s Office to pick her up against her will, handcuff her if necessary, and transport her for 72 hours of observation. This is a violation of her freedoms and right to move about as she wishes. I will do this because the other items demand it.
Beneficence: mercy, kindness, charity to others – Suicidal thoughts are often transitory
Empathy: experience the experience of others -I can understand someone wanting the pain to stop
Fidelity: faithfulness to duties or obligations -I have an ethical duty to protect my clients, even from themselves at times
Non-maleficence: avoid harm or risk of harm -The risk of greater (indeed permanent) client harm outweighs the lessor harm of putting her into forced psychiatry observation.
Maybe processes and systems are where ethical decision making goes bad.
Not that you can do away with processes. I’m thinking here of systematic or defined processes.
Well, I sort of covered that:
I guess you did. Thanks!
Bryan, thanks for the response in #45 above. I have a follow-up about a portion of it.
So first of all, I’m confused. In one paragraph, you say that a person has “the absolute right to Autonomy.” In the next paragraph, the final sentence, you seem to contradict this assertion.
If someone has “the absolute right to Autonomy,” then why does this “not mean I will always give them that Autonomy”? I don’t understand.
I like your example about the suicidal client, whose Autonomy you would not respect, and rightly so, in my view. You explained that this was “because the other items demand it” (meaning the other items on the list of ethical values). This makes sense to me — but again, seems inconsistent with your statement that a person has “the absolute right to Autonomy.” Obviously, if there are circumstances in which you would not respect a person’s Autonomy, then that right is not absolute. Or am I missing something?
Second of all, where does this teaching about Autonomy appear in Scripture? It’s not even clear in Scripture that we have free will, and if we do, it is not clear that this is a good thing. The Old Testament established an enforceable moral law, and the New Testament taught submission to authorities and church discipline. My impression is that this idea of a “right to Autonomy” is an anti-Christian idea that arose out of the so-called Enlightenment, but maybe I’m missing something.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, or for that matter the other way around, is, I think, usually seen by others who disagree with either the thinking or the result.
What the heck are you two talking about?
“8” this and “out growing” what?
I haven’t read through the comments so I don’t know if this has been brought up, but I’ve always had a problem with the Golden Rule because everybody has different opinion about how they “would be done by”.
e.g. A curmudgeon “would be” left the heck alone, but when the curmudgeon does as such for others he obtains a bad reputation.
I think you are putting to much, or different weight onto the word “absolute”. I often find we seem to be at odds over words, and that might be our training. As a lawyer, you want words to be very specifically defined. As a therapist, metaphor is more important than a dictionary meaning. When I say “absolute” I mean I cannot take away that right. It is a given. However, I can not respect the right in my actions of trying to make the best ethical decision. If you mean “absolute” to mean something cannot be taken away, then none of our rights are absolute because they can all be taken from us. I am using a more abstract, maybe platonic meaning, while you seem to be more mechanistic. Difference of approach, I think, which causes confusion.
So again, I think that it is how we are approaching the word. When I used it in my list, I did not mean Autonomy as being allowed to violate the law or rights of others. It is used to mean the person has the right to decide his or her own path. That, clearly is given to us in the Bible. Now, following a path in disregard to the Lord will result in what we might call “bad outcomes”, but we have that choice.
The idea it is not clear we have free will seems odd to me. The Bible is full of people making choices.
Actually, I’ve read that the meaning of happiness, in the Declaration of Independence, is something like autonomy, goal setting, productivity and fulfillment. Not the momentary theme park giddiness.
Or completed the DEI training mandated by the Dean.
My first response to seeing “ism” attached to the end of another word is to check to see if I still have my my wallet or, in these uncertain times, make sure I know at least two escape routes.
This is all very Mises. You have either read Human Action, or you are ready to start.
I can imagine a choice between two situations:
[1] Everyone is mired in terrible misery forever.
[2] Everyone is enjoying immense happiness forever.
It would seem that [2] would be the better choice. If that is utilitarianism then I guess I would count myself as a utilitarian.
However, if “forever” were replaced with “for the moment,” then it becomes a more difficult question to answer.
Except the difference between Bentham and Mill is that Mill says you can’t measure the most important differences between different priorities. The difference between intellectual and physical pleasure is not a matter of measurement or quantity at all.
Mill does talk about that.