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.
This is absolutely right. The classic Golden Rule is only about yourself and your preferences.
The second half – loving your neighbor – is what forces you to try to see things from the perspective of others. I wrote about it here.
Well, with such a nice comment as that, I’ll bite. Which dwarf am I?
Dwalin, naturally.
Huh. Here I thought I was Ori. Learn something new every day, apparently!
You two are surprisingly similar in some respects. Or at least my communication problems with you both are similar.
Actually, I decided to give up eating meat, dairy and eggs about 12 years ago because I became convinced that doing so would improve my cardiovascular health, reduce my risk of various cancers, reduce my risk of a hosts of other ailments.
I admit that giving up ice cream and bacon cheeseburgers wasn’t a quick ticket to instant pleasure and learning new recipes that consisted entirely of plant-based foods wasn’t all fun and joy. I do think my goal was happiness in the longer term, not just during my next meal.
The problem, as I see it, is you are playing games with ideas that have absolutely nothing to do with actual execution.
I have to live this stuff, while you get to grade people. I have to make life and death ethical decisions and what I have posted is based around that, and Ethical Decision Making Process.
You do you, and I will get on with making an actual difference in the lives of human beings instead of making arguments about cancer being bad.
Ok, that’s important. But what does that have to do with your using words in non-dictionary ways without explaining yourself?
I have explained myself. you seem unable to get it.
I am done.
Bryan, you and I had an exchange
on another thread, in the past couple of days[correction – earlier on this thread], in which I challenged what you said (about an “absolute right to autonomy”), and when pressed, you explained that you weren’t using the word “absolute” in the same sense that I was. I think that you were using the word “absolute” incorrectly. You probably meant something more like “important.”I think that it’s important to get definitions right. It’s probably the case that lawyers and philosophers are more focused on this issue, because it is our job to be careful about such things.
Here’s another part of the exchange between the two of you, Bryan and Mark (my emphasis):
Bryan, you don’t get to define terms like this. When you use words to mean something different than their accepted meanings, you sow confusion. When you make assertions that are incorrect, and this is pointed out to you, I don’t think that it’s productive to say that you get to define terms to mean whatever you want.
It is often productive to notice that you used the wrong word. I do this regularly. When someone points this out, it is helpful, as it can assist me in refining my thinking. Sometimes, however, this means that I have to conclude that my argument was incorrect, and I have to adjust my conclusions — or find a different argument.
I know. The question of free will vs. predestination is difficult. There are parts of Scripture suggesting that we have free will, and other parts of Scripture stating that we do not. The parts stating that we do not are more clear and explicit, I think.
I trust that you won’t be surprised if I tell you that I haven’t resolved the issue of free will vs. predestination. I don’t think that anyone has. Theologically, the better argument seems to be on the predestination side. Yet we feel as if we have free will.
[Cont’d]
We might be able to resolve the issue by positing that we have free will over some things, but not over others. The portions of Scripture that I recall about predestination (or “election”) relate to salvation. So it might be that we have free will over a great many things — which is what leads us to sin and do evil — but we do not have free will on the issue of salvation, which is a gift of God. One of the clearest statements of this is in Romans 9:
If this is correct, though, then in a way, doesn’t this make our free will a bad thing? In this instance, it is free will that enables us to do wrong.
A modern view seems to be that being made “in the image of God” means that we have “free will.” Does God even have “free will” in this sense? Can He do sin? Can He do wrong?
It seems to me that the answers to these questions is “no.”
On the other hand, I am a timebound creature, and it seems that God is not — not timebound but eternal, and not a creature but the Creator. So this whole question of free will may be beyond my limited understanding.
As relevant to our discussions, though, it seems that the claim of “free will” has led to the toleration of sin, evil, and wickedness. It’s not clear to me that this is a good thing. It ties to what Bryan wrote on that other thread, about the supposed importance of “Autonomy.”
The idea seems to be that God gave people “free will,” which means that they have “Autonomy,” which means that we have to let them do whatever they want. At least, this is an argument that I see presented by people claiming to be Christian, unless I’m misunderstanding them. It strikes me as incorrect, as it is contrary to the moral teaching about submission to authorities in both the Old and New Testaments.
It seems, to me, to be a fundamentally Leftist idea (in the French Revolutionary sense of “Leftist”). Arguably, Locke was a Leftist in this sense. This idea of “Autonomy,” and the consequent conclusion that we must “tolerate” behavior to which we object, seems to be the fundamental principle of Libertarianism. It seems quite contrary to Scripture, to me.
I have been told to drop it, Jerry, by a Moderator. But, please, if you want to keep lecturing me while I am not allowed to respond, please, go right ahead.
I’ll stop following this thread so I don’t have to see it.
My favorite take on the issue of predestination was from my first-grade teacher, a wonderful nun. Asked why it is that some really bad people get to be rich and seemingly happy she said that God sometimes rewards people in this life because He knows He will be unable to help them in the next. I was often reminded of her every time Crockett (Burnet) and Tubbs (Cooper) brought down some fabulously rich drug kingpin in Miami Vice. Yeah, you have the cars, the beachfront manse, and the babes but you are going to hell even if you get away until the next episode, so there, you bad man that I kinda envy.
It is said that much of the Islamic world is a stagnant sh*thole because of Inshallah culture, the idea that whether the trains run or the power grid stays up is dependent on the will of Allah so why make a big effort to fix things when it is not really in your hands.
The belief that the entire game is rigged is debilitating.
I want to follow up on the “happiness” issue. Mark and Flicker wrote:
Maybe fulfillment, Flicker. Not autonomy, or goal setting, or productivity. Who in the world would use “happiness” to mean “autonomy”? Not anyone familiar with the English language, I think.
Mark had another response to my criticism of the use of the word “happiness” in the Declaration:
Again, though, if you are correct about this, then it seems to me that “happiness” was a poor word choice on Jefferson’s part. I had to look up the Greek terms. Beata vita means something like “the good life,” right? And eudaimonia means something like “human flourishing” or “living well,” which seems like just about the same thing.
Makarios seems less apt, as it seems to mean something more like “blessed” or “fortunate,” though it is also sometimes translated as “happy.” Please correct me if I’m wrong about these translations.
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume for the moment that “happiness” in the Declaration meant something like “the good life,” though I think that this needs further elaboration. I don’t think that the Greeks or Romans meant “the good life” like a car or beer advertisement. I think that they meant something like “the virtuous and successful and admirable life.”
Does this seem reasonable to you guys?
If so, then let’s return to the Declaration. If this is what Jefferson meant by “happiness,” then his claim was that all men have the right to live a virtuous, successful, admirable life. Does that make any sense to you? There’s a socialistic overtone, as if a man has a right to such a life, then others may have a duty to provide it to him. On the other hand, the full phrase is “pursuit of happiness,” so maybe Jefferson just meant that government cannot interfere with such a life — or, at least, cannot interfere without good reason.
But this does not mean that every individual gets to define “happiness” in this sense on his own. To the contrary, it would imply that government might have a duty to promote the virtuous, successful, and admirable life — perhaps by sanctioning bad conduct, even if the only apparent victim or victims consent to it, as is that case with many of the vices that our country used to outlaw, but that are now held by many to be protected by the supposed “rights” established by the Declaration.
I guess that my thoughts, and these last couple of comments, lead me full circle. Positing that “happiness” is the goal of human life, or the principal consideration in constructing a moral system, seems like a bad idea to me. If “happiness” meant “the virtuous life,” then Jefferson should have been more clear.
I interpret it as “pursuit of knowledge” which means then a potential ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and so to be able to choose the right. Doesn’t mean everyone will choose the right.
Those Christians who have a universalist view of salvation, that all of humanity will be welcomed into heaven, have sort of a predestined attitude towards God’s role and man’s powerlessness.
As these “universalists” see it, God desires that all be saved and God has the power that all will be saved so that means all are saved.
If God actually possesses the quality of omnibenevolence, this makes a lot of sense.
If God is not good, well, all bets are off. God might want all human beings to be tortured for fun.
If you throw in divine deception, where God deliberately provides people false beliefs, that makes things even more complicated.
In 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, verses 11-12 (New Revised Standard Version)
So, what if God presented Jesus on the cross in order to mislead people into thinking that by worshipping Jesus they could obtain salvation, only to reject these people and have them sink into eternal conscious torment?
This can’t be ruled out, given that God has an infinite range of options.
Such as?
The ability to have faith or not. The ability to at least resist sin, while failing to some extent, and asking for help.
Oh, such as Romans 9. Ok.
But that’s one of the murkiest chapters in the whole Bible. By contrast, the potter analogy in Jeremiah, used by Paul in Romans 9, is very clear. And it treats our sin as the first event and G-d’s sovereign authority to do what he likes with the pot as the response.
Oh, I bet I could find it in church Fathers.
And it’s not a complete definition of what it means to be the image of Gd. But I see nothing wrong with it. Gd may or may not have FW in that sense of the term, but who cares? Dogs and fish don’t have it, and we do because we’re closer to Gd. The inability to do wrong would be a higher state, but FW is a high state.
(See Augustine’s early writings.)
In Kant, autonomy means the ability to do either right or wrong and the heavy responsibility to do right.
Could be.
But to some extent the problem might be our contemporary watered-down sense of “happiness.”
Yes, good, blessed, happy, and flourishing all blurred together.
I think it’s at least happy and blessed.
Sounds good so far.
He means we have a right to pursue such a life.
Indeed.
To some extent, yes.
Critics of utilitarianism seem to fixate on the word “happiness,” which they often conflate with simple libertinism or some other short-term animal pleasures. When the critics make this argument it is always clear from the context that whatever they are defining as “happiness” is not something that would make them happy at all, but rather something that they suspect is what the hoi polloi, the ignorant masses, would choose as their version of happiness. The critics provide no evidence for this proposition and, indeed, the very fact that they offer up this proposition as evidence against utilitarianism demonstrates their belief that their audience would not accept this definition of happiness either. It seems that Mill recognized this problem too, since he felt the need to specifically disclaim that utilitarianism would support being a happy pig over being an unhappy human. And it seems to have done no good. Critics still rush to make this argument every time the word utilitarianism is mentioned.
Now personally, I don’t know anyone who is hankering to be a pig, except perhaps for the junkies decorating the streets of San Francisco. But the problem seems to be so persistent that I am moved to offer up a different version of utilitarianism. “Utilitarianism” is the doctrine that the morality of actions must be judged by the consequences of those actions. (“By their fruits shall you know them.”) Actions can have good consequences or bad consequences. (And yes, Bryan, cancer would be a bad consequence, which is why it is immoral to dump carcinogens in the water supply.) Mill and many other philosophers dating back to at least Aristotle have used the word “happiness” to describe the good consequences, and used the term “suffering” to describe bad consequences. Since this seems to invite misunderstanding, I propose an alternative. Let us call good consequences “GC’s” and bad consequences “BC’s.” Thus, the goal of utilitarianism can be rephrased as acting in a way that produces the most GC’s, and the fewest BC’s, for the greatest number of people.
So, how about it, all you critics of happiness? Do you have a problem with people trying to act in a way that brings about good consequences for themselves and others?
Just curious Jerry, to whom in the government would you assign the responsibility to decide what life is virtuous, successful, and admirable? Biden? Katie Hobbs? The Ministry of Virtue? Who exactly is this “government” of whom you speak?
If we can’t easily define “happiness” why would that mean we can somehow easily define”good” for purposes of judging outcomes? The same aberrant warped buffoon whose notion of happiness if off the wall is likely to have and equally weird set of criteria for judging outcomes. We discount him with some Pareto optimum styling using greatest good for greatest number. But the “greatest number” factor then eliminates an attempt at an objective or natural law notion of “good” and replaces it with a Gallup poll or economic analysis and we are back to square one at establishing ex ante or ex post criteria for what is moral.
I think Aristotle worked from the premise that there is a natural order to things and human life and conflict with that nature and rightful ends is invariably an unhappy or wrongful state. If we are instead tabular rasa then all ethics are arbitrary except in the circumstance when a recognizable majority concurs ex ante or ex post.
For a start, if it is done, then, when ’tis done, ’tis best it were done at the local level.
I was waiting for that question. My first answer is that I don’t think that people are “aberrant warped buffoons.” I think most people are good and decent and capable of distinguishing good consequences from bad. My second answer is to ask you the same question I just posed to Jerry – if I am assumed to be too much of an aberrant warped buffoon to recognize good consequences, then who exactly would you assign to make that decision for me? How do know that they are not aberrant warped buffoons? And what do I do, carry that person in my pocket? If I want to do the right thing in everyday life, how am I to know if I’m not allowed to trust my own judgment? Does this mean that we must have some moral dictator who will proscribe my actions in advance in every possible situation?
I recognize that there are problems with granting people autonomy in any realm of life, but I still prefer it to the alternative, which is tyranny. Utilitarianism doesn’t automatically provide a perfect answer to all moral questions in every situation, but no other moral system provides that either. Utilitarianism does tell you how to decide – look at the consequences. Strive for good consequences, and try to avoid bad ones. But if you can’t tell the difference, then I don’t know how to help you.
One answer to that question is why we Americans operate under a Constitution and Bill of Rights that shines a light on process and the individual’s right to choose not only the outcome but how to get there within the constraints that American has chosen to volunteer to live under by not leaving this country.
You endorse a form of utilitarianism where people would attempt to anticipate the consequences of their actions and then attempt to choose those actions that result in more good consequences and reduced bad consequences.
I think when someone endorses deontology or virtue ethics they are doing so because they think that in doing so the result will be more good consequences and reduced bad consequences in the long term but perhaps not immediately.
So, perhaps deontologists and virtue ethicists are actually closet utilitarians?
I have said exactly that, many times. Because its either that or just the darndest coincidence that those other systems of ethics invariably lead to the same conclusions as utilitarianism.