Argument against Utilitarianism

Posted: March 27th, 2020

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course
Date

Argument against Utilitarianism

The concept of utilitarianism correlates happiness to the concept of morality. For Mill, happiness is the key decisive factor capable of establishing whether an act is moral or not. The moral disposition of an act is illustrated if the derived repercussion or consequence leads to the greatest possible utility for all individuals. However, if it is impossible for the act to produce a consequence that achieves the condition above, then the action is morally wrong. After all, the idyllic moral society is one in which every individual is happy and liberated from pain. In essence, the concept advocated by John Stuart Mill necessitates that an individual should always act with the sole aim of generating the greatest happiness [and pleasure] for every person that may be affected by the respective action directly or indirectly. Despite its rational position, the respective paradigm seems to ignore the inviolability of human rights. By allowing morality to comprise consequences that generate the greatest happiness, it is possible to allow situations whereby the rights and privileges of minorities may be contravened in an effort to satisfy the majority.

The notion of utilitarianism constructs morality as a derivative of utility or satisfaction. The concept of utility is synonymous mainly with John Stuart Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle. According to Mill:

“The creed which accepts [utility] as the foundation of morals, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (598).

Mill’s utility paradigm deems happiness as the essential condition in determining the moral disposition of an act. An action is morally correct if it manages to maximize the happiness or pleasure of the greatest number of people. In this respect, the person that embodies the concept in question will mostly incorporate actions that favor the majority. Even though the respective position may seem reasonable, the rationale that individuals can be subjected to simple numbers is highly controversial. Nonetheless, Mill tries to provide evidence for the attractiveness and receptiveness of the utility principle by illustrating that people innately want happiness. In order to facilitate this position, Mill asserts that it is impossible to provide a pragmatic reason that argues against a person’s need/desire to attain happiness (598). In addition to this, the philosopher establishes that happiness comprises the only consequence of human action. As such, since people want happiness, they will use logic and act in ways that make it possible for them to attain it considerably.

Even though this line of argument is sensible, it can also be claimed that an individual may not necessarily apply actions that lead to the highest level of happiness or pleasure. In fact, in certain situations, an individual may choose to act in a manner that secures the least possible pleasure. For instance, even though exercise may generate the greatest happiness plausible, a man may choose to watch a movie. In response to this assumption, it is possible to argue that a person may decide to engage in actions that generate lesser levels of happiness as an outcome of constraints associated with opportunity and time. In this respect, the individual will choose to partake in the pleasures that are available, which may be inferior. In addition to this, such a person may engage in such pleasures since they are the actions that he or she is solely capable of enjoying (Mill 599). Hence, there are situations whereby a person may decide to enjoy inferior pleasures; however, that does not mean that actions are influenced by privileged pleasures. Instead, happiness simply comprises the outcome of any person’s action.

Despite this claim, there are situations in which arguing for utilitarianism seems rather irrational. In accordance to the utility concept, actions are deemed moral if the consequences produced cause the greatest pleasure or happiness among the majority. Simply, just because an act induces maximum pleasure or happiness among the greatest number of people does not automatically establish that it is morally right. In most circumstances, saving a person from a life threatening circumstance such as drowning is a fundamentally moral act because it acknowledges the person’s inherent right to life. In fact, most people praise individuals that actively risk their lives for the sake of others in endangering situations. However, in this case, the person being saved was a 4-year-old Adolf Hitler by a local priest in 1894 (Willis). Years later, Hitler would eventually cause the deaths of millions of Jews for the aim of ethnic cleansing. Hence, if the utility principle assesses the savior’s actions based on consequences imposed on the majority, then it is possible to establish that the priest’s actions were morally wrong.

Consequently, the irrationality of the utility principle is illustrated further by the way it discards human rights. Essentially, as long as an act manages to induce the greatest level of happiness or pleasure among the majority, then the act is morally right. From an ethical perspective, the paradigms raised by Immanuel Kant further support rational arguments against the principle of utilitarianism. Accordingly, an individual – together with the actions that he or she implements – must be viewed as an “end” rather than a means towards the accomplishment of something else (Kant 597). Hence, it is difficult to deny that the worth of a person cannot be equated to a simple number. Focusing to maximize the happiness of the majority reduces and ignores individualism by categorizing people into the minority or majority. Arguably, while the recognition of an individual’s rights may complicate processes aimed at the attainment of morality or the aversion of malevolent acts, all persons – irrespective of the nature of their actions – are individual and inviolable subjects whose positions within the moral society are not weakened by the majority’s need to attain the greater good.

Undoubtedly, the implications of the utility principle can be particularly serious. Irrespective of its rationality in contexts that involve policies and regulations, the respective paradigm cannot be applied as an outcome of the consequences derived in respect to human rights. From the perspective of Kant’s categorical imperatives, it is arguable that human rights are the most imperative condition to consider as far as determining the moral nature of an act is concerned. Rather than focus on an action’s consequences, motives and reasons [in addition to rights] for the implementation of actions establish the basis for morality. For example, the utility paradigm places emphasis on the derivation of the best possible outcomes for the majority. Alternately, Kant’s rationale surmises that the nature of a moral will or intent is essentially based solely on the nature of the willing (596). Hence, even with the implementation of the most considerable effort, such an action cannot achieve anything substantial since the nature of the will behind it determines the moral disposition of the act. Indeed, this conviction distinguishes itself considerably from the utilitarian’s belief, which concentrates specifically on the consequence derived from a certain act.

The utilitarian concept primarily accentuates acts that lead to the maximization of happiness among the greatest population of people. Even though Mill assumed that every individual wants his or her happiness and reasons by pondering on this aspect, Kant believed that an individual will be incapable of attaining satisfaction especially when his or her reasons are grounded solely on the achievement of happiness and pleasure (597). In respect to this, the aim of reason – at least according to Kant – involves directing the will. After all, if a person’s actions are particularly directed towards the achievement of pleasure, he or she would essentially receive unhappiness, which simply comprises the reverse of what he or she primarily sought. As such, the sole function of reason must involve the generation of a will that is inherently good rather than “good as a means to some further end” (Kant 597). In this respect, the notion of happiness does not comprise the ultimate function of reason. With actions directed by reason, the moral nature of an act is determined by duty instead of the consequences involved.

To this end, the paradigm of utilitarianism views morality as achievable by an act’s ability to achieve maximum happiness for the majority. Simply, an act is deemed morally right if it manages to elicit consequences that bring happiness to the greatest number of individuals. The argument against utilitarianism is primarily based on the way it encourages contravention of human rights. By viewing actions as the way to a desired end, the principle of utility fails to consider the possibility of exploitation. Nonetheless, an act is deemed morally right based on its observation of human rights, the essence of reason, and the significance of duty. If reason directs the will behind an act, then the aspect of duty establishes the moral disposition of an act. After all, if a particular action is founded on malevolent reasoning and will, then all externalities incline towards the immoral nature of the actor’s intent.

Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel. “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.” pp. 594-597.

Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” pp. 598-601.

Willis, Amy. “Adolf Hitler ‘Nearly Drowned as a Child’.” The Telegraph, 6 Jan. 2012. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/8996576/Adolf-Hitler-nearly-drowned-as-a-child.html. Accessed 30 May 2018.