Utilitarianism is a moral theory that posits the right action is the one that produces the best outcome for the greatest number of people. Within utilitarianism, there are two distinct types: Rule-utilitarianism and Act-utilitarianism. This essay will focus on Act-utilitarianism, exploring its principles, implications, notable proponents, and some criticisms.
Defining Act Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism suggests that the morality of an action is determined by its individual outcomes. The best action, according to this view, is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness or satisfaction of preferences for the greatest number of people. For example, consider the scenario of distributing money: giving 6 people $100 each versus giving 12 people $50 each. A utilitarian would argue that the latter option (B) is preferable because, despite each person receiving a smaller amount, it benefits a larger number of people.
The Role of Self-Sacrifice in Act Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism often requires self-sacrifice. If an action makes you unhappy but makes five other people happy, then that action is deemed the right one because it maximizes overall happiness. Conversely, choosing an action that makes you happy but leaves others unhappy aligns more with egoist consequentialist theories, which prioritize self-interest over the collective good. The fundamental difference between utilitarian and egoist consequentialist theories lies in whose interests are considered paramount—everyone’s interests or just one’s own.
Impartiality in Act Utilitarianism
A core principle of utilitarianism is impartiality. In this framework, your own happiness and the happiness of your friends and family hold no more value than the happiness of strangers. Everyone’s happiness counts equally. For instance, it is considered morally wrong to favor helping your family and friends over strangers. This principle demands that we view all individuals as equal and extend our willingness to help without preferential treatment.
Hedonic Versus Preference Utilitarianism
There are different interpretations within utilitarianism regarding what constitutes intrinsic value. Hedonic utilitarianism suggests that the only intrinsic value is happiness or pleasure, making actions morally right if they increase overall happiness. Preference satisfaction utilitarianism, on the other hand, posits that satisfying preferences is the intrinsic value. An action is morally right if it fulfills the preferences of those affected. For example, in a relationship, you might value qualities like honesty, trustworthiness, and loyalty. If your partner cheats on you but you remain blissfully unaware, hedonic utilitarianism might argue that your continued happiness makes the situation acceptable. Preference satisfaction utilitarianism, however, would suggest that the truth should be revealed to satisfy your preferences for loyalty and honesty.
Comparison with Kantian Ethics
Comparing utilitarianism with Kantian ethics highlights their differing views on moral value. Kantian ethics argues that the intrinsic moral value of an action lies in the good will behind it, assessed by examining the maxim or principle motivating the action. For Kant, certain duties, such as never lying, are absolute. Utilitarianism, however, justifies actions based on their outcomes. For example, Kantian ethics would condemn lying to a murderer to protect a friend, whereas utilitarianism might justify it if the lie produces the most happiness or prevents harm.
Notable Proponents of Act Utilitarianism
Several prominent philosophers have contributed to the development and defense of utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is often regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism. He introduced the concept of the “greatest happiness principle,” which suggests that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness. Bentham’s utilitarianism is hedonistic, focusing on the balance of pleasure over pain.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) further developed Bentham’s ideas, emphasizing qualitative differences in pleasures. Mill argued that intellectual and moral pleasures (higher pleasures) are superior to physical pleasures (lower pleasures). He also introduced the harm principle, which asserts that individuals are free to act as they wish unless their actions harm others. Mill’s refinements addressed some criticisms of Bentham’s approach, making utilitarianism a more flexible and humane ethical theory.
Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900) is another important figure in utilitarianism. In his work “The Methods of Ethics,” Sidgwick attempted to reconcile utilitarianism with common-sense morality. He argued for a more sophisticated version of utilitarianism that considers long-term consequences and the importance of fairness.
Criticism of Utilitarianism
I disagree with the utilitarian view that any action is justifiable if it produces better consequences or greater happiness. This perspective can lead to morally questionable actions being deemed acceptable, such as cheating, stealing, lying, or breaking promises, as long as they result in the most happiness. For instance, if lying to my boyfriend about sneaking out to a party brings happiness to my four friends, utilitarianism would justify my action because it maximizes overall happiness, despite causing potential harm to my boyfriend.
Personal Reflection on Utilitarianism
Living life strictly as a utilitarian poses significant challenges. The idea that morally wrong actions can be justified if they produce the most happiness is difficult to accept. I find myself aligning more with egoist consequentialist theories, focusing on actions that benefit me rather than others. In everyday life, I tend to consider how my actions affect me rather than their broader impact. However, when it comes to my family, I might take their desires into account and seek compromises. In situations involving strangers, such as on a bus with limited seats, my inclination is to prioritize my own comfort, highlighting a divergence from utilitarian principles. Yet, there are instances where I might act in a way that unintentionally aligns with utilitarianism.
Conclusion
Act utilitarianism offers a compelling framework for evaluating the morality of actions based on their outcomes. Its emphasis on maximizing happiness and satisfying preferences presents a clear, albeit sometimes controversial, method for making ethical decisions. While the theory promotes impartiality and self-sacrifice for the greater good, it also faces criticism for justifying actions that might be deemed inherently wrong. Personal inclinations and situational factors can further complicate adherence to utilitarian principles. Ultimately, the debate between utilitarianism and other ethical theories, like Kantian ethics, underscores the complexity of moral philosophy and the diverse perspectives on what constitutes right action. By examining the contributions of notable proponents like Bentham, Mill, and Sidgwick, we gain a deeper understanding of the strengths and limitations of utilitarianism, prompting us to consider how best to apply ethical principles in our own lives.