Paste your essay in here..One of the most important factors to life is happiness. This can be dated all the way back to the Epicureans, who devoted their lives to seeking pleasure and sensual enjoyment. Derived from this ancient Greek practice of pursuing hedonism is the idea of Utilitarianism. While there are multiple views of a what a utilitarian society consists of, all views have a backbone surrounding maximizing happiness and minimizing pain in a society. Utilitarianism can better be defined as achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Although the idea universal happiness may sound enticing, I do not believe that utilitarianism is a good basis for making ethical decisions. This is because utilitarianism does not focus on individualism, self-happiness, or relationships and it also treats people as a means to something else. This can be seen in Aristotle’s virtue ethics, Le Guin’s story of the Omelas, and Held’s ethics of care.
One of the major philosophers that strongly believe in and support utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. According to his explanation, utility is equal to happiness. There are many points that help to explain the idea of utilitarianism as a whole. One major point of this philosophy is that Mill believes that humans should make decisions based off of consequences, different from the view of Kant’s deontology, where it is believed that decisions should only be made based off of intention. In utilitarianism, people should make decisions based off of what will result from their decision, rather than why they are making the decision. Another major point of Mill’s utilitarianism is that the idea of happiness is more than just pleasure and contentment, rather happiness can be defined as tranquility and excitement. He believes that humans are capable of higher pleasures and faculties, so therefore, happiness is more than just the feeling of animal pleasure and satisfaction. Mill does not want people to reduce life’s meaning to pleasure. Utilitarianism can best be known as the “Greatest Happiness Principle”. Ultimately, this holds true that all actions taken must be actions that produce happiness, and the action is wrong, or immoral if it produces the opposite of happiness (Mill, 926). While this is the basic understanding of utilitarianism, Mill also presents the idea of two different forms of the philosophy, referred to as act and rule utilitarianism.
The definition of act utilitarianism relies more on Mill’s basic description regarding the Greatest Happiness Principle. In short, an act utilitarian believes that an action is considered good if and only if it maximizes happiness and good for the most amount of people it possibly can. Rule utilitarianism on the other hand believes that an action can only be considered good, only if the rules leading up to the consequence are morally correct. Overall, if there are conflicting rules, or a big enough exception, an action can still be morally permissible even if maximum happiness isn’t achieved. So, rule utilitarians allow exceptions to be made to the philosophy, if the actions to achieve the greatest good are immoral. Even though Mill mentions both philosophies throughout his essay, many of his arguments and actions follow the beliefs of an act utilitarian.
The philosophy of utilitarianism can best be contrasted with the other dominant moral theory of deontology. The major difference between Mill’s and Kant’s philosophies is that Kant’s deontology is centered around intention, whereas Mill’s utilitarianism is centered around consequences. In deontology, it is believed that the intention of performing an action must be good in itself, meaning that good intention must be self-driven. Utilitarianism on the other hand is community driven, and actions must be taken based on how good the consequence/outcome will be. This means that, opposed to deontology, the intention of an action can be “bad”, but because the consequence is “good” it is ethically okay to perform. Utilitarianism, however, can also be seen as somewhat similar to deontology because both Mill and Kant view human beings as being capable of higher faculties than animals. Both theories recognize humans’ ability to reason and be rational, a quality which helps both philosophies make sense.
Overall, there are many people whom are strong believers and followers of utilitarianism. One strength of this philosophy is that it allows everyone to be happy and feel fulfilled. Because Mill describes utilitarianism as a philosophy that maximizes happiness and minimizes pain, it can be viewed as a philosophy that results in happiness for all. Although it is important not to reduce life to simply just pleasure, happiness is an important quality of life, so when everyone is happy, the world just becomes an all-around better, more positive place to live in. Another strength of utilitarianism is that it is more flexible and open to interpretation than other major philosophies. The philosophy of rule utilitarianism allows there to be exceptions to rules that may be conflicting to moral beliefs, whereas other theories may be stricter and straightforward about following rules. Ultimately, the strength of utilitarianism is that it considers the environment and allows decisions to be made based off of circumstances. Whereas these strengths may show the positive sides of utilitarianism, I still strongly believe that there are more flaws within the philosophy than there are strong points, which make it unsuitable for moral decision making.
The first reason why utilitarianism should not be used as a basis for making ethical decisions is because as humans, we have a right to self-happiness. One weakness of utilitarianism is that it is centered around an agent-neutral theory, meaning that reasoning and rules apply to anyone and everyone, and one cannot make moral exceptions for themselves. That being said, utilitarianism does not ensure personal happiness. For example, when talking about suicide, if one commits suicide it may relieve their pain, but it would hurt everyone surrounding them. On the other hand, if they do not commit suicide, no one would be upset surrounding them, however, the depressed person will still be in pain. According to utilitarianism, you must make the decision that maximizes happiness and minimizes the most amount of pain, which in this case would be not committing suicide. However, if you as an individual are that unhappy, you should have the right to be happier, regardless of considering the happiness of those around you. This can be seen in Aristotle’s second book in Nicomachean ethics, regarding virtue ethics. According to Aristotle, the practice of virtue ethics is an agent-centered philosophy, and therefore is focused around the idea of “How can I live my best life”. In addition, virtue ethics is based off of the idea of Eudaimonia, better known as the happiness, flourishing and well-being of an individual. In Aristotle’s work he states, “A quality of the soul is a passion or emotion… By a passion or emotion, we mean appetite, anger, fear, confidence, envy, joy, love…” (Aristotle, 42). This quote shows that as individuals, we have an innate quality of emotion, and the right to express our passions and emotions differently from others. If practicing utilitarianism, one is forced to sacrifice this instinctive feature of emotion for society’s happiness.
Another reason why utilitarianism should not be used to make ethical decisions is because people have a moral duty to value the emotion of people they have a relationship with. One flaw of utilitarianism is that it ignores the idea of caring relationships. This practice of ethics views all individuals as equal beings, regardless of relationship status. That being said, an individual may have to make a decision to save either his/her own mother from drowning, or a random stranger who is drowning. According to the idea of utilitarianism, that individual is just as morally obligated to save the stranger from drowning as he/she is to save his/her own mother from drowning. However, for someone whom you may take responsibility for, there should be a stronger sense of care and obligation to prioritize them before the stranger. This can be seen in Held’s article, “The Ethics of Care as Moral Theory”. The idea of care ethics is that it values emotion and has respect for relational people. According to Held, “The compelling moral claim of the particular other may be valid even when it conflicts with the requirement… that moral judgements be universalizeable,” (Held, 11). Ultimately, Held is arguing that particular others whom you have a relationship to, are an exception to the rule of universalizability. This is because we are born as infants, with and instinctive connection to our parents. According to care ethics, the idea that children are dependent on their parents is recognized (Held, 10). Rather than focusing on every person being equal to get rid of bias, care ethics realizes the dependency that children put on their parents growing up. This dependence stresses that parents are morally responsible for their children, and in return, children have this sense of connectivity to their parents due to the fact that they were raised by their parents. Overall, utilitarianism is faulty in the fact that relationships are ignored. As humans, we have an inborn sense of responsibility towards particular others that we have a relationship to. Therefore, we should prioritize relationships, rather than overlooking them when making ethical decisions
The last reason why utilitarianism serves as a poor basis for decision making is because people should be viewed as individuals and as an end in themselves. The last weakness of utilitarianism is that it treats individuals as a mere means to something else, rather than as a means to an end. Although the goal of utilitarianism is not necessarily to treat people like this, it has no problem with treating people as a mere means. For example, if it is in the best interest of the society, a utilitarian may ignore the feelings and happiness of one individual in particular, in order to benefit a larger number of people. In this case, the idea that people are individuals with feelings are completely ignored, and they are treated as a mere means so that the community can use them to get what they want. This idea can be seen in Le Guin’s fictional story, “The One’s Who Walk Away from the Omelas”. Although this story is extreme, it still acts as a good basis for portraying the thought processes of a utilitarian. In the story, the city of Omelas is described as the happiest city on Earth, where they never lose happiness or pleasure, and their happiness is all based off of the pain and suffering of one child who is locked away. Le Guin states,
“If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed,” (Le Guin, 4).
The ultimate message of this story is that if the child is relieved from his suffering, the happiness of the citizens of Omelas would be destroyed. Ultimately, the child who is locked away is being treated as a mere means to the society’s happiness. The city knows that it is wrong to treat the child like that, but they allow it to happen because their happiness depends on it. The thought of this story is to show that having one person suffer in pain and be unhappy is better than having an entire city unhappy, so basically, the child is maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people. However, according to Kant’s deontology, people should be treated as a means to an end because humans have value within themselves. That child is still a valuable human being and it is not right to sacrifice him in order to maximize happiness for the society, especially when he is capable of higher faculties and pleasures.
Overall, Mill’s utilitarianism is focused on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is centered around the idea of happiness and pleasure, and the belief that actions are “right” if they produce happiness, and “wrong” if they don’t minimize pain. Although some supporters may view utilitarianism as a very strong and appropriate philosophy for making decisions, I believe that the weaknesses of the philosophy outweigh the strengths, making is a poor basis for moral decision making. Utilitarianism should not be used to make decisions because it does not treat people as individuals and has no regard for self-happiness/well-being. In addition, it ignores the idea of the moral duty to respect relationships with particular others, and it also has no problem with treating people as a mere means.
.