BOLA: Business and Ethical Thinking: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism

Here we see the clothed skeleton and wax head of Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832) as he sits in his glass fronted cabinet gazing down the corridors of University College, London. Bentham and his pupil John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873) defined the principles of utilitarianism - although maybe it was Adam Smith's tutor, at Glasgow University (Professor Hutcheson) who first coined the phrase "the greatest happiness of the greatest number".

An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

J S Mill

Utilitarianism evaluates moral action on the basis of consequences and goal orientation - how far a decision maximises the net utility that everyone affected by the action may expect.

This line of thinking had line antecedents. Even Machiavelli (1518) in his play Mandragola (a moral satire) presented a consequentialist, utilitarian argument which suggested that even seduction by fraud is acceptable when it attains positive ends and "the greatest good" is served.

Bentham's "the greatest good." is a "tendency to augment or diminish happiness or pleasure" i.e. quantitative hedonism with pleasure and pain as measured by intensity, duration, certainty, purity, fruitfulness and extent. However Bentham made no distinction between pleasures and "the person". J S Mill thus took the line that not all pleasures were equally worthy. He defined "Good" in terms of well-being and differentiated "pleasure" quantitatively and qualitatively (higher and lower pleasures). The former are mental pleasures and the latter bodily (a dubious argument to say the least).

Utilitarianism thus has "scientific" and practical pretensions. It allows for right and wrong to be based on calculating the elements in a situation. We can calculate and choose the action giving the greatest utility. The decision is rationalised and supposedly clear. Moral right is defined in terms of

an objective....material good

using cost/benefit analysis as a method for reconciling empirical fact against subjective, value judgments.

Who are the greatest number?

...everyone affected by an action regardless of any difference (wealth, influence, ability, age etc) between individuals. If I offer benefit to others then I am altruistic. If I decide on the greatest good for me alone then I am egoistic.

Objections to Utilitarianism

Do we always know what the outcomes of action are or who is going to be affected?
Judging in advance is difficult.
How do we quantify pleasures for our cost/benefit analysis even comparatively?
Complex and lengthy calculation with too many variables. In many situations we are pressed for time and many are incapable of doing the calculations.
the principle is an aggregate and an over-simplification. The good may be achieved in ways that harm a few. Is such harm really balanced by a greater good for many?
It is too permissive. Moral principles such as 'don't lie' or 'don't kill' could be violated for even a slight increase in a bad consequences overr good.
Utilitarianism inadequately references individual rights that should not be violated regardless of the effect on the greatest number. To safeguard our commercial trading, would we really condone "eye-for-an-eye" punishment (surgical removal of the offenders eye) for someone found guilty of blinding a victim and disfiguring their face with acid?
Everything that we do is morally relevant - even choosing between enjoying a meat or vegetarian pizza - and so we must be constantly on the look-out for better, alternative possibilities. But will constant awareness, as opposed to regarding some actions as irrelevant in terms of morality, result in better consequences ?

Rule utilitarians

Proper utilitarianism is "act utilitarianism" where each act is decided on an individual basis. Rule utilitarians however would argue that we "ought to act" with reference to a system of rules which - for a class of problems - would produce the best balance of good to bad consequences.

A rule utilitarian tries to evaluate behaviour on the basis of rules which, if universally followed, would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Useful general ground rules (intuitive, inductive rules) relax the need to calculate every single situation. Thus such rules include those that define human rights and prohibited, harmful actions - but there are logical difficulties.

The basis for "a rule" is contained in the utility principle itself - it is circular, bounded and dependent.
In an elitist society, the violation of a rule itself may achieve the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Thus we may pander to the elite and put up with their excesses in order to avoid civil war and self-destruction.

Elitism and Injustice

Utilitarianism may serve social inequality and injustice.

The many serve a social elite (possessing authority as well as privilege). The "greatest good" for the many may mean dutifully accepting the rules of the elite. Social disorder may be a worse option than usurping a benign, stable but privileged regime.
thus utilitarianism may tend to condone injustice and inequality (Apartheid) or even repression of minority.

J.S. Mill campaigned against the slave trade. He argued for individual liberties and women's rights. Does utilitarianism serve such ideals adequately?

Web-links for Utilitarianism

BOLA is maintained and developed by Chris Jarvis