|
Background notes for a lecture given in November 2000.
Utilitarianism
is probably the most widey used ethical theory today. Seeking to achieve the
greatest good for the
greatest
number, and evaluating actions by their intended results, are seen as common
sense principles by a
majority of
people.
Its function
and its limitations are illustrated by its origins:
-
Hutcheson (1694-1746) used the phrase 'the greatest good for the greatest
number'. He took the 'moral sense' approach to ethics, and therefore a natural
intuition of what is 'good'. Everyone fundamentally wished the welfare of
everyone else. Once you have such a basis for morality, seeking to spread the
benefits of an action make sense.
-
Hutcheson, and later Bentham (1748-1832) were concerned with political and
social issues. Utilitarianism was used to argue for the best form of government.
-
Good
will is assumed - individual rights and equality are presupposed.
-
Bentham tries to quantify happiness. Calculation seems to offer certainty about
what it right. (However, it may be argued that such calculation is not, in
itself, moral.)
-
Mill
seeks to make judgements about what consitutes happiness, and some forms of
happiness are to be preferred to others. Utilitarian arguments therefore need
further support in terms of the values they express.
One problem
with basing morality on results alone - wrong motives can still lead to right
results (e.g. selfishness may motivate a system that yields positive results for
a majority, is it therefore morally right?). Critics argue that results alone
cannot determine morality.
How do you
define happiness? Impossible to define adequately for others; therefore, taking
each person's preferences into account, gives to the individual the
opportunity to self select his or her happiness or good. (Preference
Utilitarianism: see the work of Peter Singer and others.)
Limitations of
utilitarian arguments:
-
You
cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is' - the 'naturalistic fallacy' (so G E
Moore). But utilitarianism appears to derive an 'ought' from the expected
results.
-
Results are never conclusive. You cannot be certain of final overall benefits.
-
The
values upon which utilitarian arguments depend cannot themselves be validated by
a utilitarian argument - that would be circular. Therefore, values have to be
assumed: the desirability of doing good to others; basic equality of persons.
-
Therefore, utilitarianism is inadequate, taken on its own, as a moral theory. It
is a way of allocating and applying moral values - but that is not the same
thing as a self-contained theory which can account for and resolve moral
dilemmas.
-
Taken in its original context (of selecting the most appropriate political
situation, given the views of moral thinkers in the 18th and 19th centuries),
utilitarianism made sense as a practical way forward.
-
However, taken in isolation from fundamental moral intuitions about the values
that should underpin action, it has the effect of removing genuine moral choice.
If the 'right' thing to do could simply be calculated by assessing results,
there would be few genuine moral dilemmas.
e.g. Given
Siamese Twins, both of whom will die unless the least vaible one is surgically
separated off from the more viable, the utilitarian argument would probably
consider that one child is better than none, and the operation should therefore
be performed. But what are the longer-term implications of such a decision? We
can attempt various calculations - based, on 'act', 'rule' and 'preference'
approaches. But that does not take away the moral dilemma of deliberately
ending the life of the less viable child. Nor would it be fair to present
utilitarian arguments as 'rational' and others as either simply emotional or
based on religious beliefs.
Moral dilemmas
result from genuine conflicts about alternative courses of action. These
alternatives may reflect:
-
the social and personal consequences of an action
-
the values
that are expressed through that action
-
the emotions
and relationships that are involved.
Quantified
results are therefore part, but only part, of that process. Utilitarian
arguments therefore depend upon established values and principles, they cannot
adequately generate them.
|
