July 16, 2012              Brian Lewis, Ballarat, Australia

WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM?

 Many people believe that the only criterion of morality is the good or bad consequences of our actions. Nothing else carries any weight.  

A very common theory of ethics in this category is called Utilitarianism, whose originators were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19^th century.  As the name suggests, this view holds that the one and only exceptionless rule of right and wrong in ethics is the principle of utility. The right act is the one that will result in the greatest good of the greatest number. An act is obligatory if it meets this test. So, looking at the consequences of what we propose to do, we should do or avoid what we calculate will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number who will be affected, that is, the greatest amount of welfare, understood as able to be measured or quantified.  

Mill thought that his theory of seeking to achieve the sum total of welfare throws light on the Judaeo-Christian command of love. 'To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality'. He also claimed that justice is not really distinct from love and is realised in the same way, namely by calculating what will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, or the net social welfare. Justice is nothing else than expediency. Though he conceded that all persons are equal, in the sense that the happiness of each counts equally, he said there is no right to equality of treatment where some recognised social expediency or utility requires otherwise. The net social welfare thus prevails over individual rights to essential material, social and moral goods.

 Utilitarians hold that the only universal and exceptionless moral rule is this utilitarian calculus. All other rules either admit of exceptions or come into conflict with one another in some situations. Only the rule of utility finally determines what is right and to be done, or wrong and to be avoided.  

In regard to the second general aspect of a moral decision, namely, the actual doing of what has been determined to be the right thing, utilitarianism presupposes that reasonable persons will appreciate the value of doing good, or the most good that can be done for the benefit of the society to which they belong, and that therefore they have the moral obligation to do it. Beyond this the theory does not take us very far. In Christian terms we would say that the underlying motive for acting morally is love. But we still have to specify what this means in terms of what is the loving thing in particular circumstances.  

Utilitarianism is still a popular ethical theory today. Its focus on the measuring of welfare, whether this be conceived as happiness, or finances, or public health, or community education, commends itself to many involved in the fields of economics, government, law, health care and industrial relations. Many find it appealing to make decisions rest solely on the basis of cost/benefit analyses of situations affecting the community or sections of it. An economist, for example, might make a judgment about the value of a strategy or a politician about the effectiveness of a policy by weighing up the balance of expected benefits to the community over harms that will be brought about in that community. Many thinkers, however, find problems with this.  

It is not unreasonable to maintain that, whether as Christians or non-Christians, we should try to bring about as much good as we can and that love requires this. Nor can it be denied that some of our well established moral rules have been arrived at by considering the preponderance of good results over bad for humanity at large. Killing is considered wrong because it has the consequence of unjustly depriving another of life. Moreover, we know from experience that we sometimes attempt to work out what we should do in a particular situation by weighing up favourable outcomes against less favourable ones. If I have an infected kidney endangering my life, I probably would not have too much difficulty in assessing the benefit of an operation in regard to the danger and the risks involved in it.  

These are some of the reasons why utilitarianism has been so popular. But we have to ask whether this is enough for a viable ethical system.  

Critics of utilitarianism have raised a number of shortcomings in the theory. It is rather impractical and could be very burdensome to require each action to be evaluated by a continual weighing of good and bad consequences. People can generally cope with moral rules, but this proposal, it is claimed, is too complicated in practice for a healthy moral life.  

Furthermore, it is often very difficult to foresee clearly what the consequences of a course of action will be, especially when others are affected and the calculation of advantages over disadvantages is very difficult to assess. A common problem facing school teachers, for instance, is determining how much attention should be given to backward students so that the bulk of the class is not seriously disadvantaged. Again, how much time should a husband and father devote to his wife and family apart from normal working hours? Is it right for him to spend several evenings a week involved with community projects? Or Saturday and Sunday mornings playing golf? Another possible scenario could be about a couple who have two children. One is quite brilliant and would benefit from the opportunity of an education elsewhere. The other is retarded and doing well at a local special school not otherwise available. Should the family move to another location which would benefit the first but greatly disadvantage the latter? It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to rank consequences here without bringing in other non-utilitarian considerations, such as special concern for the least privileged.

 A third difficulty with utilitarianism and one that is hard to discount will be taken up next week.  

                                                         Brian Lewis, Ballarat, Australia

----------------