Utilitarianism - Case Study Example

and Number of the Teacher’s Utilitarianism Introduction Scholars have developed the concept of utilitarianism as definitely the most popular and perhaps the most plausible approach to ethics. According to Alfred Cyril Ewing, the term ‘Utilitarianism’ is used both in a narrower and in a wider sense. It may denote hedonistic utilitarianism which considers pleasure as the only good, and pain as the only evil; or it may “stand for any view which makes the rightness of an act depend solely on its conduciveness to good” (Ewing 100), without basing it on any theory explaining the things that are regarded as good. However, utilitarianism from a broader perspective is much more plausible than the hedonistic variety. Utilitarianism may be defined as “the view that the right action is always the action most conducive to the good and that is what makes it right” (Ewing 102), but it is a controversial and highly debated issue. John Stewart Mill, a moral and political philosopher, supported the theory of utilitarianism, and regretted that the present condition of human knowledge still continues to speculate on the criteria of right and wrong. Since more than 2000 years, little progress has been made in the question concerning the foundation of morality, and the most gifted intellects have become divided into opposing schools of thought “carrying on a vigorous warfare against one another” (Mill x). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to present an argumentative paper, debating for and against the concept of utilitarianism. The Argument Supporting Utilitarianism In the wider sense, the term ‘ideal utilitarianism’ has frequently been used in recent times to refer to those forms of utilitarianism which are not hedonistic. The analytic form of hedonism in which ‘good’ only means ‘pleasant’ or ‘conducive to pleasure’ is evidently false, and has not been used consistently by any important thinker on ethics. However, the common perspective that the only characteristic which makes something good, other than serves only as a means, is its pleasantness and that its goodness is in proportion to the latter. This is the meaning of pleasure as the only good (Ewing 100). Jacob Moreh argues that utilitarianism is best explained as ‘helping behavior’. In such behavior, the agent’s action is parametric “if the acts of other agents can be assumed to be given” (Moreh 137). The utilitarian principle has also been used for nonparametric or strategic behavior, if its outcomes relies on others’ actions as well. In this, the agent may not know what the other agents’ actions will be, and the conflicts in interests of the different agents may differ. Utilitarianism has conventionally been based on benevolence; it promotes the maximisation of social welfare, and believes in the system of personal morality and a social decision rule (Moreh 138). Authors such as Harsanyi (623) have derived the concept of ‘average utilitarianism’ from the impartial judgment of a sympathetic observer. When the population is constant, average Utilitarianism becomes identical to total Utilitarianism. An example is that when an ethical observer compares the moral value of two states of the world A and B, “he assumes that he has an equal chance of being in the position of each of the persons in situation A, with the same tastes as the respective persons” (Harsanyi 623). He then computes the average of the individual utilities. He repeats the same procedure for situation B. The state with the higher utility index is considered to have the higher moral value, and should be preferred. Conventional or traditional utilitarianism also has an ‘average welfare’ version, however it is different from neo-utilitarianism. Besides their different derivation, neo-utilitarianism involves the notion of risk, and consequently used the von Neumann-Morgenstem cardinal utility; on the other hand, traditional utilitarianism does not involve risk and employs ‘introspective’ utility, states Moreh (138). Common sense morality is in agreement with utilitarianism with regard to a type of parametric behavior referred to by social psychologists as ‘helping behavior’, “where the agent does a favor, gives a donation, or intervenes in an emergency, and where the person helped is frequently dependent on the agent” (Moreh 138). Examples include founding a university, saving a man’s life or offering assistance to his dependents. At the same time, some helping behaviors can be classified as those forming a part of an exchange situation. If the goods exchanged or causing externalities are the only goods used by the agents, then the utilitarian solution is the same as that of redistribution of income or of welfare, the total of the disutility of negative externalities, leading to the maximisation of social welfare. Thus, the issue of personal morality cannot be completely dissociated from that of public choice. However, the utilitarian solution to the distribution problem may not align with the principle of fairness (Moreh 139). Ewing (102) observes that utilitarians have sometimes put forth their theory in a manner laying it unnecessarily open to objections. However, the best way of further defining the position would be to state that the only factors determining the rightness or wrongness of an action include: the amount of good or evil that will potentially be produced in comparison to that which its alternative options are likely to produce, and the second factor of the degree of probability of the production of each item of this, “a diminution in the probability of occurrence of a good or evil, counting as if it were a proportionate diminution in its amount” (Ewing 102). The Argument Against Utilitarianism Utilitarian writers have not taken into consideration games of exchange and externality. The utilitarian approach in neither of these games agrees with moral intuitions. Further, if all goods either entered into exchange or gave rise to externalities, then the utilitarian solution to these problems would be the same as a distribution of welfare that maximised total utility. This type of distribution would be unjust to those who have a comparatively low capacity to enjoy goods, “and to those who suffer negative externalities but impose light ones on others or none at all” (Moreh 137). The author demonstrates that the utilitarian objective may conflict with common sense ethics; and in aspects where there is no dispute, questions of equity may arise, for which Utilitarianism is unable to provide an answer (Moreh 137). The internal difficulties in modern utilitarianism, were followed by the revival of several non-utilitarian moral theories in the 1970s. From the perspective of these theories, “utilitarianism is frequently seen as an immoral doctrine which fails to take virtues and individual rights adequately into account” (Hayry 73). There is an argument that utilitarian policies result in unfair distribution of goods in society; while another states that utilitarianism does not view individuals as separate beings, or evaluate their personal integrity. A further argument against utilitarianism believes that it demands unreasonable sacrifices of particular members of society (Hayry 73). Hayry (73) supports utilitarianism, and states that critiques wrongly identify social justice with the optimisation of total or average utility. According to non-utilitarian moralists, this approach would result in gross social injustice and unfairness. Egalitarian theorists favoring an equal distribution believe that individuals have basic needs which should be fulfilled before less essential requirements be taken into consideration. Meritorian philosophers consider merits and deserts to be more important than the maximisation of utility for the conferring of awards. However, the psychological law of diminishing marginal utility states that individuals “receive more utility from the satisfaction of their basic needs than they receive from the satisfaction of more transitory desires and preferences” (Hayry 73). An equitable distribution of the most basic goods would maximise utility, and should be recommended. Cyndi Banks argues against the concept of utilitarian theory emphasizing the importance of consequences alone. Thus, significant debates against the utilitarian approach state that in addition to utility, there are other conditions that determine the extent to which actions are right or wrong. Critics also argue that utilitarianism opposes the key concept of justice which calls for fair treatment of people, taking their individual needs and merits into consideration. Further, utilitarianism does not support individuals’ rights which cannot be infringed for the sake of anticipated good outcomes (Banks 225). Frederick Rosen adds that utilitarianism permits and even requires the punishment of the innocent. The first strand of this argument is that if crime can be prevented by punishing the innocent, it is believed to be justified. The second strand relates to justice in maximising happiness generally by imposing punishment on others. The third strand is that punishing the innocent or general immorality in society is “a potential feature of all teleological theories including utilitarianism” (Rosen 209), when such actions would help realize the required results. This focuses on the end justifying the means used. Conclusion This paper has highlighted Utilitarianism and examined the debate with arguments supporting and opposing the theory and principles of the concept. Significantly, Ewing (102) finds that the arguments against utilitarianism can be resolved by representing this approach mathematically. Thus, the amount of good or evil would be multiplied by the fraction expressing the probability of producing it. The products would be added in the case of good, and subtracted in the case of evil. This would be carried out with all the items of good or evil the action had a chance of producing, thus completing the sum for each alternative proposed action. The utilitarian would then declare that action to be obligatory in a particular situation, which was represented by the greatest positive quantity. On the other hand, that action represented by the least negative quantity would be undertaken “if the situation was so unfortunate that there were no possible actions represented by positive quantities” (Ewing 102). Thus, it is concluded that this ancient debate on Utilitarianism needs to be ended in favor of this ethical approach supporting the implementation of right action. Works Cited Banks, Cyndi. Criminal Justice Ethics: Theory and Practice. New York: Sage, 2004. Ewing, Alfred C. Utilitarianism. Reviewed Works. Ethics, 58.2 (1948 January), 100-111. Harsanyi, John C. Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Social Research, 44 (1977), 623-656. Hayry, Matti. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics. New York: Routledge, 1994. Mill, John S. Utilitarianism. London: Longmans, 1901. Moreh, Jacob. Utilitarianism and the Conflict of Interets. Reviewed Works. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29.1 (1985 March), 137-159. Rosen, Frederick. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. New York: Routledge, 2003. Read More