Strengths and Weaknesses of Benthams Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Strengths and weaknesses of Bentham’s utilitarianism Strengths and weaknesses of Bentham’s utilitarianism Introduction Even though human beings enter the world as individuals and have our personal rights and freedoms, the fact that we are born into a social world cannot be denied. Because of this situation, humans have social obligations as much as they have personal obligations (Birnbacher, 2003). There are several ways in which the social dimensions of humans are manifested, including the need to ensure that our actions and inactions are directed for the good of other people also. It is based on this principle that there are ethics or moral philosophies which seek to systematize, defend and recommend concepts and actions that are considered right or wrong (Bentham, 2009). Ethics or moral philosophies come in many different forms, each of which seeks to take a unique dimension of human interactivity and conduct. One of these is utilitarianism, championed by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism generally argues that the best course of action is one that maximizes utility by taking full advantage of benefits and reducing suffering (von Kutschera, 1999). Based on the moral and ethical arguments behind Bentham’s utilitarianism, there are many studies that have come to critic the strengths and weaknesses of the utilitarianism. In this paper, the weaknesses and strengths are discussed with specific emphasis on examples of human conducts and how they apply to making society a better place for both the individual and those around him or her. The paper’s conclusion thus takes a position on the applicability and usefulness of Bentham’s utilitarianism in today’s social ethical context. Major strengths of Bentham’s utilitarianism and its applicability in social context As far as the socio-ethical perspective of Bentham’s utilitarianism is concerned, it has been found to be very useful in the promotion of majority benefit, based on which an egalitarian basis is promoted. By saying utilitarianism promotes majority benefit, reference is being made to the fact that it upholds and encourages pleasure for as many people as possible (Scanlon, 1998). By implication, the theory elaborates ethics as a social responsibility that must be implemented from one person to the other and for the collective good of a majority of people. The reason this is so is that under egalitarian basis, all humans are seen as equal and thus equally justified to enjoy pleasure. It is for this reason that von Kutschera (1999) explained the Bentham’s utilitarianism as a universal ethical hedonism that sees pleasure from a spiral approach. The spiral nature of pleasure means the individual must first be self-satisfied but whiles doing this, must also consider the expansion of pleasure to the larger society. The majority benefit doctrine of Bentham’s utilitarianism and the fact that it has egalitarian basis thus helps to create a universally desired state where the majority of people are happy (Mill, 1998). A typical example of this can be seen in utilitarian bioethics where in a state of limited resources, nurses are first expected to give care to patients whose future productive value and happiness is quantified as higher (Birnbacher, 2003). Halevy (1966) championed the need for ethical theories and philosophies to directly address and help solve problems with society and this is exactly what the Bentham’s utilitarianism seeks to do. The reason the utilitarianism theory is often attributed to society and its needs is the fact that Bentham developed the theory at a time when there was massive social reform resulting from communities that had been faced with poverty, diseases and confusion (Scanlon, 1998). The theory which champions the promotion of pleasure and suppression of pain thus came to be a model for helping people overcome their social challenges in the midst of the social reforms. Meanwhile, Mill (1998) argued that social reforms are part of continuous social processes which can be found in our current society. Invariably, the Bentham’s utilitarianism theory is as useful in addressing social aggression, pain, anguish and agony as it did at the time it was first developed as it does today. Utilitarian politicking can be used as a typical example to explain how utilitarianism addresses current social issues. This is because under utilitarian politicking, politicians are condemned for taking actions that bring something bad even if their actions were taken with good intentions as going to war to fight terrorism. Today, various debates go on whether the fight against terrorism has not turned to counterterrorism and bringing about worse forms of pain to innocent civilians. The answer to this ethical dilemma is directly addressed by Bentham’s utilitarianism. One other strength of Bentham’s utilitarianism is the fact that it is considered to be secular in nature even though it is not atheistic. As explained by McCloskey (1957), the over elaboration of some ethical theories on God has created so much ambiguity with their practice and usage. This is because religion has come to make God a rather ambiguous subject with several fragmented arguments and divisions as to what is the right way to please God. Having a secular theory such as utilitarianism thus puts the center of judgment around humans and therefore gives humans the power and authority to make rules that determine what is good and bad, based on their present social dictates. More importantly, Bentham (2009) noted that as the theory is made secular, it makes it possible for it to be embraced by people of all religious opinions, including atheist. This is because when taken from a religious perspective, the theory admonishes on the need to serve God through service to humanity. This way, humans, who are more visible and tangible as social agents are made the focal point for ethical judgment. A typical example of this can be given as a person who would fail to support an innocent child involved in an accident because the person is late to a religious gathering. In a situation like this, happiness for the little child is suppressed for the promotion of pain and so the action can be said to be wrong. Major weaknesses and limitations to modern practice Bentham’s utilitarianism has been strongly criticized as ignoring justice, especially as Bentham preached second order evil, which seeks to argue that innocent people who commit a wrong act must not be punished if the action was performed for the greater good (Feldman, 1993). Clearly, Bentham’s utilitarianism seeks to ignore justice as long as the consequence of actions is for greater good. Parfit (1986) expressed surprise that the same utilitarianism theory would condemn actions that are committed with good intentions but for bad consequences but sees nothing wrong with bad means of doing good things. By extension, utilitarianism is seen as a theory that preaches the doctrine that the end justifies the means. True justice is seen by Bentham as being achieved when the end of actions are committed for the greater good. Using the same argument of the theory’s implication on society, Paley (2002) said Bentham’s utilitarianism has a negative influence on society. This is because it fails to acknowledge the place of rules which are made to promote social justice. An example that can be given to justify this criticism is the concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul, where a person may take something unjustifiably from one person who is thought to need an item less and give it to another person who is thought to need the item most. From a utilitarianism perspective, it would be said that such an act of robbing Peter to pay Paul, commonly referred to with referred to as Robinhood tactics will be considered right as it leads to greater good. In aw however, such an action is not permissible. Quite related to the first argument, John Rawls also argued about the weakness of utilitarianism in becoming too impersonal and refusing to acknowledge the rights of individuals (Robert, 2009). This is because under Bentham’s utilitarianism, the actions of individuals are forced to be focused on the impact of society in earning the greater good. By so doing, there are chances that the core rights of a person may have to be denied in order to make provisions for the greater good. However, individual rights have been considered as a very important principle that aims at the promotion of social fairness. This is because unless individuals can be guaranteed of their own rights and freedoms, it becomes extremely difficult for such people to know how it feels for others to have their greater good promoted (Feldman, 1993). Those who argue from this perspective have therefore questioned the application modality of Bentham’s utilitarianism where society is placed ahead of the individual, even though the greater good of the individual is also sought. By implication, there is a methodological weakness with utilitarianism as it fails to teach the individual the act of seeking greater good before seeking this greater good for others. Based on which, Parfit (1986) questioned if utilitarianism can ever be said to have been practiced in an effect way. This is because the person practicing it is only forced to seek social benefits that he or she has hardly experienced personally. Conclusion Pleasure and pain are certainly two perspectives of society that no one can deny or do away with. But for humans to continue exhibiting their control over society, it should be possible for them to find ways of promoting the maximization of pleasure as pain is minimized. To do this, it is important to appreciate the core arguments and positions made by the utilitarian theory. This is because the theory seeks to emphasize on human abilities to suppress pain while promoting pleasure. From the various lines of discussion and examples used in the paper, it has been noted that even in the modern social context Bentham’s utilitarianism has a lot of justifications that makes it useful for practice. This is regardless of the weaknesses that have been found or criticized against it. To a very large extent, it would be said that the weaknesses with the theory comes from the approach to utilizing or implementing the theory. Instead of refuting its usefulness for the modern society, it will rather be recommended that its strengths be highlighted and its weaknesses reinvented. This recommendation is made against the backdrop that the world continues to be confronted with countless numbers of political dilemmas that has to do with how to bring perpetual peace to citizens. Once Bentham’s utilitarianism is put at the center of all such debates, it will be possible to find answers to most issues of society that center on pain. This is because it will be understood and appreciated that any means of ensuring perpetual peace and justice which centers on engaging in another form of wrong such as counterterrorism cannot be considered as acceptable. References Bentham, J. (2009). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Birnbacher, D. (2003). Analytische Einfuhrung in die Ethik, Berlin: Alpha Press Limited. Feldman, F. (1993). On the Consistency of Act- and Motive-Utilitarianism: A Reply to Robert Adams, Philosophical Studies, An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 70(2), 211-212. Halevy, E. (1966). The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism. New York: Beacon Press. McCloskey, H.J. (1957). An Examination of Restricted Utilitarianism. The Philosophical Review 66(4), 466–485. Mill, J. S. (1998). Crisp, Roger, ed. Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paley, W. (2002). The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. Parfit, D. (1986). Reasons and Persons. London: Oxford Paperbacks. Robert, M. A. (2009). Motive Utilitarianism, The Journal of Philosophy, 73(14), 23-56. Scanlon, T. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. London: Cambridge University Press. von Kutschera, F. (1999). Grundlagen der Ethik, 2nd edition, Berlin: Alpha Press Limited. Read More