Utilitarianism: Criticisms and Responses

The Is and Ought problem

The central notion in both Bentham and Mill’s principle of utility is that humans, by nature, are naturally inclined towards the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. They both justify this conclusion on the basis of what they see people doing:

“Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” (Jeremy Bentham)

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest-Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (John Stuart Mill)

In moral theory we might say that Bentham and Mill are attempting to derive an ‘Ought’ from an ‘Is’:

• IS (the way things are): Humans are naturally inclined towards the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain.
• OUGHT (how we should act): Only do those things which maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Logically this ‘ought’ is also equated with ‘Good’.

However, writing 50 years earlier in A Treatise of Human Nature (1738), philosopher David Hume argued that any attempt to derive an ‘Is’ from an ‘Ought’ is logically problematic:

“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning… when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained.” (David Hume)

If Hume had read either of Bentham and Mill’s argument for the principle of utility, he might have critiqued them along the lines of the following: To say we are naturally inclined towards the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain is one thing, but this does not explain why we should do those things which maximise pleasure and minimise pain.

Hume’s point is that we are missing an explanation here:

• "Humans only do those things which maximise pleasure and minimise pain", because… ?

Now one could respond to this by saying we should maximise pleasure and minimise pain because this is a good thing to do, and this is basically what Bentham and Mill are saying. However, if we say this then we are left with having to explain how and why ‘maximising pleasure and minimising pain’ is equated with ‘Goodness’. Why is maximising pleasure and minimising pain a good thing to do? The assumption seems to be that it just is, but why? On the other hand, if we say we should do those things which maximise pleasure and minimise pain because they maximise pleasure and minimise pain, well this is nothing more than a tautology (saying the same thing twice).

The Naturalistic Fallacy

Bentham and Mill are equating what makes us happy with what is good. We might express this in the following way:

• Being happy = Good

However, in his book Principia Ethica (1903) philosopher G. E. Moore argued that doing something like this leads us to problematic conclusions. For if we suggest that being happy is something good, then we are essentially saying that a definition of ‘Goodness’ is being happy:

• Good = Being happy

It should be quickly evident to us the nature of the problem this creates. For example, Hitler was happy that millions of Jews died during World War II, so does that mean the Holocaust was a good thing? Most would disagree in the strongest terms.

So Moore’s basic concern is that you cannot define Goodness by equating it with something like ‘pleasure’ or ‘being happy’. Instead ‘Goodness’ needs to be understood on it’s own terms, in the same way that say yellow is:

“My point is that good is a simple notion, just as yellow is a simple notion; that, just as you cannot, by any manner of means, explain to anyone who does not already know it, what yellow is, so you cannot explain what good is.” (G. E. Moore)

Moore is saying that we only intuitively know what Goodness is, just as we  intuitively know what Yellow is and recognise it’s presence in various things such as lemons or bananas. Ask someone to explain what yellow apart from these things, and they cannot do this. In the same way we know what a good act is, but we cannot ultimately define what ‘Good’ is.

Of course, if Goodness is incapable of being defined then this means moral questions are simply open-ended and unanswerable. This also means we can have no moral basis for condemning such things as The Holocaust. If we can’t say why something is good or bad then we’re simply left saying we’d prefer such things not to happen, and that is all (Intuitionism).

In response to Moore

In an introduction to selected writings on Utilitarianism, philosopher Mary Warnock argued that Mill was not interested in constructing a moral theory but only concerned with describing the behaviour of most people; this being that they appear to be driven by a desire to maximise pleasurable outcomes, and thus decrease painful ones, because they believe this is a good thing to do. Warnock does not believe Mill intended to say that pleasure was (or equal to) good (which is the assumption of Moore's critique). In fact, Mill appears reluctant to offer any fixed definition of what counts as 'good', in much the same way Moore did:

”No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness.” (John Stuart Mill)

Of course the problem here is that in saying people do x because they do x, we have no real reason put forward for why they are choosing to do x, and as such this leaves their behaviour meaningless and irrational.

Warnock also believed Mill intended only to say it is types of behaviour and not specific actions that produce 'measurable' outcomes. If we look for the specific pleasure/pain value in

each particular case, then our pursuit of a final 'value' will never be found due to infinite 'exceptions to the rule'. On the other hand, if we say that in general x behaviour leads to y outcome then we appear to have some basis for evaluating whether what we are doing is right or not.

One final point...

Utilitarians believe people should seek to maximise happiness (or pleasure) in their respective communities, but what exactly is this? Defining pleasure seems rather subjective, which is actually a common criticism of Utilitarianism. What makes one person happy is not always going to make another person happy. For instance, dropping a bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki supposedly contributed to the rapid ending of World War II, thus reducing the amount of potential suffering to come for non-Japanese soldiers and as such can be deemed a good act by them and their families. But what about the horrendous suffering the Japanese people endured as a result? Was their suffering taken into account when the act of dropping a bomb was evaluated, and if so why was the bomb still dropped?

“Empathy is about finding echoes of another person in yourself.” (Mohsin Hamid)

Review

John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

"The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest-Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." (John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism)

John Stuart Mill's father (James Mill) had worked for Jeremy Bentham, and was greatly impressed with Utilitarianism. So naturally he encouraged his son to learn about the principle of utility. Whilst John was largely impressed with Bentham’s theory, he criticised him for not really distinguishing between the quality and quantity of pleasures, and for also not recognising that there are some things which are more desirable than others.

First published as a series of three essays in 1861, Utilitarianism (1863) contains a description of Mill’s utilitarian theory as well as responses to potential criticisms. His most notable development of Bentham’s approach, is to separate ‘pleasures’ into PHYSICAL (E.g. eating, drinking, and having intimate relationships with others) and INTELLECTUAL (E.g. philosophical debate, reading, listening to an opera). Being a highly educated man (and maybe a little sexually repressed), Mill was inclined to favour the 'higher' pleasures over the lower ones.

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." (John Stuart Mill)

Mill was also critical of those who believed the principle of utility was nothing more than a justification for gratifying one's physical appetites. On the contrary, he believed that in the end people would naturally seek the 'higher' pleasures over the 'lower' ones:

"A beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conception of happiness." (John Stuart Mill)

Mill also believed education played a significant role in helping people live betters lives. It was his belief that the more educated people were, the less inclined they would be to seek their own gratifications, and the more inclined they would be to treat others with dignity and respect. Utilitarianism was not simply a foundation for the Law, but something that would in the end contribute to the well-being of society as a whole.

Mill responds to his objectors

"The end may justify the means, as long as there is something that justifies the end." (Leon Trotsky)

Mill spends a significant amount of time in Utilitarianism answering various objections he felt could be raised against his version of the principle of utility. One of the biggest objections

he felt needed to be countered, was that the principle of utility is based on an ideal which is unattainable; that people cannot be happy all the time. Mill's response to this is to suggest that if when we speak of ‘happy all the time’, if we have in mind a life of complete and total unending happiness then of course this is unobtainable. No one can be that happy all the time, and nor should they be. However we can aspire to live a life which is generally happier than not, and as such this should be our goal:

"It is only those in whom the need for excitement is a disease, that feels the tranquility that follows the excitement dull and insipid, instead of pleasurable in direct proportion to the excitement that preceded it." (John Stuart Mill)

Mill also felt that some people might wonder why they should be concerned about other people's happiness, especially if this involves some loss of pleasure on their own part. 

"I do not care about the greatest good for the greatest number… Most people are poop-heads; I do not care about them at all." (James Alan Gardner)

Mill's response is to show that in order for someone to 'happy', there must be some trade-off with others. We cannot think it feasible to live a purely selfish existence and expect to have to give nothing back to others, for we will soon become very unhappy at how other people begin to treat us if we do this. He also felt we could also find happiness in helping people.

Probably the biggest objections Mill counters is the charge that there is often no time to calculate and weigh-up the different effects our actions might have. Sometimes we are called to make decisions 'in the heat of the moment', and as such we do not have the luxury of deliberating the various outcomes of our actions before doing something. Mill's first response is that this objection is absurd, for we do not have to know every possible outcome of doing something before doing anything. Also it is not the case that we have no clue as to what might generally occur as a result of doing something. To say we do not know how our actions will affect everyone is one thing, but to say we do not know how our actions will affect anyone is simply not true:

"Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness." (John Stuart Mill)

Summary

Mill believes the principle of utility is as close as we will get to an objective moral truth. Although he accepts that being governed by the feelings of pleasure/pain is rather subjective, he challenges us to show how it is not a principle which governs all human behaviour. People do all kinds of things because they believe it will make them happy, even if they do them out of a sense of duty. Our basic instinct is to avoid pain, and in doing so we naturally seek pleasure.

Review

Preference Utilitarianism and Animal Rights

Jeremy Bentham and the Felicific Calculus

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

In Fragment of Government (1776) and An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Jeremy Bentham set about attacking the basis of English law as that which had no logical or scientific foundation. In his opinion the Law rested on not one but a multiplicity of foundations (E.g. the Bible, tradition, conscience). This meant that the law/morality was nothing more than a set of subjective truth-claims with no objective basis or validity to them.

So Bentham sought to introduce a means (or criteria) for validating and securing ethical behaviour; one which could also serve as the basis for a system of Law and Government. He also wanted a more democratic form of government as he felt that anything would lead to an attitude of servitude and dependency amongst the common people, something open to abuse by those in power.

The Pleasure/Pain Principle

"Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure." (Jeremy Bentham)

Bentham begins An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation by defining human nature as something fundamentally driven by a pleasure/pain principle. He argued that by observing nature it could be reasonably demonstrated that humans naturally seek pleasure, and naturally seek to avoid pain. On the basis of this he believed morality (and the laws derived from this) could be grounded in what he believed to be a fundamental and 'objective' truth of our existence: The maximising of pleasure; the minimising of pain!

So according to Bentham a good politician or judge would be one who introduced laws based on what would be to the greater advantage of most people. In other words, they would work to ensure life is happy and pleasant for the greatest number of people.

The Hedonic Calculus (aka Felicific calculus)

In order to avoid the accusation of subjectivity, Bentham devised a means by which to calculate pain and pleasure 'units'. Operating like a mathematical equation, pain and pleasure units would be measured and assessed according to seven criteria:

1. The intensity of any pleasure or pain.

2. The duration of any pleasure or pain.

3. The certainty or uncertainty of experiencing any pleasure or pain.

4. How long will it take experience the effect.

5. The chances of the same good thing being repeated.

6. The chances of the opposite effect occurring.

7. The number of people who will be affected.

"Of an action that is conformable to the principle of utility one may either say that it is one that ought to be done... One may also say, that it is right it should be done; at least that it is not wrong it should be done: that it is a right action; at least that it is not a wrong action." (Jeremy Bentham)

Some criticisms

Although there is naturally some ‘weighing up’ of things before we act, it should be noted that a degree of subjectivity is involved in making these calculations. Although humans naturally incline towards pleasure and away from pain (objectivity), any calculus is concerned with actions that are yet to occur. This means we are ‘measuring’ probabilities rather than objective certainties. To try and measure the intensity of any pleasure or pain also means we need to quantify these experiences, which again involves a degree of subjectivity. Finally the calculus fails to take into account the nature of pleasure and pain involved, which is something John Stuart Mill would criticise Bentham for in his derivative works.

Review

Utilitarianism Part 3: John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism: Introduction and Overview

The principle of utility (aka Utilitarianism) is a moral test for the rightness of actions based on the good or beneficial outcomes they produce. Typically 'good acts’ are those which increase the amount of pleasure/happiness in the world. The most well-known (and developed) versions of  this moral theory are found in the work of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). However, the 'principle of utility' is also found in the work of David Hume (1711-1776), and can trace its origins back to Epicurus (341-270 BCE).

Utilitarianism is a CONSEQUENTIALIST THEORY of ethics. Consequentialist theories judge the rightness (or wrongness) of an action based on what occurs as a result of doing something (the outcome).

Bentham and Mill both wanted to find a secure, irrefutable and objective basis for morality, and were deeply suspicious of any moral theory which did not do this, especially when they were deemed arbitrary and subjective. For both of them, faith-based moralities such as The Ten Commandments were deemed arbitrary and subjective moral, and as such an unsound basis for morality to be grounded in:

"No power of government ought to be employed in the endeavor to establish any system or article of belief on the subject of religion." (Jeremy Bentham, The Book of Fallacies, 1824)

"The principle itself of dogmatic religion, dogmatic morality, dogmatic philosophy, is what requires to be booted out; not any particular manifestation of that principle." (John Stuart Mill, The Spirit Of The Age, 1831)

Bentham and Mill were also anti-establishment, anti-monarchist, and anti-imperialist, meaning they advocated a more democratic approach to ethics and law-making. Therefore, judging actions to be right or wrong on the basis of their effects allowed them (and other Utilitarians) to claim an objectified morality. In other words, in observing that doing x would lead to y outcome, they could establish what ‘good actions’ were, rather than simply being told that this or that would (or might) happen if they do x (as religious moralities are inclined towards).

Utilitarianism is often contrasted with DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS. These consider an act to be good when someone is doing what they ought to do (one's duty), and bad when not doing this. As such, Deontologists are only interested in the act (x), but not necessarily whether this leads to good or bad consequences (y). So in the case of lying, a Deontologist would say it is always wrong to lie (it is our duty not to lie), but in the case of Utilitarianism, although lying often leads to unpleasurable consequences (and would be deemed wrong), exceptions would be agreeable under certain conditions (E.g. A German family lying to Nazis that they were hiding a Jewish family during World War II because this leads to more positive outcomes).

Key terms

• Hedonistic Utilitarianism: An action is good when it maximises the amount of pleasure, leading to the minimum amount of pain.

Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism is largely hedonistic, concerned with maximising the simple fact of pleasure; something Mill would later criticise him for.

• Rule Utilitarianism: Implementing rules (or laws), which will lead to the well-being of the majority of people.
• Act Utilitarianism: Thinking about how our specific actions might contribute to the welfare of others, or be detrimental to it.

Act and Rule Utilitarians disagree about the implementation of Utilitarian principles. Do we prioritise the Rule (the creation of laws to maximise good outcomes), or the Act (laws can be broken if good outcomes result)? This is a relatively modern debate, for in their writings Bentham and Mill sometimes applied the principle of utility to rules, and sometimes to actions. One might say the debate naturally collapses into Act Utilitarianism, because at the end of the day Utilitarians are mostly concerned with the consequences of actions.

• Preference Utilitarianism: Thinking about how others would prefer us to act (i.e. they would not want to suffer because of something we do), even if they knew nothing about our actions, or experienced no ill-effects as a result of them.

Preference Utilitarianism has been influential in animal rights debates, through the work of the Australian philosopher Peter Singer.

• Negative Utilitarianism: Working to decrease the amount of pain or displeasure in the world.

In his 1952 book Open Society and Its Enemies (Volume 1), British philosopher Sir Karl Popper suggested that instead of seeking to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, we should instead be looking to avoid harming the greatest number of people.

Review

Utilitarianism (Part 2): Jeremy Bentham and the Felicific Calculus

The 'crimes of nature' (John Stuart Mill on the Problem of Evil and Suffering)

Introduction

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is most well known for his work on Utilitarianism and his contribution to debates surrounding the matter of gender equality and capital punishment. However, what might not be so well known is that in his 1874 book Three Essays on Religion - Nature, The Utility of Religion and Theism, he presented an objection to the design argument for the existence of God based on the presence of evil and suffering in the world.

As a Utilitarianism Mill was concerned with promoting actions that increased the amount of pleasure in the world, and very concerned to get rid of anything which acted contrary to this. In fact he believed 'good actions' were those things which lessen suffering in the world for the greatest number of people.

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest-Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” (Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill)

The crimes of nature

Mill begins with the observation that those who commit acts of unreasonable behaviour in the world are (justly) punished for their crimes, because by and large we believe that some things people do are fundamentally wrong:

"A man who should persist in hurling stones or firing cannon when another man "goes by", and having killed him... would very deservedly be found guilty of murder." (Three Essays on Religion)

In light of this, he believes nature is guilty of the exactly same sort of crimes that are condemned in humanity:

"Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature's everyday performances." (Three Essays on Religion)

For instance, nature allows the innocent to be killed by wild animals, or starve people, or freeze them to death, or even poison them. Yet despite these acts, nature is never held accountable for these 'crimes'. In fact, not only does nature take away life, but very often the means by which humanity may live by. Hurricanes and plagues of locusts both destroy crops and livelihoods, without a care or thought for those who may suffer as a result.*

Why Mill thinks design arguments do not work

Now if we accept that some of the things people do are wrong, but we also see nature committing these same acts, then Mill's point is that we cannot assume (on the basis of this evidence) that we live in a good world. A wrong-act is still a wrong act, no matter who (or what) performs it. Therefore, in light of these so-called 'crimes' of nature the belief that the world (and the universe) were designed and created by an all-powerful, all-knowing and benevolent deity is dubious:

"Even the love of 'order', which is thought to be a following of the ways of nature, is in fact a contradiction of them. All which people are accustomed to deprecate as 'disorder' and its consequences, is precisely a counterpart of nature's ways. Anarchy and the reign of Terror are overmatched in injustice, ruin, and death by a hurricane and a pestilence." (Three Essays on Religion)

Evil always prevails

Now it might be argued that what is deemed to be 'evil' is simply a matter of perspective. In other words, things might look bad  but God may have a better perspective on things, and may even have wanted things to be this way in the world for a particular reason. However, even this revised understanding of 'evil' would be rejected by Mill, for despite the fact that God may have a reason for things being as they are, or even if God was able to work everything out such that happiness/pleasure was the end result of bad things happening, the fact of the matter is that bad things are still happening; 'crimes' are still being committed!

Furthermore, even if we adopt the most optimistic view of things, Mill holds the opinion that there is more misfortune in the world than there is good. Even when some good does come from something bad happening to someone, it is still far more likely that in the end good will be overshadowed by misfortune. For the overriding tendency in nature (as far as Mill is concerned), is for evil to lead to more evil (rather than to more (or greater) good).

An unjust universe

Although some theologians argue that evil is present in the world to help us grow both morally and spiritually, Mill makes the point that if the universe was truly just then, '... each person's share of [suffering and happiness] would be exactly proportioned to that person's good or evil deeds'. In other words, if this really was a just universe, then surely the 'good' people in it would suffer far less than the 'bad' people (or the 'good' would have a far more pleasant life).

However, that this is evidently not the case means people have to rely on the notion of an afterlife to ensure that in the end justice will ultimately be done. Yet Mill makes the point that if we need an afterlife to ensure that justice will be done, then this is simply another nail in the coffin of the notion that this world and universe is perfectly just, ordered and designed place, and is the creation of an intelligent and benevolent designer:

"Not even on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which was ever framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the government of nature be made to resemble the work of a being at once good and omnipotent." (Three Essays on Religion)

Some issues

Mill's analogy that the 'crimes' of nature are comparable with those of humanity, is dubious. For nature to be guilty of any 'crime' it must surely be shown first that nature intended to commit crimes and cause harm and misery to humanity. If nature does not act with intention in the same way humans do, then the

validity of Mill's analogy is questionable. Mill also seems to imply that for the world to exhibit design it should be a place of order. Yet the idea of order may not be the same for everyone. For instance, my

desk at work may be untidy, but I may know exactly where things are when I need them. So although it may appear that I work in a 'disordered' environment, this will be shown not to be the case if I am asked where something is on my desk, and I have no trouble locating it.

Also, the world does not have to be a place where good prevails in order for this to count as evidence for design. This assumes that God is benevolent (all-good), and only interested in creating such a world. However it might be that God exists, but is a malevolent being instead. If so, then it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that God designed and made a world where evil prevails over good:

• God is a malevolent being
• God created a world where evil triumphs over good
• Evil exists and God exists

Finally, some Christians argue that the reason why there is misfortune in this world, is simply because things have gone wrong due to bad human choices (see The Problem of Evil and Suffering: Christian Responses). Disobedience has resulted in broken relationships between God and humanity; between men and women; and between humanity and the world (including non-human species). Originally God intended the world to be perfect, but it has become spoilt and less-than God intended it to be . So although the world exhibits the kind of disorder Mill believes will lead one away from a belief in a Creator, one could still hold the view that God created the world despite the presence of evil and suffering in it, because none of this is God’s fault.

Notes

*It should be kept in mind that Mill is here talking about natural evil rather than moral evil. For more on the difference between natural and moral evil see: The Problem of Evil and Suffering: An Introduction