Part 1 Happiness and Right Action
We have been discussing what makes something right or wrong and we have explored two particular approaches to the issue: Cognitivism and Non Cognitivism. In addition, we have considered God as the basis for morality. Our conclusion was that right and wrong are independent of God; however, God is the respecter of right and wrong. In short, we concluded that things are right or wrong in themselves and need no external vantage point. But there is a further question regarding the reason for determining that stealing is wrong. Why do we say that adultery or stealing or lying is wrong? What is it exactly that makes these things wrong for example. This leads us to a consideration of the relationship of morality and happiness. The two are not independent of each other. It should be pointed out that at this point in our discussion we are moving toward what has been termed a "Consequentialist" understanding of right and wrong.
Part 2 Utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham
The close connection between morality and happiness of which we are speaking is called Utilitarianism, a movement founded essentially by Jeremy Bentham. According to Utilitarianism an action is right or wrong based on the consequences of that action or based upon "well being." When asked whether an action is right or wrong, we are really asking how would a particular course of action contribute to the well being of an individual or of a people. For example, we may ask why is stealing wrong? The answer is because if someone steals your stuff this makes you unhappy. More precisely, Utilitarianism argues that the right course of action for an individual in the midst of an ethical dilemma is that which will produce the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. An action is bad when it fails to assure the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
Part 3 Problems with Utilitarianism
The theory itself sounds very sensible and has been absorbed into our thinking as a culture and is increasingly being thrust upon us as a political society. However it should be pointed out that Utilitarianism was and still is a very radical notion for a number of reasons. First, the theory is a rejection of other ideas as the basis for right or wrong action, such as the bible. In the past, individuals cited the biblical material for example as a basis for authoritatively determining which is the most appropriate course of action to take. However, Utilitarianism essentially leads to the rejection of the biblical material in this capacity. Utilitarianism also constitutes a rejection of certain of the laws of a society. We may ask, "What are the customs of our society" in answer to which course of action is the most appropriate or right. But Utilitarianism rejects this criterion in favor of happiness. A given law or custom may produce less happiness than another policy or course of action and is therefore deemed to be wrong. In this sense, Utilitarianism is a universalistic doctrine in that no matter where one resides or what the customs of a culture or society may be, it is universally applied. In addition, Utilitarianism also rejects our concern for motives in moral decision-making. For example, an evil motive or a virtuous motive is rejected as of little or no concern since what matters is not motive but the consequences of one's moral decision. In short, Utilitarianism is only concerned with the effects of an action or the consequences of an action. The theory sounds like common sense, but in fact it is a very radical notion and involves the rejection of many of our standard views of morality. In short, Utilitarianism is a potentially very revolutionary ethical doctrine.
Part 4 Utilitarianism: Individual and Social
Bentham directed Utilitarianism on two levels: individually ad socially. He was concerned at the policy level with what the individual should do, as well as what society should do.
Utilitarianism is an egalitarian movement. It is concerned with producing the most happiness for the most people and is not concerned at all with who possess the happiness or pleasure or benefit. There is no privileged section of society, which deserves happiness more than others according to the Utilitarian perspective. Happiness is not to be limited to the view at the expense of the majority. In addition, Utilitarianism is also a democratic theory. It especially lends itself to the democratic context. In this sense it is very anti monarchial. Utilitarianism, as such, is a progressive perspective that is not the least concerned with holding onto the status quo or the elitist perspectives.
Part 5 Utilitarianism and Taxation
As previously stated, Utilitarianism has a political dimension. We could apply the perspective for instance to the topic of taxation. How should taxation be determined in a society? We night decide taxation based upon those who do the most work. For instance, those who do the most work would be taxed at a lower level or at a higher level than others. Utilitarianism says that we should tax only according to the principle of greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. It would call for the redistribution of taxable income. Happiness, therefore, should be distributed equally among the masses.
Again, Utilitarianism sounds like a very common sense approach. However, as previously stated, it is not without its problems. There is something missing in Utilitarian theory. It simply does not give the entire picture and omits major aspects of our usual view of morality. Utilitarianism rejects the issues of motive or character. The fact is that we often evaluate people's motives and not just the consequences of their actions. We look at the kind of person an individual is and the kind of motives they act from. However Utilitarian would say that this is not relevant. An evil person for example can produce good results and a good person can produce evil results. In addition, Utilitarianism has no concern for moral rules. Rules are always subject to revision or to abandonment. Utilitarianism therefore argues that we should look at the consequences and not the rules. In addition, rights are of no concern for the Utilitarian since the theory is concerned exclusively with consequences. But this exclusive concern for consequences or outcome focused upon producing happiness is problematic since what counts as happiness to one individual is not necessarily happiness to another. How do we compare happiness? How do I compare your happiness to mind? Is there such a thing as a unit of happiness? What would a unit of happiness be like? So there is something incomplete about Utilitarian theory.
Part 6 Utilitarianism and Slavery
Consider the topic of slavery for example in relationship to Utilitarian theory. Some individuals would reject slavery on the basis that it is a violation of certain human rights. Utilitarian are not concerned however in this fashion. Remember that Utilitarianism is concerned only with numbers, specifically producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Interestingly, Utilitarian were anti slavery because it was a matter of numbers and not of rights.
Part 7 Utilitarianism and Animal Rights
Consider the topic of animal rights in relationship to Utilitarianism. In recent years animals rights has become a major concern. Peter Singer utilizes Utilitarian arguments in addressing the issue of animal rights, arguing that our treatment of animals is immoral. He contends that we derive pleasure from animals by eating, wearing, sporting and through entertainment but the unfortunate consequence is the immense amount of unhappiness and cruelty toward animals which makes such uses wrong. He points out that factory farms, slaughter houses, circus animals, cosmetics research causes untold amounts of suffering in the non human animal population. Therefore, based upon these negative consequences it is wrong to abuse or even possess animals.
Part 8 Utilitarianism, Globalism and Economics
Consider also the relationship between the first world and the third world. According to Singer we maintain a high standard of existence in the first world at the expense of untold suffering, pain and agony in the third world. In short, we are causing a great amount of suffering for our own benefit. We could better utilize our resources or material possessions in an effort at producing a greater amount of happiness in third world countries.
Utilitarianism leads to some very disturbing consequences. The theory sounds like a sensible one but it is actually questionable in that it reduces the standard for moral decision making to one single criterion - producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people with no regard to customs, laws, rights or motives.
Part 9 Utilitarianism: The Downside
Again, Utilitarianism does not always work as we would like. On the face it seems right and yet as a theory it does not make room for things such as justice. Again, the theory is only concerned with consequences. For example, consider ten wicked men and one virtuous man. Consider further if we torture the innocent man we will derive for the wicked men a great deal of happiness since the innocent man knows where to find a million dollars for instance. Consequently, after torturing the innocent man and after he yields the information the ten wicked men retrieve the money and live happily. The question emerges, "Should we torture the innocent man?" The answer is plainly, "No." But Utilitarianism comes along and says, "Don't be so hasty in your conclusion. He will indeed suffer but the other men will get more happiness than the suffering endured by this one man." However, this conclusion on the part of the Utilitarian seems more than wrong. It is indeed evil. The innocent man's rights are violated and the ten wicked men who do not deserve the money benefit from retrieving the information and the money. Utilitarianism causes us to "brutalize" other moral considerations and so as a moral theory it is overly monolithic. Happiness should be part and only part of an individuals or a societies moral code. We need to consider other variables as well. This same concept could be applied in the contemporary debate concerning the use of torture in an effort to prevent terrorism. That particular situation is a terribly tragic one, but nonetheless, relevant to the debate concerning Utilitarianisms legitimacy. In short, there sees to be no simplistic approach to these types of moral dilemma's, including the overly simplistic theory of Utilitarianism.
