Utilitarianism Is One a Normative Ethical Philosophy,

Utilitarianism is one a normative ethical philosophy, and it stands as one of the most important of its type. At its heart, utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy, in that the ethics of an action are dependent on the consequences of an action. Before the advent of utilitarianism, consequentialist philosophy emphasizes the self, in particular hedonism, but utilitarianism expanded the scope of consequences to include those to all society. Today, such scope has arguably been expanded further so that outcomes to the environment and other non-human entities is also taken into consideration (Driver, 2014). The most common distillation of utilitarian philosophy is in the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Core Concept

If the morality of a decision rests on its consequences, that places significant onus on the decision-maker to consider the full range of those consequences. In early consequentialism, the consequences considered were largely to oneself, making it relatively easy to predict outcomes, but eschewing the idea that one has a duty of care to those with whom he or she shares the planet. Other philosophical schools of thought focus on what is right or moral, relying on the idea that there are universal laws which exist, and thus should not be violated. Decision-making is relatively easy in those schools when one knows those universal laws.

Utility and Freedom

One of the formative thinkers of utilitarianism was Herbert Spencer, and he was particularly concerned with the relationship between freedom and utility. The utilitarian viewpoint demands that the decision-maker consider the totality of consequences from his or her actions. A mental calculus must be conducted, therefore, weighing the likelihood of different outcomes, along with the ethical merits of those outcomes. For example, the executives at Enron felt that they could conduct their fraud and not get caught. It was entirely foreseeable that if they got caught, they would face legal action and the company would be destroyed. The consequences would be catastrophic. In their ethical calculus, they must have felt that a) the likelihood of getting caught was low, because the consequences were always going to be severe, including to themselves. Most people, when faced with the same opportunity, would have realized that the greatest good for the greatest number would be to not commit fraud; committing fraud mostly delivered the greatest downfall for the greatest number.

The problem with utility, in particular when utility is extended to the broadest number of external entities, is that it can substantially infringe on one's freedom in decision-making. Spencer sought to reconcile the relationship between utility and freedom (Weinstein, 2013). An example in business could be paying employees a living wage. In a labor market with full freedom, only the forces of supply and demand, and relative bargaining power, would affect wage levels. The result of this, however, because of differential bargaining power, is usually negative for a great many people. The benefits that accrue to some -- shareholders -- are largely outweighed by the fact that low wages leave people unable to escape poverty. Yet if companies are required to pay workers more, this infringes on the freedom of companies to bargain the price of labor in a free and competitive market.

Utilitarian ethics usually involves such trade-offs. Not every decision reflects a zero-sum game, but there is always an element of distribution of resources inherent in decision-making, and this creates at least partial trade-offs in many cases. Following a utilitarian view strictly may place someone in conflict between as to whose freedom is infringed upon in order to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number. Prisons illustrate this quite well -- someone's freedom has to be taken away entirely so that the rest of the public can be free from crime.

Response

Utilitarians are aware of this conflict within their philosophy, and indeed have engaged in debate about the subject. In general, minor conflicts are not regarded as needing serious, methodical consideration. Some bigger conflicts, however, do require a strict, rational approach. Carbon taxes are a good example of this. There are significant freedoms in our society, including the freedom to engage, en masse, in self-destructive behaviors. The problem is that a few can engage in self-destructive behaviors that ruin everything for the many. Humanity first encountered this issue at the dawn of the nuclear age, when the entire world could have seen nuclear holocaust. Today, climate change is a similar issue. Freedoms would need to be impinged upon substantially in order to deliver the utilitarian result. The thing about rational utilitarian analysis is that the rational "correct" outcome is one that the utilitarian would buy into. Self-sacrifice for the gain of society as a whole is acceptable and even desirable, because the ethical system that the utilitarian has deemed it so. Utilitarianism is not individualistic consequentialism, but rather accepts that the consequences have to be considered at the societal level. It is not the place of the utilitarian to argue when he/she must make personal sacrifices, in this case financial ones. Utilitarians who cannot accept sacrifice when it is required in them are missing the key point that differentiates utilitarianism from its predecessor forms of consequentialism.

Rights or Virtue Ethics

In general, rights or virtue ethics-based frameworks may be able to resolve utilitarian conflicts, but they also come with their own inherent conflicts. For example, human societies have a number of different perspectives about right and wrong, so there are conflicts between such systems. The idea that there is one right or wrong system is a Western-centric viewpoint that essentially denies beliefs that do not arise from Western philosophical and religious tradition.

Even if the proposition is accepted that there is a singular right or wrong answer to the climate change issue and carbon taxes, that answer may not resolve the problem. If freedom is more important, then future generations lose, as well as many people alive today. If utility is more important, then many other people will lose. The conflict exists because there is a genuine ethical dilemma. If the dilemma was easy to resolve, it would not be a dilemma. That is why Enron is not a serious ethical issue -- there is no dilemma -- but climate change is. All forms of philosophical thought will struggle with the true dilemmas, and even a resolution may not resolve the underlying conflict, but simply make a determination about the morality of the decision.

In the real world, ethical dilemmas arise quite frequently. People tend to adopt whatever philosophical stance serves their own interests, denying us the opportunity to properly evaluate the merits of a given ethical framework. Proponents of strict regulation to control carbon emissions, for example, argue from a utilitarian framework, but then seek to express that there are moral failures as well.

Utilitarianism also struggles because the consequences of many actions are unknown. This makes it difficult to fully understand a decision. This is especially true of large-scale and nuanced decisions like those regarding climate change. For example, when examining the merits of a carbon tax, one would have to know not only the consequences of the freedoms that have been infringed upon, but would also need to know if the carbon tax was going to do anything. The carbon tax is only a positive thing to a utilitarian if it actually makes a difference; if not, the suffering it inflicts was entirely without purpose.