Is hedonistic act-utilitarianism a plausible moral theory?

Hedonistic Act-Utilitarian

Is Hedonistic Act-Utilitarianism a Plausible View?

Morality is an essential part of our social nature. There are many versions that can be defined as moral, depending on how one chooses to define their social obligations. Act utilitarianism (AU) states that an act is morally right if and only if the act produces the maximum social utility. In order for the act to be considered moral, there must be no other act that would produce greater utility. Hedonistic (Classical) act-utilitarianism holds that an act is morally right if, and only if it produces as much happiness as pain, when compared to any other alternative. The line between pleasure and pain is often blurred and one must be able to distinguish before they and declare hedonistic act utilitarianism.

Utilitarian theory is the constant search for balance between good and evil. Act utilitarianism focuses on the merits of each individual act. Utilitarian theory is a form of consequentialism, but differs from other form of consequentialism. Ethical-egoism and ethical-altruists are concerned with only some of the beings affected by the act. Egoists are concerned only with themselves. Altruists are concerned with others, but not themselves. Utilitarians are concerned with all of the people affected by the act (Brink and Copp, p. 357-380). The question will remain if it is plausible for a hedonistic act to be utilitarian.

In its purist form a utilitarian evaluation of an act requires several steps. To decide whether an act it utilitarian one must first identify all of the alternatives that are possible. They must consider the consequences for everyone that will be affected by the act. They must consider both the positive and negative impacts on everyone evolved. Positive consequences are referred to as "positive utility." Those that have a negative consequence are referred to as "negative utility." They must consider the consequences of the act for the short- and long-term affects. The person must also weigh all of these aspects for each alternative that is available in order to decide which is the most utilitarian. The final step is to make a judgment regarding the ethical merits of an act based on their analysis of this set of consequences.

Let us look at an example of how a utilitarian might view an act. An appliance manufacturer decides to run a commercial using subliminal messages to entice the audience to buy. This technique has been proven to increase sales. The first step in a utilitarian analysis of the situation is to identify the act. The act is whether to run commercials with subliminal messages or not. The manufacturer has three potential alternatives in this case. They can decide not to run any commercials at all. They can decide to run commercials with subliminal messages, or they can decide to run commercials without subliminal messages.

If the manufacturer chooses not to run any commercials the audience will not be aware of the stove and will not derive the pleasure from ownership. The manufacturer will not make increased sales, which will not increase their pleasure either. The same could be said of the commercials without the subliminal messages. The public will not buy the stove and experience the pleasure from it. If the manufacturer decides to use the commercials with the subliminal messages implanted then the public will know about the product and will be more likely to purchase it. This will increase the public's pleasure. It will benefit the economy and will lead to increased profits for the manufacturer. From this standpoint, the decision to use subliminal messages would represent a hedonistic act.

However, there are many variables that can affect this simplistic illustration. Of pleasure related activities. For instance, if the person who buys the stove does not like to cook, but is buying the stove for someone else in the family, then it would be considered to be altruistic, but not necessarily pleasure-seeking for the one that bought the stove. The economic profit for the manufacturer increases and they will have more money to do what they need to do. However, the purchase would have a negative impact on the wealth of the person who bought the stove. From this standpoint the stove would not increase the pleasure for the customer. From a classical standpoint, this would not represent a utilitarian act.

This example demonstrates that how an act can be interpreted differently using utilitarian rules and one can derive two entirely different conclusions based on their personal like and dislikes. The interpreter's viewpoint is an important part of utilitarian analysis. Using the example of advertising with subliminal messages it is difficult to conclude that any act is utilitarian. It can produce either pleasure or pain depending on the orientation of the actor and the recipient of the act. Whether an act is utilitarian is a matter of perspective. Since utilitarianisms require that the act produce the greatest good for all, one cannot definitively conclude that any act is utilitarian. One could even go as far as to argue that a true utilitarian act does not exist in reality.

Heroism and the Call to Duty

Utilitarianism leaves no room for heroes and those that go beyond what is considered socially necessary in a situation. If the act is utilitarian then there is not way to go beyond utilitarianism. One must always choose the best actions for every situation. Therefore, the actor always uses act-utilitarianism when they decide the best action to take. Act-Utilitarianism maximizes the benefit for everyone. Utilitarianism means that we should always do our best and that to do less is never permissible. If this is true, then we can have no heroes. No one is exceptional or could be considered any better than anyone else, based on his or her actions. Act-utilitarianism equalizes the acts of everyone and no one stands out from the fray.

In some cases, we are not required to do out best. In this case act-utilitarianism is false, as it is now possible to go beyond what is required. If extraordinary acts are possible, then act utilitarianism must be false. However, this proves to be a fallacy when one considers that some acts might be more difficult than others might. If the average person has trouble doing an act, then a person who does it would be considered "heroic" by many standards. Objections against utilitarianism are often based on this premise.

Utilitarianism and Justice

Agents that break the law often do so out of a distorted sense of self-importance. They are biased towards their own wishes and needs. Victims of crime are equally important, but the criminal does not consider the harm that they will cause the victim, they are only concerned about their own benefits. Often these benefits are short-term in nature. The criminal does not consider the best alternative for everyone involved. Therefore, the criminal act is considered egoism, as opposed to altruism.

Rule utilitarian do not evaluate actions directly. Instead they make rules that will be used to evaluate actions. In this process, they must develop a system of rules that maximizes utility. They must then evaluate their actions according to the rules that they have set for this particular circumstance. Therefore, the rules substitute for the morality of the act. There times when breaking a rule could result in the greatest utility. Rule utilitarianism holds that one must act in accordance to the rules, even it this does not results in maximum utility.

Rule utilitarianism allows for acts that go beyond the call of duty. Under rule utilitarianism, only what is stated in the rules in required. If one does more than are in the rules, then there could be heroes using rule utilitarianism theory. Act utilitarianism does not have this drawback. Rule utilitarianism would not require us to be unjust, we must only do what is required by the rules. However, act utilitarianism could require us to do something unjust, if the situation called for it. Ethical theorists debate the differences between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism, particularly when it comes to justice related issues.

Hedonism and Egoism

It is important to understand the various types of utilitarianism in order to explore the plausibility of hedonistic act utilitarianism. An act that is hedonistic, or pleasure seeking behavior, is egotistic. One seldom seeks the pleasure of another unless they derive some pleasure from it themselves. Often the pleasure associated with an act is abstract, or might be derived from the pleasure of another. For instance, giving someone a gift might provide the receiver with pleasure, but the giver also receives pleasure or gratification of some type from the act.

Hedonism and utilitarianism appear to be related. The only difference is the pleasure vs. pure utilitarianism is that the latter is less tangible. Another branch of moral theory and thought are those associate with consequentialism. Consequentialism states that whether an action is right of wrong depends on the consequences. There might be consequences for those that did not commit the act, but the person committing the act typically only considers the consequences for themselves. They seek pleasure and avoid pain in their assessment of the situation. Therefore, consequentialism is hedonistc and egotism. Using this argument, one could say that utilitarianism is more altruistic than consequentialism. However, utilitarianism is not completely altruistic either. Utilitarianism is neither altruistic nor egotistic. However, it is difficult to call consequentialism altruistic. Some acts might have a hint of altruism, but there are few that consider the consequences of others before direct consequences for ourselves.

Hedonism requires the absence of pain, in most cases. When one is in pain, either emotional or physical, it is difficult to feel complete happiness. What is considered pleasure and what is considered pain is up to interpretation. This is an open question to which there are no clear guidelines. Utilitarians are hedonists in that they consider pleasure to be the intrinsic good. They consider pain to be bad. However, this concept can be challenged based on the intrinsic value that someone places on pleasure or pain. Hedonism can be qualitative and quantitative. Quantitative hedonism is concerned with the quantity of pleasure. Qualitative hedonism is concerned the type of hedonism.

Issues of Utilitarian Impartiality

We found that whether an act can be judged as utilitarian depends on the perspective of the participant. If this is true, we determined that utilitarianism could only exist as theory. In reality, there are too many variables regarding individuals to call something truly utilitarian. In order to achieve true utilitarianism, there must be an element of impartiality to make this determination. We demonstrated that two different people might judge the same act as utilitarian and non-utilitarian. If this is the case, then one cannot achieve true impartiality. The judgment will always be subject to the person's perspective.

Law professionals, mental health professionals, and those in the judicial system are asked to make decisions based on the utilitarian needs of society on a daily basis. In order to make the best decision for society they must maintain impartiality. They are asked to make their judgments based on the facts of the matter, rather than their own personal feelings. The good of society is at stake with every decision. However, in light of this discussion, one must question whether it is possible to make a utilitarian decision.

Our original discussion focused on whether the ideal do a hedonistic act-utilitarian is plausible. When one engages in hedonism, they are acting to satisfy their own needs and pleasures. The idea of pleasure is subjective, therefore it is irrelevant to the idea of act utilitarianism. If one commits a utilitarian act, then it is utilitarian whether or not the person committing the act perceives it as pleasure or pain. It is the act itself that is utilitarian, not the person's feelings about it. Let us look at an example.

One might see the killing of an animal with a communicable disease as an act of utilitarian nature. The animal is relieved of its suffering and cannot infect other animals. The animal cannot transmit the disease to humans and endanger them. To let the animal live in such as state is dangerous to other animals and humans. It would cost society in terms of medical bills, quarantine, labor, etc. One example of this is the "bird flu" infected chickens in Asia. Killing the diseased animal would represent the utilitarian alternative in this case. The person performing the killing might find pleasure in the process, or they might feel compassion and deep regret for taking a life. However, regardless of their feelings they will kill the animal and commit the utilitarian act.

The most important point in the analysis of whether or not hedonism act-utilitarian is plausible must decidedly be answered with an affirmative. It is plausible to have hedonistic utilitarian acts. However, one must qualify this by pointing out that hedonism and utilitarianism are not synergistic. Utilitarianism exists with or without hedonism in any particular case. Both utilitarianism and hedonism are a matter of perception. One can exist without the other or they can exist together.

This exploration of hedonistic act-utilitarian approached the problem from an individual perspective, taking into consideration the intrinsic values of an act. However, Hurka and Copp (pp. 357-380) remind us that if we take a " whole organism" viewpoint, the scene looks quite different. There will always be individuals within the whole that have many extremes of experiences in the same circumstance. However, it is the organism that matters in the final analysis. It is difficult to make a statement that the entire organism is hedonistic. One could say that if a majority of the organisms experience pleasure, then the organism has hedonistic tendencies, but this says nothing about individual outcomes, as Hurka and Copp point out.

This theory also applies to consequentialism as well. When one thinks of consequences they are typically referring to the individual. However, we found that utilitarianism couldn't exist for the individual. One must look at the entire groups to find true utilitarianism. However, the opposite is true with consequentialism. Groups can receive consequences, but the effectiveness of the consequence if spread across the entire group. The individual feels little impact from either positive or negative consequences. The consequence is diffused among the members of the group. This also has the effect of removing the individual satisfaction from the job well done. Consequentialism combined with utilitarianism represents diffusion of rewards and punishments.

One of the most famous stories that are told in psychology classes regarding diffusion of responsibility is of the woman that was stabbed multiple times in public. There were hundreds of witnesses around, but none of them acted to try to save her. This story floats around and can be found in many sources. This act was neither hedonistic, nor utilitarian. However, it does demonstrate the effects of groups dynamics clearly.

According to Hurka and Copp (pp. 357-380) utilitarianisms affects the groups, more so than the individual. Therefore, the same dilution effect can be seen in the division of the greater social good. When one considers the group, everyone receives a smaller piece of the pie. The plausibility of hedonism in a utilitarian act depends on one's definition of pleasure and how the group dynamics work as far as spreading the rewards and punishments to their members. It is plausible to have hedonism and utilitarianism together. However, one must be careful to qualify their definitions. One can speak of the hedonistic acts of an individual or the hedonistic acts of a group. It is plausible for a group to have hedonistic act-utilitarian. However, this is more difficult for the individual because of the differences in perception. The answer to the question lies in which microscope one uses to examine the issue.