Why Utilitarianism Does Not Work as a Governing Principle

Utilitarianism: Weighing the Balance

The common good is often spoken of as a principle for social justice: that which benefits the whole should be promoted. Or, that which is universally good should have the highest support. It could be said that this is a utilitarian concept -- yet in modern terms of justice where egalitarianism can appear to be at odds with the "common good," the role of minority voices and diversity present an obstacle in the appeal to universalism. What is good for one set or cultural group may not be good for another. Thus, the question may be raised: Is it just to maximize the happiness for the greatest number of people as the utilitarian approach argues? The answer depends on one's viewpoint. If one believes the democratic principle is the highest principle of all, then might (or strength in numbers) makes right. If, on the other hand, one believes that the transcendental values of the classicalist philosophers, like Plato -- the unum, bonum, verum (the one, the good and the true) -- are the highest principle, then one can answer that even if the greatest number of people are made "happy" through some method that is not rooted in virtue or holiness then no matter how great their number it should not be supported because their "happiness" is not real happiness but rather founded in error and will lead to disorder and unfulfillment. This paper will discuss the potential strengths and weaknesses that accompany the utilitarian approach to happiness and why I believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

In the modern era, the way of looking at justice and freedom is made all the more complex by the fact that moderns tend to have a contradictory view of freedom: freedom is espoused as a great, if not the greatest, principle in all democratic societies -- and yet in nearly all democratic societies there is discernibly less freedom today than there was yesterday, as totalitarianism takes firmer and firmer hold, limiting individual choice and movement. As Michael Sandel notes, "The idea that justice means respecting freedom and individual rights is at least as familiar in contemporary politics as the utilitarian idea of maximizing welfare" (20). But here the utilitarian concept is complicated by two conflicting ideologies: on the one hand, there is the appeal to freedom as the way towards the "common good" or happiness for the greatest number of people (Halbert, Ingulli 15). And on the other hand there is the appeal to social welfare as the way. The two are exclusive: one cannot have absolute freedom and yet still be dependent upon the state. Either one is cut loose or one is chained (by dependency). But this way of looking at the issue is somewhat superfluous considering the argument made in the opening statements of this paper. If the utilitarian concept is not based in truth -- that of the unum, bonum, verum kind -- then it has no real basis for stability and growth. It is illusory, as Plato would say. Thus, whether or not the true and the good are perceived as such by society will play a major role in how fundamentally happy (and holy -- in Platonic terms) that society will actually be. A utilitarian or pragmatic happiness is only as endurable as the society's ability to control the environment which produces that pragmatic happiness. True happiness, on the other hand, is rooted in transcendental values (virtues) that are not dependent upon any environmental circumstances, as Socrates shows innumerable times in Plato's Dialogues.

John Stuart Mill himself wrote that the utilitarian philosophy held actions to be "right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness," which is a very similar argument to Plato's adversary in Euthyphro. A comparison of these two viewpoints can help in examining why the utilitarian approach is not a just approach as it is too subjective to really be effective in asserting any objective principle or ethic. (For it is the argument of this paper that an objective and universal principle must be applied in order for true justice and happiness to be pursued, regardless of differences between ethnicities and cultures; here the Golden Rule best applies in order to make fundamental sense of the application of universality. It is also important to note that while utilitarianism may promote the "common good" its concept of the "common good" is still rooted in a subjective approach, meaning its emphasis is placed on measuring that which pleases the most people rather than in identifying that principle or ethic which is most good in itself. The order of approach is different -- as utilitarians emphasize the means rather than the end, even though they assert that their philosophy is directed towards the "end" of the "common good." It is not. It is directed towards utility, and the "common good" is dependent upon the pleasure and pain of the greatest number of people. What that group of people uses to decide what is pleasurable and painful may be completely detached from truth and is therefore liable to be false. Thus, justice should be directed towards the end of justice, which is goodness or holiness as Plato asserts. This point will be made by exploring the relationship between utilitarianism and Euthyphro, the dialogue partner of Socrates in Plato's Euthyphro).

Euthyphro imagines he is in the "right" when he prosecutes his father for wrongdoing. But Socrates asks Euthyphro what piety is (what is pleasing to the gods) and Euthyphro can only give a subjective answer -- piety is that which he is doing. Socrates then says, "So whatever Euthyphro does is good and therefore we should all imitate Euthyphro," and Euthyphro sees the absurdity of this logic and has to rethink his answer. But rather than admit that he may be wrong in prosecuting his father, he chooses to not face the question and rushes off, secure in his ignorance and subjectivity. Socrates meanwhile insists on an objective standard, a universal law that applies to everyone -- not one law for Euthyphro, one law for Socrates, with the individual determining what is right or wrong. Socrates says that in such cases the individual sets himself up as judge, when in reality the true judge is God for God alone is above everything and indeed the writer of the truth which is written in men's hearts (Plato, Apologia).

When Mill says that people should protect themselves "against the tendency of society to impose ... its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them" (13-14), he is speaking precisely about this "subjective truth" that Euthyphro believes in: if everyone has his own truth, he is making a utility out of truth rather submitting his mind to truth. Euthyphro and the utilitarians want truth to submit to them. They want truth to conform to their own wills, rather than have to conform their wills to truth. For Plato it is quite the opposite: his teacher Socrates died because he refused to attempt to force truth to conform to his will. Better, he believed, to submit one's mind and will to the highest of all truths, which is God, and to die for that submission than to imagine that one is truthful and live "happily" even though that happiness is founded on self-deceit and will ultimately lead to a life which is not up to par with the one, the good, the true, and the beautiful. Failing to live according to those transcendental, universal truths -- which are defined for one and all -- and require objectivity to see them -- will in the end only lead to real unhappiness. As Sandel notes, the utilitarian founder Bentham believed that "the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility" (Sandel 34) -- but utility is simply a means to an end and is not an end in itself. By basing one's governing principle on a "means" as opposed to an "end" that is objective, whole and universal (and only the transcendental virtue is this) one's governing principle is subject to change with the wind -- for what is practical one minute may not be practical the next depending upon the current. Yet if one's principle is based on an unchanging value -- such as goodness -- then one can withstand any change in external current and continue to pursue a policy of goodness that will manifest the most happiness for all who apply themselves to this policy.

Utilitarianism, first of all, is a philosophy whose morality is based on the preservation of self, and is thus subjectively situated. According to John Stuart Mill, actions are morally acceptable and "right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Fox). Utilitarianism in other words is not based on the "objective" transcendentals of ancient definition, such as the one, the good, and the true. Instead, it is based on a cross of Enlightenment doctrine with Hedonism. It asserts that all men desire happiness and that because man is rational he should do whatever is in his best interest. It follows that, since no man is an island, the Utilitarian should also deal rationally and correctly with others, since it is in his best interest to treat others as he would like to be treated. But the Utilitarian is not limited to such a perspective. Because his philosophy is based on the subjective philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who also called into question the idea that man could measure himself against an external, objective and transcendental moral law, the Utilitarian is able to examine the facts in as many different lights as he can justifiably arrange. For example, Mill writes that "if [society] issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression" (Mill 13). This is to be avoided, according to Mill, because social tyranny is opposed to human happiness.

Moral relativism, on the other hand, asks whether we can really know if something exists. Such doubt is a skeptical attack on the school of empiricism. Moral relativism attempts to discern the intellect's ability to judge what is real and unreal. A relativist is not bound to accept an objective morality (i.e., that torture is correct or incorrect), because he insists on viewing objective morality subjectively, which opens the door for multiple and conflicting opinions. Moral Relativism, therefore, cannot help us decide what is morally permissible anymore than Utilitarianism can, because it is, essentially, a fundamentally subjective system of philosophy in which nothing certain can be stated. Like Utilitarianism, it is not based on an objective perception of transcendentals.

Mill advocated a Utilitarian approach to life. His God was Pragmatic. He saw morality as a social construct (Mill 10) rather than as a God-given part of human nature. Instead of men and women being responsible before God for keeping themselves morally upright, men and women were (in Mill's eyes) responsible before one another for keeping themselves morally upright -- and if they failed to do so, the State could take the matter in hand.

Moral relativism is only defensible if one is a relativist like, for example, Plato's Euthyphro. But it was Protagoras who argued that man is the measure of all things. If Protagoras was correct, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder and truth is relative. If Pratogoras is not correct, beauty exists as a transcendental value and truth is one with the good and the beautiful.

The problem with saying that moral relativism is defensible or indefensible is that relativity exists. Values exist on both an objective and a subjective level. Moral relativism denies the objective value of things and states that one can only know the subjective level.

Essentially, Utilitarianism is built upon moral relativism. But both are contradictory, if only because an objective standard outside ourselves must exist or else there is no way to even assert that a subjective standard exists. As P. J. Toner states, without objectivity, "the whole process of human reasoning [may be] declared fallacious" (Toner, 1909). One might argue that there is not truth and that is the truth, but saying so is making an objective assertion and therefore contradicting the very idea that you are meaning to express. This to assert that morality is simply that which is utilizable, or that it is all relative, is to suggest that there is no such thing as morality at all. Morality by definition must be fixed and universal. Thus, both Utilitarianism and Moral Relativism assert a similar philosophy which is rooted in subjectivity rather than in an objective discernment of moral order and natural law.