Utilitarian Ethics: Principles, Cases, and Criticisms

Introduction to Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarian ethics proposes that actions are considered right or wrong according to the degree to which they help or bring happiness to the greatest number of people. The two foremost pioneers of the theory were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, although utilitarianism in some form predates them, with roots in hedonism and in Aristotle's writings, each of which advocated different forms of eudaimonia — contentment or happiness.

Branches of Utilitarianism

Classical utilitarianism has several distinct branches. Ideal utilitarianism holds that more than just pleasure constitutes the good. Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism differ in whether the focus falls on individual acts or on general rules; two-level utilitarianism attempts to reconcile the two. Preference utilitarianism holds that the right act is the one that satisfies the preferences of those affected. Beyond these, negative utilitarianism concentrates on minimizing harm rather than maximizing pleasure, while motive utilitarianism evaluates acts based on the motive most likely to produce the greatest happiness.

Utilitarianism vs. Deontological Ethics: A Real-World Case

A case that attracted significant media attention illustrates the utilitarian principle in practice and highlights the contrast between utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Deontological ethics place the focus on obligatory principles of right and wrong — practicing certain principles because one is morally obligated to do so. The Kantian categorical imperative and Biblical commandments are classic examples of this approach.

Jason Ellsworth, a U.S. serviceman, was killed while serving in Iraq in 2005. His father wished to create a memorial for him and, accordingly, asked Yahoo for access to his email correspondence from Iraq. Yahoo refused, citing its privacy contract with users. The case was brought to court, and Ellsworth's family prevailed. The controversy made front pages in many publications. On one hand, readers argued that Yahoo was right: it had promised confidentiality to its users and could not break that promise under any circumstances. On the other hand, others argued that the family stood to benefit from the release of the correspondence and that it should therefore be transmitted (Hu, 2004).

The public debate reflects both the utilitarian argument and the conflict between deontological and utilitarian perspectives. Those who defended Yahoo demonstrated a deontological allegiance — insisting that Yahoo was morally obligated to keep its word. Those who condemned Yahoo and supported the Ellsworth family took the utilitarian approach, asserting that more people would be made happy by the release of the email than would be the case if it were withheld. They pointed to other internet providers — such as Hotmail, Gmail, and AOL — that transfer email correspondence to the family of a deceased user upon death. They also maintained that:

"E-mail has become a source of information about soldiers on the front lines. Images of the war and correspondences to loved ones have helped paint a picture of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, while helping families stay in touch with loved ones serving abroad." (Hu, 2005)

And further, that "soldiers killed in action may also have important information in their e-mail accounts to help families settle personal matters, such as closing out accounts or other housekeeping matters" (ibid). These points form the crux of the utilitarian argument in this case.

Conclusion

Ideal though it sounds at first glance, utilitarianism poses many problems when examined more closely. Its strengths lie in its democratic impulse — the insistence that every person's happiness counts equally. Its weaknesses lie in the difficulty of defining and measuring happiness, the inability to predict consequences, and its potential to justify grave injustices when a majority stands to benefit at the expense of a vulnerable minority.

Sources

Darrow, J.J. & Ferrara, G. (2005). Who owns a decedent's e-mails: Inheritable probate assets or property of the network? Legislation and Public Policy, 10, 28.

Williams, Bernard (1993). Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge University Press.

Harwood, Sterling. "Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism." In Louis P. Pojman, ed., Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., 2003; and in Sterling Harwood, ed., Business as Ethical and Business as Usual. Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996, Chapter 7.

Mackie, J.L. (1991). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin Books.

Rachels, James & Rachels, Stuart (2012). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Hu, J. (2004). Yahoo denies family access to dead marine's e-mail. CNet.