Utilitarianism vs. Classical Virtue: A Critical Analysis

Introduction: The Common Good and the Utilitarian Question

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 receive 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 presents an obstacle to the appeal to universalism. What is good for one group or culture may not be good for another. Thus, the question arises: is it just to maximize 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 classical philosophers, like Plato — the unum, bonum, verum (the one, the good, and the true) — constitute the highest principle, then one can argue that even if the greatest number of people are made "happy" through a method not rooted in virtue or holiness, it should not be supported regardless of their number. Such "happiness," being founded in error, will lead to disorder and unfulfillment. This paper discusses the potential strengths and weaknesses of the utilitarian approach to happiness and argues that its disadvantages outweigh its advantages.

Freedom, Welfare, and the Limits of Utilitarian Justice

In the modern era, questions of justice and freedom are made all the more complex by the fact that moderns tend to hold 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 an ever 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 path toward the "common good" or happiness for the greatest number of people (Halbert, Ingulli 15); on the other, there is the appeal to social welfare as the path. The two are mutually exclusive: one cannot have absolute freedom and yet remain dependent upon the state. Either one is free or one is bound by dependency.

This tension is, however, somewhat secondary to the argument raised in the introduction. If the utilitarian concept is not based in truth — of the unum, bonum, verum kind — then it has no real foundation for stability and growth. It is illusory, as Plato would say. Whether the true and the good are perceived as such by society will therefore play a decisive role in how genuinely happy that society can be. A utilitarian or pragmatic happiness is only as enduring as the society's ability to control the environment that produces it. True happiness, by contrast, is rooted in transcendental values — virtues — that are not dependent upon any environmental circumstances, as Socrates demonstrates throughout Plato's Dialogues.

Subjectivity, Euthyphro, and the Problem of Objective Truth

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" — a position very similar to that of Plato's adversary in Euthyphro. A comparison of these two viewpoints helps to examine why the utilitarian approach is not a just one: it is too subjective to effectively assert any objective principle or ethic. 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 serves as a foundation for the application of universality.

It is also important to note that while utilitarianism may promote the "common good," its conception of that good remains rooted in a subjective approach — its emphasis is placed on measuring what pleases the most people rather than on identifying the principle or ethic that is most good in itself. Utilitarians emphasize means rather than ends, even while asserting that their philosophy is directed toward the "end" of the "common good." In reality, it is directed toward utility, and the "common good" is made dependent upon the pleasure and pain of the greatest number of people. What that group uses to determine pleasure and pain may be entirely detached from truth and is therefore liable to be false. Justice, by contrast, should be directed toward its own proper end — goodness, or holiness, as Plato asserts.

Euthyphro imagines he is in the right when he prosecutes his father for wrongdoing. But Socrates asks him what piety is — what is pleasing to the gods — and Euthyphro can only offer a subjective answer: piety is whatever he himself is doing. Socrates then observes that, by this logic, whatever Euthyphro does is good and therefore everyone should imitate him. Euthyphro recognizes the absurdity of this reasoning and is forced to reconsider his answer. Yet rather than admit he may be wrong in prosecuting his father, he chooses to avoid the question and departs, 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 and another for Socrates, with each individual determining what is right or wrong. Socrates holds that in such cases the individual sets himself up as judge, when in reality the true judge is God, who alone stands above all things and is the source of the truth 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 the kind of "subjective truth" Euthyphro believes in: if everyone has his own truth, he makes a utility out of truth rather than submitting his mind to it. Euthyphro and the utilitarians want truth to submit to them — to conform to their own wills, rather than having to conform their wills to truth. For Plato it is quite the opposite. His teacher Socrates died because he refused to force truth to conform to his will. Better, Socrates believed, to submit one's mind and will to the highest truth, which is God, and to die for that submission, than to imagine oneself truthful while living "happily" on a foundation of self-deceit — a happiness that will ultimately prove hollow and unfulfilling. As Sandel notes, the utilitarian founder Bentham believed that "the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility" (34) — but utility is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. By basing a governing principle on a "means" rather than on an objective "end" — and only transcendental virtue constitutes such an end — one's governing principle becomes subject to change with shifting circumstances. What is practical one moment may not be practical the next. Yet if one's principle is based on an unchanging value such as goodness, one can withstand any external change and continue to pursue a policy of goodness that will manifest true happiness for all who embrace it.

Conclusion: Why Utilitarianism Falls Short of True Justice

Therefore, while utilitarianism may provide a pragmatic solution toward the common good and justice, its longevity and rightness must be called into question. If the "good" it promises is inconsistent with the true good, then the philosophy is disadvantageous. If it is rooted in the concept of the true good — rather than in utility — then it ceases, of course, to be utilitarianism. The advantage of the utilitarian philosophy is only that of the ephemeral good: a political peace that cannot last. Its disadvantage is that it cannot lead to the promised end unless it adopts the means suited to that end — a true, objective grasp of virtue, unlike that evinced by Euthyphro, the ultimate subjectivist.

Thus, utilitarianism is not a just way of approaching the common good. It is too weak in its definition of what it means to be good. The classical philosophers — Plato and Aristotle — are far more valuable in assessing the meaning of goodness because they approach the concept from an objective standpoint, using a rule and principle that is unchanging and applicable to all peoples, whether of a majority or minority group. They perceive a true concept of the common good. The utilitarian philosopher, by contrast, perceives value only in utility, and the "good" that is defined depends upon the subjective assessment of what the greatest number of people feel to be pleasurable or painful. As Sandel demonstrates, the utilitarian philosophy can be used to justify all manner of unjust practices — such as torturing captives for information (setting aside the well-established point that torture does not produce reliable information). The utilitarian can reason that the utility of torture is justifiable in extreme situations, making it, in other words, a slippery slope (Sandel 38).

Utilitarianism's fundamental flaw is that it does not seek a precise definition of the good before implementing a strategy to obtain it. Its definition is built on an inadequate assessment. If it were based on a more traditional, classical assessment, there would be far less uncertainty about which policy to pursue — the policy would be clear by the very light of the definition of good. Here, the Golden Rule shines forth as the obvious means of achieving and sustaining that classical definition of true goodness. A concept of objective truth may be foreign to many in the modern era, but it is absolutely necessary for knowing the end before the means can be justified.

Works Cited

Fox, James. "Utilitarianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. NY: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. Web. 18 Nov 2015.

Halbert, Terry; Ingulli, Elaine. "Making an Ethical Decision." Law and Ethics in the Business Environment, 3rd Edition. Mason, OH: Cengage, 1999.

Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son, West Strand.

Plato. Apologia. Internet Classics. Web. 18 Nov 2015.

Plato. Euthyphro. Internet Classics. Web. 18 Nov 2015.

Sandel, Michael. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2009.

Toner, Patrick. "The Existence of God." The Catholic Encyclopedia. NY: Robert Appleton Co., 1909. Web. 18 Nov 2015.