Utilitarianism vs. Classical Virtue: A Critical Analysis
This paper critically evaluates the utilitarian approach to justice and the common good, arguing that its fundamental reliance on subjective measures of pleasure and pain renders it an insufficient basis for genuine moral order. Drawing on John Stuart Mill's utilitarian philosophy, Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, and Michael Sandel's analysis of justice, the paper contends that utilitarianism's core weakness lies in its failure to ground moral reasoning in objective, transcendental values. By contrasting the utilitarian emphasis on utility and majority happiness with the classical philosophers' pursuit of the one, the good, and the true, the paper concludes that the disadvantages of utilitarianism outweigh its advantages and that a classical, virtue-based framework better serves the pursuit of true justice.
- Introduction: The Common Good and the Utilitarian Question: Introduces utilitarianism and the paper's central thesis
- Freedom, Welfare, and the Limits of Utilitarian Justice: Explores contradictions between freedom, welfare, and utility
- Subjectivity, Euthyphro, and the Problem of Objective Truth: Uses Plato's Euthyphro to critique utilitarian subjectivism
- Mill, Moral Relativism, and the Subjective Foundation of Utilitarianism: Examines Mill's moral framework and its Enlightenment roots
- The Contradictions of Moral Relativism and Utilitarian Ethics: Argues moral relativism and utilitarianism are self-contradictory
- Conclusion: Why Utilitarianism Falls Short of True Justice: Affirms classical virtue ethics over utilitarian pragmatism
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its critique in a clear, consistent philosophical framework — the classical conception of the unum, bonum, verum — and returns to it throughout, giving the argument structural coherence.
- The use of Plato's Euthyphro as an extended analogy is effective: the character of Euthyphro functions as a concrete illustration of the subjectivism the paper identifies as utilitarianism's fatal flaw.
- The paper engages multiple thinkers (Mill, Sandel, Plato, Kant, Protagoras) in dialogue rather than in isolation, demonstrating breadth of philosophical reading.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies comparative philosophical argumentation: it sets up a clear normative claim (utilitarianism's disadvantages outweigh its advantages), then systematically tests that claim against several philosophical positions. By bringing Plato's dialogues into direct comparison with Mill, the writer shows how contrasting historical frameworks can illuminate weaknesses in a target theory. This technique — using classical philosophy as a critical lens on modern ethical theory — is a hallmark of undergraduate philosophy writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a statement of the central question and the author's thesis. It then contextualizes utilitarianism within modern debates about freedom and welfare before introducing the Euthyphro analogy as its primary critical vehicle. Two middle sections address Mill's specific claims and the relationship between utilitarianism and moral relativism. The conclusion synthesizes the argument by affirming the superiority of classical virtue ethics and the Golden Rule as a more reliable standard for justice.
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.
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.
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
7-Day Pass
Does not renew
Get 7-Day PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 3 during the 7-Day Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.