Utilitarianism and Plato: Comparing Two Ethical Frameworks

Introduction: Two Traditions, One Question

Philosophy is an ancient process. Since the times of Ancient Greece and Rome, people have taken it upon themselves to question the reality of their worlds and to postulate what causes people to behave as they do. The philosophical theory of utilitarianism has gained popularity in recent years because of the way it explains government and the need for laws and authority. However, philosophy going back to the time of Plato dealt with many of the same questions currently posed by utilitarianism. The theory of utilitarianism and the writings of Plato can be seen to differ in four key ways: in the background metaphysical understanding of the universe and humanity's place in it, the theory of human nature that each supposes, the defect in human nature that allows beings to be unhappy or unfulfilled, and the ways each philosophical tradition would envision an ideal version of humanity and human existence.

Plato's Philosophy and the Legacy of Socrates

Plato was taught by another famous philosopher, Socrates. Through his experiences with the older teacher, Plato's thought processes were shaped and modulated. When Socrates was accused of corrupting the minds of youth and forced to commit suicide, it impacted his student greatly. Plato came to believe that human beings tend to accept what they see and hear without applying individual thought (Kupperman, 2010, p. 47). To accept authority without hesitation can lead to the deaths of those who would dare to defy that ultimate authority. The job of human beings is to listen and to observe, but then to apply individual thought and, most importantly, to question. If authority and majority are allowed to rule unchecked, then nothing can be altered and society will not improve.

The Two Forms of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism has two forms: rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism demands that what has been determined to be the source of greatest happiness for the masses will more than likely become the law of a given community. John Stuart Mill (2002), a founder of the philosophy, wrote in his book Utilitarianism:

"The great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights, that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations, of anyone else" (p. 19).

Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, deals with the actual actions which would create happiness for the individual person rather than the group. These two forms work together and lead those in positions of authority to create laws that dictate behavior. Mankind's place in the world is thus to create its own system of morality to follow.

Human Nature in Plato and Mill

In the Republic, Plato asserts his ideas about what constitutes human nature. In that work he wrote about a civil war between two governing bodies competing for dominance of a region. He argued not only that civil war and the creation of political factions constitute the greatest danger to society — to both its citizens and to the structure of the city itself — but also that peace achieved through the destruction of the enemy rather than through peaceful resolution can lead to further societal discord. Those who lose a physical conflict are far more likely to feel anger and thus more likely to eventually recreate a similar battle in the future, whereas a peace led by mediation and compromise is more likely to yield a lasting armistice. His conception of humanity is that individuals are punitive in their concerns: often, when angered or upset, they are unable to perform actions that would benefit the majority because they cannot see beyond their own emotions. Plato's concept of human nature thus had more to do with the individual than with society as a whole. He postulated that individual people needed to take ownership of their own actions.

Utilitarianism is a branch of philosophy that deals with the concept of ethics and morals, as many philosophical theories do. Specifically, this theory states that ethics are determined by the social group in which the moral determination is made (Mill, 2002, p. 4). In essence, what is seen as ethical or moral in a given cultural context is determined by what makes a person or group of persons the happiest. If a course of action brings the majority of people happiness, then it is ethical according to that culture. On the contrary, if a certain set of actions causes the majority to feel unhappy, then it is deemed unethical. Utility is thus the ultimate form of happiness and the best means by which to achieve happiness both for the individual and for the majority of the population within a given society.

Conclusion: Individuality Versus the Greater Good

Both utilitarianism and the philosophy of Plato deal with the ways that human beings act and react to and with one another. The major difference between the two traditions has to do with individuality and individual culpability and responsibility. Utilitarianism asks that those in positions of power, when creating rules which apply to society, act for the greater good. Majority rule dictates what is deemed good or bad. In the case of Plato, however, the philosopher acknowledges that there have been many historical instances in which the majority does not know what is best. Instead, he argues, it is the responsibility of individuals to postulate new ideas and to advocate for their inclusion in government as well as in moral and ethical decision-making.

Works Cited

Kupperman, J. (2010). Theories of Human Nature. Hackett: Indianapolis, IN.

Mill, J. S. (2002). Utilitarianism. Hackett: Indianapolis, IN.

Plato (2009). Great Dialogues of Plato. Perfection Learning Prebound.

Plato. The Apology.

Plato. The Republic.