Criticisms of Utilitarianism and its Evolution

Introduction

Immanuel Kant argued that the ends do not justify the means, but Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism often does. Utilitarianism, which advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness, has faced several significant criticisms over the years. This article explores these criticisms, the rationale behind them, and how utilitarian thought has evolved to address these concerns.

Criticism and the Nature of "Happiness"

The primary criticism of Utilitarianism is the blinding aspect of the principal of utility. Bentham’s guiding principle that happiness is the ultimate aim and anything that increases it is morally correct can be problematic. For instance, if four people enjoy torturing one person, it can be argued that this would result in a net increase in happiness as long as the number of people enjoying it is greater than the one experiencing suffering. This raises questions about the collective vs. individual well-being and the morality of such situations.

Equity and Minority Rights

The criticism regarding equity and minority rights is another major point of contention. Utilitarianism often focuses on majority happiness, which can lead to the neglect of minority rights. For example, in Bentham's hypothetical scenario of 100 people, condemning the actions of five would be deemed unnecessary. However, if the five are the majority, it could be argued that their happiness is more important. This brings into question whose interests should take precedence and how to balance minority rights with the greater good.

Types of Utilitarianism

Rule Utilitarianism

One of the most significant developments in the theory of Utilitarianism is the shift from Act Utilitarianism to Rule Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism advocates for adherence to general rules that in the long term promote the greatest good. This means that actions that may provide a short term gain but violate a fundamental rule (like lying) should be avoided. Rule Utilitarianism aims to provide a more practical and less absolutist approach to the moral dilemmas posed by Bentham's philosophy.

Preference Utilitarianism

Another significant development is Preference Utilitarianism, which was developed in the 20th century by philosophers like John Harsanyi, R. M. Hare, and Peter Singer. Preference Utilitarianism focuses on the fulfillment of individual preferences and interests, contrasting with the classic view of maximizing pleasure. This form of Utilitarianism is better equipped to address modern ethical dilemmas, especially in the context of social policies and individual rights.

Utilitarianism in Practice

The " ends justifying the means" dilemma

One of the criticisms that people often associate with Utilitarianism is the idea that the ends always justify the means. However, modern interpretations of Utilitarianism, particularly Rule and Preference Utilitarianism, argue against this. Utilitarianism is not inherently a utilitarian justification for any action, regardless of the result. Utilitarian thought requires that actions be evaluated based on their consequences, not just the final outcome.

Modern Views and Applications

Current debates around Utilitarianism often focus on how to balance individual and collective interests. In the context of public policies, like those addressing the pandemic, Utilitarianism is sometimes criticized for prioritizing the majority's happiness over individual rights. For example, if a policy leads to a net increase in overall happiness but harms a small minority, is it still justifiable? This gray area in Utilitarian thought reflects the complexity of ethical decision-making in the real world.

Conclusion

While Bentham's Utilitarianism has faced substantial criticisms, the philosophy has evolved to address these challenges. Rule Utilitarianism and Preference Utilitarianism offer more nuanced approaches to utilitarian thinking, providing a framework for ethical decision-making that is both practical and principled. The ongoing debate around Utilitarianism highlights the eternal quest for a balanced and fair moral framework.