contra Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy where the highest good is identified with happiness.1 More precisely, this theory states "that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number."2 For the godless, this is probably a very tempting view of the world. It fits well with human nature, since men act for perceived goods (not always the right goods, at the right times, or in right proportion, but always in quest of some good). Its focus on the group dynamics allows for altruism, and allows those who embrace it to feel altruism. If you have to go wrong, there are certainly worse ways.

How do you measure happiness? This philosophy requires that I quantify both my pleasures and my sufferings, so that I can judge right from wrong in terms of them. Not only my own pleasures and sufferings, which I might quantify somewhat subjectively, but also everyone else's pleasures and sufferings. When we, as a country, debate social welfare policy, is the suffering of the poor offset by the happiness of the rich if we vote to allow unrestricted greed? Alternately, if we vote for socialism, even assuming we succeed in our goals (the possibility of which I dispute elsewhere), does the benefit to the poorest offset the anger someone feels when their property is taken in name of the State? What about gut wrenching questions, when our resources cannot provide medical treatment to everyone, how do we measure the suffering of this family or that family when someone must be denied treatment? No matter how you try to answer these questions you can find exceptions, and will find the answers ultimately very subjective.

Are all pleasures created equal? Many philosophers, including some who embraced some version of utilitarianism or really any form of consequentialism, in practice rank different forms of pleasure as having different value.3 Even if you can quantify pleasures and suffering, the minute you go down this route, you have asserted an independent objective standard of good and less good, and thus, implicitly, right and wrong. If you have an objected standard of right and wrong that is independent of how much happiness is produced, then that standard, and not the utility of the act, determines right and wrong.

Thirdly, ultimately, if what matters most is what maximizes the overall good of the collective, then the individual good of any particular person can be not only neglected, but actively harmed. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Utilitarianism outlines this as part of its discussion of "wrong answers" in the two sections on objections to the different versions of this philosophy. Suffice to say that utilitarianism denies the concept of justice4, and no one is really safe under a regime ruled by these tenants.