Should We Always Maximize Utility?

University of Cape Town

Aa’ishah Gilillan

PHI1010S: Should we always maximise utility?

“Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions.” – Dalai Lama XIV

Utilitarianism is made up of two theories: the Value Theory and the Theory of Right Action. For this essay we will only be concerned with the second theory, the Theory of Right Action, which essentially says that the right action is that action which maximises utility. In this essay I will bring forward three objections as to why we should not always maximise utility.

John Stewart Mills defines Utilitarianism in the following way “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” (Mill, 1863: 9) In other words, the more happiness and less suffering that results from our actions the better the action is and the right action is the one that produces the greatest balance of happiness over suffering.

Objection 1: Is pleasure all that matters?

According to the Utilitarian the right action is those actions which bring about the most good, but how would we define good. The Utilitarian reply would be happiness and pleasure. For example the feeling of ice cream melting in your throat on a hot day or getting an A in an assignment you worked really hard for, this is what brings us pleasure. Let’s unpack this idea of Utilitarianism further by incorporating it into a few examples. What if the people we thought were our friends are actually speaking ill about us and making fun of us behind our backs? If we never come to know of what they are doing, we would remain oblivious and happy and according to the Utilitarian this would be okay. However, we are being mistreated and that seems wrong. Imagine you worked really had on a project and you think it is a great success, but behind your back it is being derided by your colleagues. These examples suggest that we value things other than pleasure because we might be happy, but our lives could be lacking much that is valuable. For example, we value friendship and trust, and creativity and recognition for our success. 

Utilitarianism is closely associated with Hedonism which is “the thesis that pleasure is the one ultimate good-and pain the one ultimate evil” (Rachels, 2015: 112) This thesis holds that pleasure is actually all that matters, but “if pleasure is what matters, the satisfactions enjoyed by sadists must mitigate some of the evil done to their victims” If the pleasure of the sadist inflicting pain outweighs the pain of the victim, then from a utilitarian point of view there would be no wrong in this action. This reveals that the idea of Utilitarianism is heavily flawed.

Objection 2: Are Consequences al that matter?

Utilitarianism is the strongest form of consequentialism, which is the view that the moral value of an action is determined by the nature of it’s consequences. “To determine whether an action is right, utilitarian’s believe that we should look at what will happen as a result of doing it. This idea is central to the theory. If things other than consequences are important in determining what is right, then Utilitarianism is incorrect.” I will provide three arguments that will prove that Utilitarianism is incorrect:

1. Consider a case put forward by H.J. McCloskey: Suppose a utilitarian were visiting an area in which there was racial conflict, and during his visit there was an incident in which a black man raped a white woman and a result of this incident racial riots occurred. Suppose too that the utilitarian happened to be in the area of the crime when it happened, such that the utilitarian’s witness testimony would bring about the conviction of whomever he testifies against. The utilitarian knows that a quick arrest will stop the riots and lynching’s, and so as a utilitarian, it is his duty to bear false witness against an innocent in order to prevent further harm caused by the riots (Rachels, 2015: 114) Accusing an innocent man of a crime he has not committed would have bad consequences, but utilitarian’s believe that by doing this it would end the riots and result in many lives being saved. The good consequences would outweigh the bad consequences. Thus the best outcome would be to bear false witness against an innocent. This is in conflict with the ideal of justice. In this example, Utilitarianism requires us to treat someone unfairly. Therefore, Utilitarianism cannot be right.
2. Consider this example from philosopher T.M. Scanlon. Suppose that a worker named Jones had an accident in the transmitter room in the television station and that electrical equipment fell on his arm. Suppose too that we cannot rescue Jones without turning off the transmitter for 15 minutes. Let’s say that there is a World Cup match currently playing and it is being watched by many passionate fans. There is still an hour until the match is finished. Jones’s injury will not worsen, but his hand has been mashed underneath the electrical equipment and he is experiencing extremely painful electric shocks. Should we rescue him immediately or wait till the match is over? Does the right action depend on how many people are watching? For this example let’s say that the number of passionate fans is one million. The brief frustration of one million people would outweigh the immense pain of just one person. According to Utilitarianism we should wait out the match and let Jones remain in pain because that would bring about the most happiness. The problem with Utilitarianism is that it bypasses our human rights. In this example Jones’s rights is being violated. According to Utilitarianism “an individual’s rights may always be trampled upon if enough people benefit from the trampling.” (Rachels, 2015: 116) Utilitarian’s believe that if the majority of people derive pleasure from the suffering of the minority, then it would be morally right to violate the rights of the minority. To most people the violation of human rights is wrong which is why once again, the concept of Utilitarianism is incorrect.
3. Utilitarian’s believe in forward looking and only gives indirect attention to backward looking. Let’s say for example that you made a promise to a friend that you would go out and watch a movie with him, but at the last minute you reconsider the idea as you do not have the energy to go out tonight and you would rather stay in and get an early night’s sleep. Let’s also suppose that your friend has had a really rough week and that you made the promise to your friend because you knew it would cheer him up. If the amount if happiness that you would get from an early night’s sleep is greater than the amount of happiness your friend would experience from the night out then according to Utilitarianism it is morally right for you cancel on your friend. Utilitarian’s believe in forward looking because they are interested in the consequences. They do not look at the past. If you break a promise in the past, then your friend might not trust you in the future. Utilitarianism would have us neglect our obligations. Things that have happened in the past are important in determining our obligations and future actions, but Utilitarianism makes the past irrelevant and thus it seems flawed.

Objection 3: Should we be equally concerned for everyone?

Utilitarianism has been charged with demanding too much from us. Consider this example, if you wanted to donate 10% of your salary towards charity, a utilitarian would ask why only 10%, why not 80% or 90%.  Utilitarianism believes in maximising utility, therefore the right action would be to donate as much of your salary as you possibly can. According to Utilitarianism anything less would be morally wrong. Utilitarianism also believes in impartiality and does not allow you to have special relationships. You have to be impartial to everyone. You not allowed to treat one person better than the other. You cannot give special preference to family or friends. Utilitarianism would have you sacrifice your own child if it meant saving someone else in order to maximise utility.