|
3 MODERN SCHOOLS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fundamental principle of
Utilitarianism, a tradition in ethics stemming
from the late 18th- and 19th-century English philosophers and economists Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is that an
action is right if it tends to promote happiness
and wrong if it tends to produce the reverse of happiness--not just the
happiness of the performer of the action but that of everyone affected by it.
Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the
view that a man should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of
others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts as
right or wrong independently of their consequences. Utilitarianism also differs
from ethical theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent
upon the motive of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible
for the right thing to be done from a bad motive. (see also axiology) |
|
|
|
|
|
Utilitarianism is an effort to provide
an answer to the practical question "What ought a man to do?" Its
answer is that he ought to act so as to produce the best consequences possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the notion of consequences the
Utilitarian includes all of the good and bad produced by the act, whether
arising after the act has been performed or during its performance. If the
difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not great, some
Utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According
to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the
consequences are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent
compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner. |
|
|
In assessing the consequences of
actions, Utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value: something is
held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other values
are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as
a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure
over pain and believed that these feelings alone
are of intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians also assume that it is
possible to compare the intrinsic values produced by two alternative actions and
to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham believed that a hedonic
calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist, he maintained, could sum up the
units of pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be affected,
immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure of the
overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement as Bentham
envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the
Utilitarian to make some interpersonal comparisons of the values of the effects
of alternative courses of action. |
|
|
|
|
|
As a normative system providing a
standard by which an individual ought to act and by which the existing practices
of society, including its moral code, ought to be evaluated and improved,
Utilitarianism cannot be verified or confirmed in the way in which a descriptive
theory can; but it is not regarded by its exponents as simply arbitrary. Bentham
believed that only in terms of a Utilitarian interpretation do words such as
"ought," "right," and "wrong" have meaning
and that whenever anyone attempts to combat the principle of utility, he does so
with reasons drawn from the principle itself. Bentham and Mill both believed
that human actions are motivated entirely by pleasure and pain; and Mill saw
that motivation as a basis for the argument
that, since happiness is the sole end of human action, the promotion of
happiness is the test by which to judge all human conduct. (see also normative ethics, comparative
ethics) |
|
|
One of the leading Utilitarians of the
late 19th century, a Cambridge philosopher, Henry
Sidgwick, rejected their theories of motivation as well as Bentham's
theory of the meaning of moral terms and sought to support Utilitarianism by
showing that it follows from systematic reflection on the morality of "common
sense." Most of the requirements of commonsense morality, he argued,
could be based upon Utilitarian considerations. In addition, he reasoned that
Utilitarianism could solve the difficulties and perplexities that arise from the
vagueness and inconsistencies of commonsense doctrines. |
|
|
Most opponents of Utilitarianism have
held that it has implications contrary to their moral intuitions--that
considerations of utility, for example, might sometimes sanction the breaking of
a promise. Much of the defense of Utilitarian ethics has consisted in answering
these objections, either by showing that Utilitarianism does not have the
implications that they claim it has or by arguing against the moral intuitions
of its opponents. Some Utilitarians, however, have sought to modify the
Utilitarian theory to account for the objections. |
|
|
|
|
|
One such criticism is that, although the
widespread practice of lying and stealing would have bad consequences, resulting
in a loss of trustworthiness and security, it is not certain that an occasional
lie to avoid embarrassment or an occasional theft from a rich man would not have
good consequences, and thus be permissible or even required by Utilitarianism.
But the Utilitarian readily answers that the widespread practice of such acts
would result in a loss of trustworthiness and security. To meet the objection to
not permitting an occasional lie or theft, some philosophers have defended a
modification labelled "rule" Utilitarianism.
It permits a particular act on a particular occasion to be adjudged right or
wrong according to whether it is in accordance with or in violation of a useful
rule; and a rule is judged useful or not by the consequences of its general
practice. Mill has sometimes been interpreted as a "rule" Utilitarian,
whereas Bentham and Sidgwick were "act"
Utilitarians. |
|
|
Another objection, often posed against
the hedonistic value theory held by Bentham, holds that the value of life is
more than a balance of pleasure over pain. Mill, in contrast to Bentham,
discerned differences in the quality of pleasures that made some intrinsically
preferable to others independently of intensity and duration (the quantitative
dimensions recognized by Bentham). Some philosophers in the Utilitarian
tradition have recognized certain wholly nonhedonistic values without losing
their Utilitarian credentials. A British philosopher, G.E.
Moore, a pioneer of 20th-century Analysis, regarded many kinds of
consciousness--including love, knowledge, and the experience of beauty--as
intrinsically valuable independently of pleasure, a position labelled "ideal"
Utilitarianism. Even in limiting the recognition of intrinsic value and
disvalue to happiness and unhappiness, some philosophers have argued that those
feelings cannot adequately be further broken down into terms of pleasure and
pain and have thus preferred to defend the theory in terms of maximizing
happiness and minimizing unhappiness. It is important to note, however, that
even for the hedonistic Utilitarians, pleasure and pain are not thought of in
purely sensual terms; pleasure and pain for them can be components of
experiences of all sorts. Their claim is that, if an experience is neither
pleasurable nor painful, then it is a matter of indifference and has no
intrinsic value. (see also Analytic
philosophy) |
|
|
Another objection to Utilitarianism is
that the prevention or elimination of suffering should take precedence over any
alternative act that would only increase the happiness of someone already happy.
Some recent Utilitarians have modified their theory to require this focus or
even to limit moral obligation to the prevention or elimination of suffering--a
view labelled "negative" Utilitarianism. |
|
|
|
|
|
The ingredients of Utilitarianism are
found in the history of thought long before Bentham. |
|
|
|
|
|
A hedonistic theory of the value of life
is found in the early 5th century BC in the ethics of Aristippus
of Cyrene, founder of the Cyrenaic school, and 100 years later in that of
Epicurus, founder of an ethic of retirement, and their followers in ancient
Greece. The seeds of ethical universalism are found in the doctrines of the
rival ethical school of Stoicism and in Christianity. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the history of English philosophy,
some historians have identified Bishop Richard
Cumberland, a 17th-century moral philosopher, as the first to have a
Utilitarian philosophy. A generation later, however, Francis
Hutcheson, a British "moral sense" theorist, more clearly held
a Utilitarian view. He not only analyzed that action as best that "procures
the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers" but proposed a form of
"moral arithmetic" for calculating the best consequences. The Skeptic David
Hume, Scotland's foremost philosopher and historian, attempted to analyze
the origin of the virtues in terms of their contribution to utility. Bentham
himself said that he discovered the principle of utility in the 18th-century
writings of various thinkers: of Joseph Priestley,
a dissenting clergyman famous for his discovery of oxygen; of the Frenchman Claude-Adrien
Helvétius, author of a philosophy of mere sensation; of Cesare
Beccaria, an Italian legal theorist; and of Hume. Helvétius
probably drew from Hume, and Beccaria from Helvétius. |
|
|
Another strand of Utilitarian thought
took the form of a theological ethics. John Gay, a biblical scholar and
philosopher, held the will of God to be the criterion of virtue; but from God's
goodness he inferred that God willed that men promote human happiness. |
|
|
Bentham, who apparently believed that an
individual in governing his own actions would always seek to maximize his own
pleasure and minimize his own pain, found in pleasure and pain both the cause of
human action and the basis for a normative criterion of action. The art of
governing one's own actions Bentham called "private ethics." The
happiness of the agent is the determining factor; the happiness of others
governs only to the extent that the agent is motivated by sympathy, benevolence,
or interest in the good will and good opinion of others. For Bentham, the
greatest happiness of the greatest number would play a role primarily in the art
of legislation, in which the legislator would seek to maximize the happiness of
the entire community by creating an identity of interests between each
individual and his fellows. By laying down penalties for mischievous acts, the
legislator would make it unprofitable for a man to harm his neighbour. Bentham's
major philosophical work, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation (1789), was designed as an introduction to a plan of a
penal code. (see also political
philosophy) |
|
|
With Bentham, Utilitarianism became the
ideological foundation of a reform movement, later known as "philosophical
radicalism," that would test all institutions and policies by the
principle of utility. Bentham attracted as his disciples a number of younger
(earlier 19th-century) men. They included David Ricardo,
who gave classical form to the science of economics; John Stuart Mill's father, James
Mill; and John Austin, a legal theorist. James Mill argued for
representative government and universal male suffrage on Utilitarian grounds; he
and other followers of Bentham were advocates of parliamentary reform in England
in the early 19th century. John Stuart Mill was a spokesman for women's
suffrage, state-supported education for all, and other proposals that were
considered radical in their day. He argued on Utilitarian grounds for freedom of
speech and expression and for the noninterference of government or society in
individual behaviour that did not harm anyone else. Mill's essay "Utilitarianism,"
published in Fraser's Magazine (1861),
is an elegant defense of the general Utilitarian doctrine and perhaps remains
the best introduction to the subject. In it Utilitarianism is viewed as an
ethics for ordinary individual behaviour as well as for legislation. |
|
|
|
|
|
By the time Sidgwick
wrote, Utilitarianism had become one of the foremost ethical theories of the
day. His Methods
of Ethics (1874), a comparative examination of egoism, the ethics of
common sense, and Utilitarianism, contains the most careful discussion to be
found of the implications of Utilitarianism as a principle of individual moral
action. |
|
|
The 20th century has seen the
development of various modifications and complications of the Utilitarian
theory. G.E. Moore argued for a set of ideals
extending beyond hedonism by proposing that one imaginatively compare universes
in which there are equal quantities of pleasure but different amounts of
knowledge and other such combinations. He felt that he could not be indifferent
toward such differences. The recognition of "act" Utilitarianism and
"rule" Utilitarianism as explicit alternatives was stimulated by the
analysis of moral reasoning in "rule" Utilitarian terms by Stephen
Toulmin, a British philosopher of science and moralist, and by Patrick
Nowell-Smith, a moralist of the Oxford linguistic school; by the interpretation
of Mill as a "rule" Utilitarian by another Oxford Analyst, J.O.
Urmson; and by the analysis by John Rawls, a
Harvard moral philosopher, of the significance for Utilitarianism of two
different conceptions of moral rules. "Act" Utilitarianism, on the
other hand, has been defended by J.J.C. Smart, a
British-Australian philosopher. |
|
|
|
|
|
The influence of Utilitarianism has been
widespread, permeating the intellectual life of the last two centuries. Its
significance in law, politics, and economics is especially notable. |
|
|
The Utilitarian theory of the
justification of punishment stands in opposition
to the "retributive" theory, according to which punishment is intended
to make the criminal "pay" for his crime. According to the
Utilitarian, the rationale of punishment is entirely to prevent further crime by
either reforming the criminal or protecting society from him and to deter others
from crime through fear of punishment. (see also penology) |
|
|
In its political philosophy
Utilitarianism bases the authority of government and the sanctity of individual
rights upon their utility, thus providing an alternative to theories of natural
law, natural rights, or social contract. What kind of government is best thus
becomes a question of what kind of government has the best consequences--an
assessment that requires factual premises regarding human nature and behaviour. |
|
|
Generally, Utilitarians have supported democracy
as a way of making the interest of government coincide with the general
interest; they have argued for the greatest individual liberty compatible with
an equal liberty for others on the ground that each individual is generally the
best judge of his own welfare; and they have believed in the possibility and the
desirability of progressive social change through peaceful political processes. |
|
|
With different factual assumptions,
however, Utilitarian arguments can lead to different conclusions. If the
inquirer assumes that a strong government is required to check man's basically
selfish interests and that any change may threaten the stability of the
political order, he may be led by Utilitarian arguments to an authoritarian or
conservative position. On the other hand, William
Godwin, an early 19th-century political philosopher, assumed the basic
goodness of human nature and argued that the greatest happiness would follow
from a radical alteration of society in the direction of anarchistic Communism. |
|
|
Classical economics received some of its
most important statements from Utilitarian writers, especially Ricardo and John
Stuart Mill. Ironically, its theory of economic value was framed primarily in
terms of the cost of labour in production rather than in terms of the use value,
or utility, of commodities. Later developments more clearly reflected the
Utilitarian philosophy. William Jevons, one of
the founders of the marginal utility school of analysis, derived many of his
ideas from Bentham; and "welfare economics," while substituting
comparative preferences for comparative utilities, reflected the basic spirit of
the Utilitarian philosophy. In economic policy, the early Utilitarians had
tended to oppose governmental interference in trade and industry on the
assumption that the economy would regulate itself for the greatest welfare if
left alone; later Utilitarians, however, lost confidence in the social
efficiency of private enterprise and were willing to see governmental power and
administration used to correct its abuses. (see also economic theory ) |
|
|
As a movement for the reform of social
institutions, 19th-century Utilitarianism was remarkably successful in the long
run. Most of their recommendations have since been implemented unless abandoned
by the reformers themselves; and, equally important, Utilitarian arguments are
now commonly employed to advocate institutional or policy changes. |
|
|
|
|
|
As an abstract ethical doctrine,
Utilitarianism has established itself as one of the small number of live options
that must be taken into account and either refuted or accepted by any
philosopher taking a position in normative ethics. In contemporary discussion it
has been divorced from adventitious involvements with the analysis of ethical
language and with the psychological theory with which it was presented by
Bentham. Utilitarianism now appears in various modified and complicated
formulations. Bentham's ideal of a hedonic calculus is usually considered a
practical if not a theoretical impossibility. Present-day philosophers have
noticed further problems in the Utilitarian procedures. One of them, for
example, is with the process of identifying the consequences of an act--a
process that raises conceptual as well as practical problems as to what are to
be counted as consequences, even without precisely quantifying the value of
those consequences. The question may arise whether the outcome of an election is
a consequence of each and every vote cast for the winning candidate if he
receives more than the number necessary for election; and in estimating the
value of the consequences, one may ask whether the entire value or only a part
of the value of the outcome of the election is to be assigned to each vote.
There is also difficulty in the procedure of comparing alternative acts. If one
act requires a longer period of time for its performance than another, one may
ask whether they can be considered alternatives. Even what is to count as an act
is not a matter of philosophical consensus. |
|
|
These problems, however, are common to
almost all normative ethical theories since most of them recognize the
consequences--including the hedonic--of an act as being relevant ethical
considerations. The central insight of Utilitarianism, that one ought to promote
happiness and prevent unhappiness whenever possible, seems undeniable. The
critical question, however, is whether the whole of normative ethics can be
analyzed in terms of this simple formula. ( H.R.W.) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
