In our first week of studying Normative Ethics, we come to one of the “big three” topics, Utilitarianism. This week, we read two texts, one by Christopher Bennett and one by John Stuart Mills about their viewpoints on the topic. Utilitarianism is “the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people” (Merriam-Webster.com). In other words, when choosing what to do, a person living by the standards set forth by utilitarianism will choose the option that promotes the happiness and well being of the most people.
This concept is one that sounds great in theory and sounds like an awesome way to promote a happy existence on Earth. When digging deeper into utilitarianism, there are ways to refute that it is the best way to act. Many state the claim that it is a very difficult and arduous way to live. Under utilitarianism, one will calculate the costs and benefits of every action taken in order to determine the best choice for the individual. This sounds like a difficult process, but the true way the utilitarian will act is based off of patterns of behavior formed by the human race over time in order to prevent the need to calculate everything at every moment (Mill).
Another argument against utilitarianism is that in order to act in this way, promising something to another person is impossible as when the promise is to be enacted, the utilitarian might decide that it would be beneficial to instead do another act for the good of all sentient beings. The utilitarian would refute this claim by stating that breaking the promise with one person is okay as long as your new action would benefit more than the one. This still could create a society in which there is distrust among all people (Bennett).
These problems can also be solved by a sub-division of utilitarianism, rule-utilitarianism. This states that utilitarians should follow socially beneficial rules rather than attempt to assess each and every consequence for ourselves. Basically, it states that we should always act in ways that are beneficial for society as a whole.
A utilitarian’s view on global poverty is as follows. Peter Singer, a utilitarian, believes that every person should be taking one percent of their income and donating it to eradicating poverty and helping those in need. Ideally, he states, that people should be donating more, but one percent is a small amount that he could ask from everyone (Schweickart, 3-4) This view that people should have it within their nature to donate to others and help support happiness and well being in the world is one that utilitarians try to promote.
Though criticized, I tend to think that I have the beliefs of a utilitarian. I believe that positive intentions are definitely there and I try to live my life so that I am helping the most people through my actions. There will always be those who state that the utilitarian is acting selfishly through his or her actions and that the benefit of others really means that of ones self, but I truly believe that after reading both Bennett and Mills that the mindset of a utilitarian, if truly abiding by the principles, is one that can benefit society as a whole and make it so the world could be a better place.
Works Cited
Bennett, Christopher. “4 Utilitarianism.” What Is This Thing Called Ethics? London: Routledge, 2010. Print.
Mill, John Stuart, and Oskar Piest. “Chapter 2 What Utilitarianism Is.” Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.
Mill, John Stuart, and Oskar Piest. “Chapter 4 Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility Is Susceptible.” Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957. Print.
Schweickart, David. “Global Poverty: Alternative Perspectives on What We Should Do- and Why.” Journal of Social Philosophy (2008): Carnegie Mellon University. Web. 27 Sept. 2014.
“Utilitarianism.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2014. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/utilitarianism>.
5 responses to “Utilitarianism in Practice”