Frankly Existential

The Good

The Good in the ethical sense is that which we should pursue. We should always strive to do good and avoid evil. There are a plethora of interpretations of what is the good. From the ancient Greeks to the medieval thinkers to the post-modern existentialist view, every school of thought has conceived of some interpretation of the good. Objective versus subjective morality has been a long running focus of the debate with more contemporary ideas seeming to shift towards a subjective view of morality. I view this shift as more and more destructive on a large scale and simply an inconsistent view of ethics, but that is not the purpose of this post.

For any cohesive ethical theory there are two main components. First, there is the value theory, identifying what exactly is good. There is then the decision theory; how we should act in pursuit of that good. Today’s focus will be on hedonism and consequentialism, and how they come together as Utilitarianism.

Hedonism

Hedonism is the ethical theory that the highest good is human pleasure. The hedonist aims to act in a way that provides the most personal pleasure. This is often seen as a selfish ethic, chasing personal happiness regardless of the cost to others, and with that, the cost to self.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill is the first to outline his ethical theory, originally thought of by his teacher Jeremy Bentham, as a bit of an expansion on hedonism. Utilitarians operate according to the principle of utility. This principle, also called the greatest happiness principle, says that actions must be done to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greatest amount of people. Because of this principle, utilitarianism is considered an objective moral philosophy with a strict interpretation of what is good.

Critiques of Utilitarianism and the Pleasure Principle

Critique 1: I have a number of objections to utilitarian thought critical to the stability of the theory itself. First, let us explore the pleasure principle. To restate, this principle says in order for an action to be good it must result in the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people. A first obvious rebuttal that comes to mind is that not everyone takes pleasure in the same things. You are taking action based on what you think is pleasurable. This is not the same as what is universally pleasurable, if there even is anything that is universally pleasurable. We are encouraged to maximize pleasure and minimize harm, but what about those that take pleasure in harm? The presupposition that pleasure is universal and can guide our acts is objectively false, destabilizing the theory outright.

Critique 2: Maybe that is not enough to convince you. Here is another critique: How far into the future are we looking to measure the effect of our actions? Utilitarian thought largely guides modern political affairs, namely, elections. In a democratic society, most, if not all, elections are decided based on the will of the majority. Let’s take a hypothetical nation of 100 citizens participating in an election for the nation’s leader. the result of the election is candidate A receives 60 votes, B receives 40. So far, abiding by the pleasure principle, the greatest pleasure was the guiding principle of the election, the greatest pleasure being the result that was supported by the majority. The Utilitarian would claim this is the morally right decision. Now let us say this leader leads the country into war leading to the near total wipeout of the nation. What now do we say of this? The harm, numerically speaking, has now outweighed the pleasure of those who won the election. Were the 60 voters supporting the leader still morally right even though the destruction from their desired result outweighed their pleasure? Can we separate the elected leader’s action from the result of his or her election itself? If so, how? Had he or she not been elected the war would not have begun. If not, then where is the line drawn to the end of the pleasure principle? How far are we meant to take the consequences of our actions?

Critique 3: The following critique is more broadly against the idea of consequentialism, the framework claiming that the morality of an act is only dependent on its consequences, the base principle of Utilitarianism. If an action’s morality is only determined by its result, then the same action can be both good and bad. Logically, how can this be possible? Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad? If the action, in essence, is the same then the traits of it must also be the same. These traits include the moral weight of the action. The essence of something does not change, otherwise it is no longer that thing. If an action is good in one scenario and bad in another, the only logical explanation is that they were not the same action.

Critique 4: Tying consequentialism in with the pleasure principle creates a more specific issue. If we are only to act in a way that results in the greatest pleasure, how can we know what that will result in until we act? We cannot know this a priori, thus, we should refrain as much as possible from acting. Things backfire, we may think we know what an action will lead to, but we can never know for sure. We can’t surely determine what will and will not be most pleasurable. This is also made more drastic by the first two critiques. The theory relies on the assumption that we will know the results of an action though this itself is impossible in the affairs between people.

Closing statement

How certain can we really be about what is good? Maybe not very, maybe it can be logically discovered, maybe it already has been. We can more easily be certain about what is not good. Let me emphasize that not good does not always mean evil. Pleasure, in itself, is not a moral good. It’s nice. We enjoy it and it makes us feel good. That does not make it morally valuable to the degree it is held. The popularity of Utilitarianism is nothing short of the result of an unfortunate societal downturn. Heavy emphasis is being placed on “do what makes you happy”, which would be wonderful advice if happiness didn’t mean short term bursts of feel-good chemicals. Do what brings you fulfillment. This is a far better way to put it. An action is not good just because you like it and want to do it. An action is not good based on a guess of how it might turn out.

This leads me to one important conclusion. There must be something inherent in an action to determine its moral value. Something that is in the essence of the act itself. This is the only way to remain consistent in right and wrong, good and evil. I will continue to study this, as this is the branch of philosophy that is most interesting to me. I hope you will as well, and broaden your perspective with me. Thank you for reading, be well.

Affiliate Disclaimer

This page contains affiliate links. Purchases made using these links will result in me getting a percentage of the purchase at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support.