The Fallacy of Utilitarianism

Morality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but
how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness. -Immanuel Kant
Imagine that you are the conductor of a train, and in this train there are hundreds of
people- women, children, and men alike. Now imagine, if you will, that you somehow lose
control of the train. Now, on this railroad, there are two construction workers on the railroad.
They have noise blocking headphones, therefore cannot hear you coming and will not move out
of the way. You have two options- you may run the train off the railroad, and save the
construction workers, dooming all of your passengers. Or you may stand by, and let their lives be
forfeit for the lives of the many. Which do you choose? If you are part of the majority, you will
inevitably choose to do nothing, and let the construction workers die. But what if you had to
actively choose, and pull the lever yourself? Does that change anything? This idea of letting the
happiness and life of one be less worthy than the lives of many, is called Utilitarianism. I am here
to tell you that the idea of Utilitarianism is a fallacy. Our morals and the entire idea of a few
suffering for the good of the many is what is wrong with this country. The idea of Utilitarianism
is that long as we have a martyr, that the Greatest Happiness of all, is the most important
thing This end justifying the means mentality has to stop. The Utilitarian philosophy in this
modern world is not only unjust, but unfeasible. Utilitarianism has many logical issues, as well
as ethical issues that arise. In a nutshell- Utilitarianism does not work. However, Kantian
Deontology just might.
The first problem with Utilitarianism is simple. How do we measure the value of one life,
to another? How do we measure the benefits and values of one consequence versus the benefits
and values of another? John Stewart Mill, one of the most famous Utilitarians states, The creed

The Fallacy of Utilitarianism

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. (What Utilitarianism is, pg.7) This idea is what
Utilitarianism defines as the Greatest Happiness principle. This is an idea based on three
different tenets. The first, is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering; the second, is that
the action must provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people
possible; and the third, is that mental pleasures rank higher than bodily pleasures. But the key
issue in this greatest happiness principle is relatively simple. No Utilitarian can answer a few
simple questions that might just put their entire moral theory on the line. Again, we come back to
the value and benefits of one person, versus many. People are an emotional species, and we
cannot disconnect ourselves to the people we love. So therefore, if someone we loved, or cared
about was on the track, about to be smashed, we would choose them over a million innocent
lives. And we would choose the same with that cared for persons happiness. We would not be
able to watch our loved one be chained in a destitute cave and suffer, much like the boy in The
Ones Who Walk Away from The Omelas, in order for our town to prosper. In this, lies one of the
first fallacies of Utilitarianism. In a perfect world, all lives would be created equal. In our world,
we have lives that our more weighted than others. One poor farmers life is not seen in the same
context as the President of the United States life. Our mom would get more consideration than a
stranger on the street. That, is one of the simplest mistakes a Utilitarian makes. When we have no
measure, or comparison in benefits or value, the ends cannot simply justify the means.
The next problem we run into with Utilitarianism is simple, and perhaps the most obvious
problem. How can something be not only justified, but considered justice, when we are assigning

The Fallacy of Utilitarianism

a life value that we decide? For this problem, lets imagine the same scenario as The Ones Who
Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula Le Guin. Now, this town is a perfect prospering Utopia. The
people are happy, and there is no hunger, strife, and everything flourishes. Now, below this
Utopia, there is a small child. This child is naked, starved, chained, and lives in a destitute cave
its entire life. It never hears a word of kindness, and may never leave the cave or the town itself
will crumble. Does the end justify the means? Is it okay for the people of the town, who all know
about this child, to be perfectly content and happy, while one mere child suffers? The Utilitarian
would say yes. In the words of John Stewart Mill, The happiness that forms the utilitarian
standard of what is right in conduct is not the agents own happiness but that of all concerned.
(What Utilitarianism is, pg.17) But to our core, as normal human beings, we are outraged. We
have no idea how to solve the problem, but when it is a destitute child involved, of course the
end never justifies the means. Utilitarianism is the thinking of the evil mastermind in a superhero
movie, who believes that its okay if hundreds of people die, as long as the world is saved.
Utilitarianism is the big business that lays hundreds of hard workers off, long as their business
will survive and thrive. Justice and moral rightness does not lie in the end justifying the means.
Our justice lies in the fact that every life matters. If everyone believed that the life of one is
unworthy of the life of many, our entire society would crumble. As human beings we are not
meant to justify the means. As a human being, we are meant to see every life as worthy.
Utilitarianism is the thinking of the evil mastermind in a superhero movie, who believes that its
okay if hundreds of people die, as long as the world is saved. If we live our superhero in a world
of Utilitarianism is Immanuel Kant.
In the world of Moral Theory, good and right, and Utilitarianism- there is one man who
stands up against the grain, and hands us a solid moral theory to hold on to- Deontology. Kants

The Fallacy of Utilitarianism

moral theory is the opposite of Utilitarianism, and proves that justifying the means is not a
necessary moral approach. Kant takes a logical approach to moral theory, and disproves
Utilitarianism in the stroke of a pen. Kants Deontology can be broken down into two
Categorical Imperatives. The first, as Kant states, is Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Metaphysics of Morals, Pg.
88) With this quote, Kant is stating that if we do something, any action, our action must be
thought of to be acceptable if everyone did it. If we stole someones purse, would it be
acceptable for everyone in the world to steal purses from others? What would happen to society?
Kants second categorical imperative is stated in his Metaphysics of Morals when he states, Act
in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. (pg. 96) In this statement
alone, Kant directly disagrees with Utilitarianism, and believes that humans will inevitably use
each other- but we should never treat ourselves, or someone else as merely a means to an end.
In this quote, we can see that Kant is the moral philosophy we should be following, because not
only is it logical- but it puts our human nature at rest.
We live in a world where we see Utilitarianism everywhere. We see these Utilitarians in
the modern world as bad guys, but we find ourselves doing the same thing on a smaller scale.
Utilitarianism is a complete fallacy. It doesnt define the value and benefits of happiness, or give
us a comparison to go off of. It completely disregards justice, which is a key moral component
ingrained into our nature. Utilitarianism is not feasible or possible, because the value of life is
subjective. With Kants categorical imperatives, he disproves everything the Utilitarian tries to
build up, with logic and human nature. Our morals and ethics are something that philosophers
have debated since the beginning of time. But the question doesnt lie within the philosophers,

The Fallacy of Utilitarianism

they only give us something to ponder, and arguments to back our own moral theory. What
would you choose? Would you choose the good of the many? Would you justify the means for
the end? Or would you choose Deontology, where every life matters? The choice is ultimately
yours.

The Fallacy of Utilitarianism

References:
The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant
What is Utilitarianism by John Stewart Mill
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula LeGuin
Immanuel Kant Quotes. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2016, from
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/11038.Immanuel_Kant