# Examine the features of Utilitarianism which make it appealing to many *(21)* Utilitarianism is a consequentialist system of ethics which uses

the outcomes of an action to determine whether it is right or wrong. First proposed by Jeremy B entham in his 1789 work *Introduction to Principles of Morals*, it measures righ t and wrong by "the greatest happiness for the greatest number", and so aims to improve the balance of the "two sovereign masters" of nature, pain and pleasure. Utilitarianism is a secular system of ethics, as Bentham wanted to judge action s by whether or not they benefitted other people, rather than some obscure "high er power". He proposed the hedonic calculus as a method of balancing different t ypes of pleasure, based on seven factors: intensity, duration, probability, temp oral remoteness, fecundity (the tendency to produce more pleasure in the future) , purity and extent or reach. In this view of utility, all pleasures are equally valid, a point of contention in later discussions about the topic, such as thos e put forward by John Stuart Mill. While Mill's! *Utilitarianism* takes its roots in the Benthamite "greatest happi ness" principle, he disagrees with Bentham's assessment of all pleasure as worth y of equal consideration, and points out the absurdity of measuring pleasures by quantity alone when quality should be considered equally in all other things. M ill argues that intellectual pleasures (such as reading or listening to music) a re more valuable than sensational pleasures (such as eating or drinking alcohol) , as they have a "greater permanency, safety [and] uncostliness". In terms of th e hedonic calculus, they would have a greater duration, fecundity and purity tha n purely sensational pleasures, which often have a short duration and a worse pa in:pleasure ratio. Mill also posits that intellectual pleasures are good because people choose them over sensational pleasures, and says that "it is better to b e a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissati sfied than a fool satisfied". This overview of Utilitarianism lets us examine the features that make it so app ealing. The primary such feature is its equal treatment of people, a primary dif ferentiator in a time of great social inequality. Bentham wrote that "each is to count for one, none to count for more than one", and the ethicist Peter Singer even extended this to the treatment of animals, building on Bentham's statement that "the question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But can they suff er?". Singer argues that we have a moral duty to fulfil the interests of every b eing, meaning that the interest of a pig to not experience pain should be weighe d against the interest of a human to eat meat. Such a balance of interests (both complex, like owning a house or maintaining social relations, and simple, like rolling in mud or enjoying food) should aim to maximise total utility, so action s such as meat eating or vivisection would be wrong, as they produce more pain t han pleasure. Another feature of Utilitarianism is that it is grounded in reality, as "Good" a nd "Bad" are allocated to tangible qualities (pleasure and pain). This means tha t it is easier to define than ethical systems based on abstract notions of duty or human nature, since its basis (pleasure and pain) is something humans are awa re of in day-to-day life. This lets us make difficult moral decisions in a world with scarce resources and complex problems, rather than only being able to deci de in thought experiments and models. Additionally, Utilitarianism gives us perm ission to choose the least worst option when faced with a seemingly impossible c hoice, such as between killing fifty people to save the lives of hundred; our on ly moral duty is to maximise utility, so we would be morally obliged to kill the fifty. By removing all value judgements other than utility, we can perform the hedonic calculus (without being torn between conflicting duties, such as keeping a promise or telling a lie) and determine the best outcome. Humans become littl e more than utility-maximising automata, bearing no responsibility for their own actions as long as they result in greater utility and less pain. Rule Utilitarianism is a different branch of Utilitarianism that disregards the

core tenet of consequentialism. Rule Utilitarianism says that the keeping of cer tain rules generates utility, and actions are right if they conform to rules tha t lead towards greater utility. One such rule could prohibit arbitrary arrest, a s the utility generated from a populace not fearing their government would stem directly from the keeping of the rule against arbitrary arrest. However, even th ese "rules" are not absolute, as there may be potential circumstances in which b reaking the rule leads to greater utility than keeping it would so these rules a ppear to be more guidelines than laws. Despite this, the presence of such guidel ines is likely to bring greater happiness, as people can expect a certain level of behaviour from others the majority of the time. # To what extent do these features survive the challenges levelled against Utili tarianism? *(9)* Let us first discuss the concept of absolute rights in relation to global utilit y. While Bentham called human rights "nonsense on stilts", many people are uncom fortable with the notion of sacrificing individual interests and concerns in fav our of the greater good, leading to one of Utilitarianism's greatest challenges. Various thought experiments, such as *Jim and the Indians* by Bernard Williams, show that killing one person in order to save the lives of others maximises uti lity, and so is the right thing to be done. However, the fact that Jim's choice is morally right does not make it easy or without consequences; compelling Jim t o act against his own conscience or duties could take a significant psychologica l toll, and the effect on the survivors could be equally traumatic. The pursuit of utility can lead to horrible actions that completely disregard personal auton omy, individual preferences and moral consciences, and while rationalising immor al actions in the name of moral outcomes is as old as humanity itself, it seems unreasonable to require one or more people to sacrifice current and future poten tial utility in the name of the "greater good". Ultimately such sacrifices are t he choice of the individual, but the reliance of an ethical system on a somewhat facile model of human nature seems, at the very least, flawed. Another flaw in Utilitarianism stems from another of its strengths: the use of t he hedonic calculus to determine a least worst outcome is in most cases practica lly impossible. Aside from individual moral objections to specific actions, the time required to work through the different options, weigh up their outcomes and decide which one maximises global utility makes a balanced decision impossible in a finite amount of time. Another confounding factor is an inherent lack of kn owledge, both of the situation (again using *Jim and the Indians* as an example, it would be nearly impossible to choose which person to kill in order to maximi se utility) and of the consequences of our actions. While, for instance, the bom bings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justifiable in retrospect, as they maximised utility by preventing further war and bloodshed, there was no way to have known about that outcome in advance, and such imperfect knowledge is often the case. Given the moral flexibility allowed by Utilitarian theories, a government could easily justify horrific destruction that would have been avoided with a deontolo gical system of ethics. Allowing any one entity to make decisions about a global good would effectively give them carte-blanche to impoverish the lives of three billion people in order to improve the lives of the remaining four billion. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then Utility may just be the han dcart that takes us there.