Utilitarianism defines ôgoodö as ôwhatever brings about the most happiness for the greatest number of peopleö (Warburton 45). What could be simpler? In the eyes of many philosophers, however, the simplicity of Utilitarianism belies its fatal flaws. Moreover, critics assert that UtilitarianismÆs proponents, led by John Stuart Mill, were much too willing to sacrifice values like liberty, justice in punishment, and fairness in the distribution of resources, all in the name of ôhappiness.ö This paper will examine those critiques and analyze whether Utilitarian theory can present a valid defense.
Utilitarian theory stresses effects, and thus requires a mathematical-like calculation to decide which path to follow. A utilitarian determines the right course of action by forecasting the consequences of each act, then ascertaining which act will produce the most happiness (defined as pleasure) for the greatest number of people. In the alternative, the utilitarian will choose the act that produces, on balance, more happiness than unhappiness (Warburton 45). According to Jeremy Bentham, a Utilitarian theorist who preceded Mill in the 19th century, we simply compare the number of people who will be made happy by a particular act and the number who will be made unhappy. If the act will please more people than it will displease, then the proposed act is right (Popkin and Stroll 34).
Similarly, in hindsight, a utilitarian ascertains right and wrong by measuring the amount of happiness each act produced. The intent of the actor is irrelevant. Therefore, if an individual intends to inflict pain but instead creates happiness, that action is good in the utilitarian view. Conversely, if an individual intends to create happiness but instead inflicts pain, that action is bad. ôThe road to hell is paved with good intentionsö summarizes the utilitarian emphasis on results, not aspirations.
Problems abound with this theory, mainly ...