Ethics Commentary Part IV: Utilitarianism

Chapter 7: The Utilitarian Approach

Halfway through the book now (page-wise), we get to one of the more instinctual philosophies, and one which is closer to Rachels's own. Utilitarianism, plain and simple, says that the only thing we should consider in morality is whether our actions will cause happiness or pain. If someone/something can consciously feel pain, we are obligated to consider his/her/its interests in our decisions. The goal is to be a positive force, creating a higher amount of happiness than pain in the world. Now, this kinda feels arbitrary to me, since there is nothing making happiness "good" or pain "bad." How do we know it's not the right thing to cause pain in accruing degree rather than happiness? But, of course, the theory doesn't try to explain that (and lest I be like Rachels, I won't discredit it for that fact).

Rachels gives three examples to illustrate the Utilitarian approach. The first is euthanasia. He talks about Sigmund Freud's death, one of the more famous cases of this practice. He mentions how traditional views of murder shape the way we tend to look at this issue, particularly since Christianity has such a huge influence on our culture's moral ideals. By assuming that killing is always wrong, we want to say euthanasia is wrong (of course, you could point to war and self-defense as hypocritical allowances we make). But, of course, from the Utilitarian perspective, such an idea as "killing is always wrong" is itself wrong. If killing would cause more happiness than pain, then Utilitarianism would say it's the right thing to do. If a war would save more lives than it destroys, or will root out a problem which outweighs those lives, then it is just. If killing one person will save millions, it is a just act. And if killing someone can end an unimaginable amount of misery that cannot otherwise be alleviated, then it is just. Rachels even gives Jeremy Bentham's point that a benevolent God wouldn't want someone to suffer before dying for no reason.

The second example is marijuana. While some simply say drugs are bad/wrong, Utilitarians would look at the effects. People get a good feeling from drugs, and besides some ill effects that should be taken into consideration, the major downside is the way people who use them are treated. The government has come down on drug use rather harshly, even though marijuana, on the whole, isn't as negative a force as alcohol (drunks have worse driving impairment, have to deal with hangovers, and are more violent. As Rachels puts it, "One possible benefit of legalizing pot would be fewer alcoholics"). The only real reason marijuana use causes pain is because of the system stacked against it. With such restrictions lifted, marijuana wouldn't cause as many problems as it does today. (I disregard addicts because those'll be around either way.) Legalizing marijuana would increase happiness and decrease pain, and so Utilitarianism is in favor.

Third, animal rights. Here's where the "something" part of my first paragraph comes into play. Animals may not be humans, but they still feel pain and pleasure. To Utilitarians, animals have the same moral weight as humans because of this. Again, religion might lead some to think otherwise, what with the whole natural order and God giving humans "dominion" over the Earth in Genesis and whatnot... But even with those considerations, it could be wrong to be cruel to animals. Rachels goes into experimentation and treatment of animals before we slaughter them for our sustenance. In all of these cases, we treat animals cruelly, disregarding the pain they feel. Utilitarianism "insists that the moral community must be expanded to include all creatures whose interests are affected by what we do."

And as long as I'm on that topic, I'll connect it to the Principle of Equal Treatment. Is there a "relevant difference" between humans and animals? No. Because humans are animals. Every animal is different. Just being more cognitively developed than the others doesn't make us "better" or more worthy of moral weight and deference. Anyone who thinks we deserve better treatment than animals is simply a speciesist...and in my next post, I'll tackle one philosopher who falls into this category, and is rather pointed about it.

Chapter 8: The Debate over Utilitarianism

Another chapter on Utilitarianism? Yup, Rachels seriously just did that (instead of merging the two, which probably would've made more sense). So, what is the debate over Utilitarianism? After all, it seems a pretty straightforward philosophy: do what makes everyone happy. But, of course, many people are able to come up with situations in which this is not favorable, and so they'll discredit it. This chapter is devoted to Rachels's defense of the philosophy, basically.

One interesting example is the first Rachels gives: "You think someone is your friend, but he ridicules you behind your back. No one tells you, so you never know. Is this unfortunate for you? Hedonists [or Utilitarians] would have to say it is not, because you are never caused any pain. Yet we feel there is something bad going on." Yes, we feel... In this case, I agree with Utilitarians. Life is what we perceive it to be, after all. If we think they're our friends, and we couldn't possibly tell the difference between a good friend and a bad one, then as long as it doesn't hurt us, they may as well be good friends. Now, I don't condone this, since it would be really hard to pull off in most cases. I wouldn't do it myself either, since... Well, first of all, I couldn't pull it off since I'm so big on honesty, but my other point is that I would feel guilty, and so I would feel bad. As it applies to Utilitarianism, though, it works perfectly, and is just another one of the theory's fun little idiosyncrasies. Rachels goes on about how this aspect of the theory, hedonism, is sometimes eschewed by Utilitarians, though he doesn't really delve into that too deeply. At least he's being fair enough to be objective on that point.

Then he gives more examples. If race riots are going on because of a crime committed by a black man, should you testify against an innocent man in order to dispel the riots/lynchings and lessen the overall pain? Rachels says here that this could make Utilitarianism incompatible with justice. Which, though it doesn't come directly from him, is another example of a useless claim. The second example is about Peeping Toms, though the actual case given is one of manipulation, and doesn't really help the argument. But then he talks about Peeping Toms in general: if they're never detected, Utilitarians would say there's nothing wrong with it, since no one is hurt by it--in fact, only net happiness is gained. Basically, these two point out that the theory disregards justice and rights. But really, the point of Utilitarianism isn't justice, but happiness.

He goes next to "backward-looking reasons," which is just ridiculous. If you made a promise, but breaking it would bring more happiness, then Utilitarianism would say to break the promise. Now, this whole thing is pretty shaky, since keeping promises itself brings happiness, and breaking promises really pours on the pain in a lot of relationships. So I'd say there shouldn't be a definitive rule about this. Then there's an argument that Utilitarianism is "too demanding." That if we try to create the most happiness we can, we should always give our money to the poor, we should always help others even when it inconveniences us, etc. We would never do anything for ourselves, basically. Not that this is a problem, really, since...if everyone acted like that, eventually you wouldn't be giving up too much, because everyone would be at the same level. After that, he ends the section with a point about Utilitarianism saying we shouldn't value our own family above others. Which is true, we shouldn't. We only do that because our brains are wired that way, and as animals we tend to take care of our own before helping others. Of course, the pain and negative psychological effect of a damaged familial bond could tell Utilitarians to value them more anyway, so...yeah, that argument doesn't even work.

Now we come to Rachels's defenses of the theory. Citing the above examples, he says, "this strategy succeeds only if we agree that the actions described really would have the best consequences." Good ol' Rachels, he agrees with me. In the race riots case...what if they found out about your false testimony? That would bring about even more pain than telling the truth! But Rachels thinks this isn't enough, for some reason, calling this defense "weak." Cue the rolling of eyes. 

The second defense is that Utility could be a guide for rules, and not actions. "If what we care about is the consequences of particular actions, then we can always dream up circumstances in which a horrific action will have the best consequences." Rule-Utilitarianism, as this new branch is called, holds that instead of looking at each individual action, we should look at the rules we stipulate when determining morality. We should "ask whatset of rules is optimal, from a utilitarian viewpoint." What rules would create the most happiness. And then all acts would be judged by those rules. But, as Rachels does point out, this would basically be "rule worship" or, as it deserves to be called, absolutism. And if we ever decided that there could be exceptions to rules...it wouldn't be Rule-Utilitarianism anymore.

The third--and best--defense he gives is also a hypocritical one. As I said in my last post, Rachels doesn't seem to grasp the internal validity of the philosophies he debunks. Lo and behold, the next section is titled "'Common Sense' Is Wrong." I wouldn't have too much of a problem with this normally, since it was a Utilitarian he quoted when bringing up this subject, but he doesn't even mention that this could be applied to other philosophical debates. This gives the reader the feeling that Rachels is shooting down other theories for being against common sense, but once his own comes under attack, he says to throw common sense out the window. What really bites is when he says, "Utilitarianism is a radical doctrine that challenges many commonsense assumptions. In this respect, it does what good philosophy does--it makes us think about things that we take for granted." Things that Subjectivism made us think about, perhaps? Or Cultural Relativism? Believe me, Rachels, those are much more radical than this. Then he has the gall to say that the man he quotes "is right to warn us that 'common sense' cannot be trusted." What I've been saying all along!

Then he goes into detail about this idea. First he says that those things we see as "always wrong" can still be seen as wrong, but you just have to look at why. Utilitarianism gives a reason: for example, lying hurts people and relationships when found out. It's not wrong "in itself," but wrong because of the consequences it can bring about. Second, he talks about our gut reaction being wrong, which it usually is. We might immediately associate certain acts with bad results in the past, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will have the same results under different circumstances. And third, we should consider all the consequences. While convicting an innocent man may seem "unjust," you also have to think of the fact that you are saving those innocent people who would've been hurt by the continuation of race riots.

Another thing I'd like to bring up about Utilitarianism, which will illustrate just how far from common sense it is, is that it sees happiness as a quantity. Jeremy Bentham actually came up with an equation for it! Tim Hansel told our class about two cases. In the first, you are on a trolley that is headed downhill, and it goes out of control. You can steer it, but there is no way of stopping it. Ahead of you, there are two paths: down one path, there is a group of five people--down the other, there is only one person. You must decide which path to put the trolley on. A Utilitarian would say that you should pick the path with one person on it, simply because there would be only one death, and therefore less pain. Common sense would say that either choice is terrible, and people almost always try to give some scenario in which they miraculously stop the trolley, warn the people, or what have you. Of course, no one really picks killing the five people instead, unless they're a "bad person" or something. Still, there's always hesitation when killing is involved. But for a Utilitarian, the choice is clear.

The second is similar to the first, but with a twist. You are a surgeon, and have five patients, each missing one specific organ, no two missing the same one. You only have an hour left to save them, but no donors are available. Then a man comes in, Chuck, as he's usually called in this story. Chuck just came by to get something, but you see an opportunity. Chuck is perfectly healthy, and has each organ you need. It would be easy to kill Chuck and give his organs to your patients, saving their lives. Or you could leave Chuck alive and let your patients die. A Utilitarian (at least a hardcore Utilitarian) would have to say that you should kill Chuck and take his organs. After all, you're low on time so there aren't any other alternatives for saving these people, and killing one person will cause less overall pain than letting five people die.

Now, the Chop-Up Chuck case is a bit more controversial, since you aren't being forced by gravity to make a split-second decision, and it opens the door for more problems. Would we kill everyone that fell into this situation, in order to keep the majority happy? But the real question is...would that be wrong? Personally, I don't think it would be wrong, but I sure as hell don't like it. Which, of course, was the gut reaction this case was meant to illustrate. It says nothing against Utilitarianism, though. The theory makes enough sense, and I found myself liking it as we discussed it in class. I wouldn't live by it, but it does share similarities with my own approach to life (as in the fact that I try not to cause harm to others if I can help it).

Tom Regan, who wrote an animal rights article we read in class, attacks Utilitarianism, saying, "[A] cup contains different liquids—sometimes sweet, sometimes bitter, sometimes a mix of the two. What has value are the liquids: the sweeter the better, the bitter the worse. The cup—the container—has no value. It's what goes into it, not what they go into, that has value. For the Utilitarian, you and I are like the cup; we have no value as individuals and thus no equal value." Quite aptly, he points out that the theory doesn't care about the individual, but rather the feelings the individual feels. Stuff like this detracts from my respect for the theory, since it just makes it seem arbitrary, as mentioned before. But I don't know if it's fair to say that it doesn't value the individual because it values their feelings only. It also values their interests as they affect their happiness. So maybe it's not really that simple.

I'll end this section here.

Even though it took a while, Rachels finally says we should get rid of common sense. Which was obvious from the start...but I'm not going to end this by talking about his inconsistency. Instead, I will address the questions, "Whose interests matter? Why do they matter?" From a logical point of view, it makes sense to say that only personal interests matter: we are subjective beings, and we only know for a fact that we exist. So why care about anyone else? If I'm going to die some day, why shouldn't I just go out and do whatever pleases me? The Social Contract suggests we should all cooperate so that we all benefit. Ethical Egoism says benefiting only ourselves benefits everyone in the long run. And Utilitarianism says only the ratio of happiness to pain matters, and thus we should take everyone's interests into account.

Whichever view you take, you cannot deny the effect interests have on other interests. My interests won't always coincide with yours, and sometimes people's interests will be in direct conflict. I would side with Social Contract theory and try to find the best option for everyone, since I'm on the side of rational behavior. Not to mention that the Social Contract actually gives us a good reason to follow the law and work together for a better society. Not to say that the laws we have are always right. But this gives us a way to tackle that sort of thing: changing the laws so that they benefit everyone. For that reason, I think Social Contract Theory should be taught widely, and discussed more often. It would be in everyone's best interests, after all.