Utilitarianism - SpeedyLook encyclopedia

Utilitarian Utility

The concept of utility does not have at utilitarian the direction that one usually allots to him. What is “useful” indicates what contributes to maximize the wellbeing of a population. It is in this particular direction that one can speak about the calculation of the utility of an act, or that one can compare the utilities of various actions or rules. The utilitarian thought thus consists to weigh for and against of a decision and to compare the latter with the advantages and disadvantages of the opposite decision.

History

Although one can see first steps in antiquity of them, utilitarianism is really set up only at the end of the 18th century. The father of this philosophy is then Jeremy Bentham, which is inspired in particular by Hume and Helvétius. Bentham proposes a first form of utilitarianism, characterized later utilitarianism hedonist. Its theory is the starting point of the many versions of utilitarianism which will develop with the XIXe and with the 20th century. It is however with the contribution of John Stuart Mill that utilitarianism becomes a truly elaborate philosophy.

Bentham

It is Jeremy Bentham which introduced the term in 1781 and which drew from this principle the theoretical implications and the most succeeded practices. The ethical principle from which he considered the behaviors individual or public was the social Utilité. To take again the well-known formula, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”.

The starting postulate of its utilitarian theory is that the ethical good constitutes a verifiable and demonstrable reality. One can define it starting from the only elementary motivations of the human nature: its leaning “naturalness” to seek happiness, i.e. a maximum of pleasure and a minimum of suffering. This principle is formulated thus by Bentham “nature placed humanity under the empire of two Masters, the sorrow and the pleasure. It is alone that it belongs to state to us that we must do as to determine what we will make. On a side, the criterion of the good and evil, other, the chain of the causes and effects are attached to their throne. ” ( Principles of morals and the legislation , 1789).

Utilitarianism benthamien, like number of its following, claimed to regulate very old social problems:

Which principles guide the behaviors of the individuals? is
Which the tasks of the government?
Comment the individual interests can be reconciled between them?
Comment the individual interests agree do with those of the community?

The principle of the antagonism of the pleasure and the sorrow answers thus the whole of these problems. Bentham affirms that there cannot be conflict between the interest of the individual and that of the community, because if one and the other bases their action on the “utility”, their interests will be identical. This step exploits all the plans of the life sociétale: monk, economic, educational, in the administration, justice like in the relations internationales.

John Stuart Mill

Wire of James Millet, godson and disciple of Bentham, John Stuart Mill is the immediate successor of utilitarianism benthamien. It deviates some however by developing an indirect utilitarianism .

Where Bentham identifies welfare and pleasure, Mill defines the welfare like happiness. By doing this it deviates from utilitarianism hedonist and proposes an indirect utilitarianism . The pleasure is not there any more the end of morality, it plays a part only indirectly, insofar as it contributes to happiness (of the greatest number).

One also owes in Mill the recognition of the qualitative dimension of the pleasures. Contrary to Bentham, which does not treat on a hierarchical basis the pleasures and is interested only in the quantity of those Ci, John Stuart Mill defends a difference in quality between the pleasures. One can thus prefer a less quantity of a pleasure of greater quality to a higher quantity of a pleasure of poorer quality.

The modern thought

Following the founders (Bentham, John Stuart Mill), many philosophers, generally Anglo-Saxon, developed and enriched the utilitarian thought: Henry Sidgwick, Richard Hare, Peter Singer among much of others.

Moral and political prospect

General characteristics

Utilitarianism is conceived like a general criterion of morality being able and having to be applied as well to the actions individual as with the political decisions, as well in the economic domain as in the social domains or legal.

Basic principles

Five basic principles are common to all the versions of utilitarianism:

Principle of wellbeing ( the Greatest Happiness Principle in English) .
Le well is defined as being the wellbeing. I.e. the sought-after goal in any moral action is consisted the Bien-être (physical, moral, intellectual).

Conséquentialisme .
Les consequences of an action is the only base making it possible to judge morality of the action.
L' utilitarianism is not interested in moral agents but in actions: morals qualities of the agent do not intervene in the calculation of the morality of an action. It is thus indifferent that the agent generous, is interested, or sadistic, in fact the consequences of the act are morals. There is a dissociation of the cause (the agent) and consequences of the acte.
L' utilitarianism is not interested either in the type of act: in different circumstances, the same act can be moral or immoral according to whether its consequences are good or bad.

Principle of aggregation .
What is taken into account in calculation is the final balance (of wellbeing, in fact) of all the individuals affected by the action, independently of the distribution of this balance. What counts it is the total quantity of produced wellbeing, whatever the distribution of this quantity. It is consequently possible to sacrifice a minority, whose wellbeing will be decreased, in order to increase the general wellbeing. This possibility of sacrifice is founded on the idea of compensation: the misfortune of the ones is compensated by the wellbeing of the others. If it is overcompensated, the action is considered to be morally good. The aspect known as sacrificial one of is criticized by the adversaries of utilitarianism.

Principle of maximization .
L' utilitarianism requires to maximize the general wellbeing. To maximize the wellbeing is not optional, it acts of a duty.

Impartiality and universalism .
Les pleasures and sufferings have the same importance, whatever the individual whom they assign. The wellbeing of each one has the same weight in the calculation of the wellbeing général.
Notons that this principle is compatible with the possibility of sacrifice: this principle affirms only that all the individuals are worth as much in calculation. It neither privileged there nor injured a priori: the happiness of a king or an ordinary citizen are taken into account in the same way.
L' aspect universalist consists of what the evaluation of the wellbeing is worth independently of the cultures and the regional idiosyncracies. Like the universalism of Kant, utilitarianism claims to define a morals being worth universally.

Utilitarian calculation

One of the features important of utilitarianism is its Rationalisme. The morality of an act is calculated , it is not given while being based on principles having an intrinsic value. This calculation takes into account the consequences of the act on the wellbeing of the greatest number. It thus supposes the possibility of calculating the consequences of an act, and of evaluating its impact on the wellbeing of the individuals.

It will be noticed that utilitarianism included in his calculation all the beings able to test pleasure and sorrow, i.e. endowed with sensitivity. The animals thus are legitimately included in the calculation of morality. The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer will remember this aspect in his opposition to the Spécisme.

Causes and consequences of an action

Utilitarianism was during the history a moral theory very émancipatrice. This fact is in particular related to the dissociation of the cause and the consequence of an act in the evaluation of the morality of this one. Qualities of the moral agent are not taken into account. Utilitarianism thus does not fit in a perfectionist prospect; for " to be moral" it is enough to carry out actions having good consequences, it is not necessary to have of specific personal characteristic or to follow a particular model of life.

Various versions of utilitarianism

One of the aspects more striking utilitarianism is its capacity to be subdivided and to change to answer its criticisms. The utilitarian, vast tradition and very rich person, thus propose different types of utilitarianisms.

Utiliarisme of the act and the rule
Utilitarianism hedonist of Bentham
indirect Utilitarianism of Millet
Utilitarianism on two levels of Hare
negative Utilitarianism
ideal Utilitarianism of Moore

Utilitarianism of the act and utilitarianism of the rule

Although the strict distinction between utilitarianism of the act and the rule is prone to guarantee, part of criticisms differentiates these two tendencies. If radical heterogeneity between these two types of utilitarianisms is doubtful, one can however expose their differences.

The terms of utilitarianisms of the act or the rule return to the calculation of the consequences. For the utilitarianism of the act, which must be taken into account are the consequences of the particular act that the agent makes. For the utilitarianism of the rule what account are the consequences of the adoption of a rule of action.

Does the question of the first is “the act to save this person who drowns, in this precise context, have positive consequences? ”, does that of the second “the adoption of the rule it is necessary to save a person who is spirit to drown have positive consequences? ”.

The utilitarianism of the act is a contextualism: it always evaluates the morality of an single act, which falls under a particular context. The evaluation of the morality of the act after the execution of this one is more obvious in this type of utilitarianism than elsewhere. Before making the act the agent can suppose positive consequences; but if the real consequences prove to be negative the act will be immoral. This vision of the moral evaluation is opposite in a traditional way to deontologic optics , which proposes principles to evaluate the morality of the action before it takes place. With dimensions one of the utilitarianism of the rule it does not act any more of the particular consequences of an single act which are taken into account, but total consequences of the adoption of a rule. The positive consequences of the adoption of a rule justifies its adoption and the fact of following this rule. One can from now on call upon general maxims and evaluate the morality of the action before carrying it out. Perhaps that the act to save this precise person does not have positive consequences (if it is about a tyrant), but the adoption of the rule he is necessary to save the people who drown has positive consequences. Fault of knowing if the particular act in question has many positive consequences, the rule should be followed.

This type of utilitarianism can rightly seem close to the Kant ism. He indeed points out the principle of universalization of the maxim of the action presented by Kant in Fondation of the metaphysics of manners. It is however necessary to take care not to identify utilitarianism of the rule and Kantianism: utilitarianism is a consequentialism and, in spite of certain ambiguities, the Kantianism refuses the taking into account of the consequences in the moral evaluation.

One of the reasons to doubt the heterogeneity of the utilitarianism of the act and the rule is that taken each one independently, these doctrines are very easily exposed to criticisms destroying. For example incalculability of the consequences for the utilitarianism of the act, or the disinterest for the particular cases for the utilitarianism of the rule. This situation returns them not very bearable catches like strictly dissociated. One can however see them like tendencies within utilitarianism, and not regard them as completely dissociable.

Utilitarianism hedonist and utilitarianism of the preferences

Utilitarianism hedonist is given for objective to maximize the wellbeing of the individuals, while the utilitarianism of the preferences aims to maximize the satisfaction of the preferences of the individuals.

The utilitarianism of the preferences is inspired by the economic analysis, which postulates that the utility of the agents is maximum when their preferences are satisfied. This approach facilitates utilitarian calculation, since it is not a question to evaluate the mental state of the individuals, but to be based on preferences which one deduces from their objective behaviors.

Several defects appear however to return the approach more relevant hedonist. He appears strange to want to seek to satisfy preferences which make unhappy; and certain preferences, have vocation to be modified, and nonsatisfied.

Negative utilitarianism

As John Stuart Mill underlines it, there are two ends that the doctrines require to continue:

the maximization of the wellbeing
the minimization of the suffering

Negative utilitarianism proposes to continue only the second. The wellbeing can indeed cause various definitions, and its maximization to prove sometimes problematic to realize. The minimization of the suffering then appears easier to implement.

Negative utilitarianism is not strictly speaking an alternative of utilitarianism. Because to decrease the suffering of somebody, it is neither more nor less to increase its wellbeing. To speak about negative utilitarianism has direction only if one places oneself on the level of implementation the practical of utilitarianism. It is then about the idea that it is easier, in policy, to seek to reduce the suffering of the individuals (while fighting against unemployment, poverty, criminality, etc) to seek to make them fully happy. In both cases, however, the objective is the same one: to maximize the wellbeing.

Utilitarianism and economy

One finds among the theorists of the economy some disciples of utilitarianism, in particular John Austin (which is not economist), James Mill, Herbert Spencer (who is not economist either) and John Stuart Mill which marked durably the history of the economic thinking.

But, contrary to an idea spread in France, utilitarianism has only little to do with the economic theory and is of nothing at the base micro-economic theory consumer. This one is an egoistic descriptive theory, and not a utilitarian normative theory. She claims that an individual always tries to obtain the maximum of satisfaction of his consumption. It thus will optimize, taking into account its budgetary constraint, the personal utility which it withdraws from its consumption, and not general utility. The Dilemme of the prisoner, formalized in 1950, illustrates the fact in addition that utilitarianism and selfishness can be incompatible.

In prescriptive economy, as Walras underlines it, the economist does not intend to make a moral assessment on such or such act of consumption, i.e. refuses from the start any position ethical in the field.

On the other hand, certain authors of the economics of welfare and theory of the collective choices take as a starting point the utilitarianism. (inter alia, Alfred Marshall, Arthur Cecil Pigou and John Harsanyi)

Criticisms

Criticisms cross many currents of thoughts, movements ecologists, with the theorists of anti-utilitarianism and the movements alter-mondialists.

Holding of utilitarianism are shown to preach a company without higher justification, or to support a “law of the jungle” in economy. The utilitarian economic scene would reduce the individual to an autarkical rational object, thus denying its interdependence with others, and forgetting the sentimental bonds of the individuals between them. One can however wonder whether these critics do not testify to a deep ignorance of utilitarian philosophy, unduly comparable an apology for wild capitalism.

This situation is particulèrement true in France, where utilitarianism did not have same success as in the Anglo-Saxon countries. Ignored for a long time and often discredited, it caused oppositions sometimes completely unfounded there. Certain currents, like the Anti-Utilitarian Movement in Social sciences (MAUSS), even contributed to entretrenir a deformed vision of utilitarian philosophy there.

Beyond these adversaries, utilitarianism was of course attacked by philosophers and currents which have sû to put forward the real problems involved in the doctrines. One can present the strongest objections which they supported.

Incalculability of the consequences

Utilitarianism makes hold morality in the consequences, which poses several problems with the eyes of some of its adversaries.

Uncertainty .
the consequences of an act are not determinable before it takes place. One is never certain that the supposed consequences of the act will be well its real consequences. An apparently innocent act can then prove to be immoral within sight of its consequences, like a presumedly bad act to appear moral.

Infinity.
the consequences form a chain: if the act has is cause of B, and that B causes C, the act Because C indirectly. To evaluate the consequences of the act consequently poses a problem of identification of these consequences: when to say that an act is not any more causes? where to stop the chain of the consequences? There exists for example a famous Chinese parabola, " is this a chance, is this a bad luck? " , long story where the events happy and unhappy are alternatively connected like consequences from/to each other, without end.

The question of the interpersonal comparisons of utility

To maximize the aggregate wellbeing of a group of individuals implies, in any rigor, to be able to measure the wellbeing of each one, to add them, and to choose the action which leads to the largest result.

However according to a whole current of thought, it would be impossible to compare levels of different wellbeing, because they are subjective mental states.

The utilitarian ones admit in general that a perfectly rigorous utilitarian calculation is indeed unrealistic. That does not make however utilitarianism inapplicable for as much, because one can use “variables by substitution” which make it possible to measure the wellbeing in an indirect way (unemployment rate, rate of criminality, etc).

“Sacrificial” aspect

Utilitarianism allows, and possibly promotes, the sacrifice of some with the profit of the greatest number. It is one of the most criticized points theory. The American philosopher John Rawls particularly attacked this possibility of sacrifice in his work Théorie of justice.

On this question, one will distinguish the position from William Godwin of that of utilitarian realities: contrary to them, Godwin does not fill the criterion of impartiality of calculation, which leads it to defend a partial sacrifice where the maxim “an account for one” is not not respected. It is thus necessary to make the share between the pseudo-utilitarian point of view of Godwin and that of utilitarianism.

The aspect known as “sacrificial” is related on the logic of the compensation and the utilitarian prescriptivism. In the comprehensive assessment of morality, the good ones and the bad consequences are compensated. So to increase the satisfaction of the greatest number one must sacrifice a person, utilitarianism supports that it is what it is necessary to do.

The traditional example is that of the shipwrecked men: a group of shipwrecked men is on an emergency raft, but this one will run because they are too numerous. By giving up one of the members of the group one will avoid with the raft running, but that which will be sacrificed will die. Utilitarianism led to sacrifice one of the members to save the others: the act to give up it with a negative consequence for him, but it is compensated by the positive consequences for the other members.

It will be noted that in such a case name “sacrifice” is relative. Theutilitarian ones will speak about sacrifice , but the utilitarian ones will prefer rescue . According to whether one is centered on the sacrificed individual or the saved group the vocabulary can change.

However the charge of sacrifice can relate to cases where the “rescue” is less obvious. In the choice of a model of company, the utilitarian one will defend the model which allows the happiness of the greatest number, independently of the distribution of this happiness. To oppress a social group with the profit of the others thus seems possible from the utilitarian point of view. It is necessary however to make justice with utilitarian by recalling that none supports the sacrifice positively: to sacrifice is a duty only when there is not not of another solution.

Impartiality and renunciation of the agent

Although this criticism relates even to other theories morals, utilitarianism was criticized for its impartiality. The impartiality requested from the agent would be indeed noxious for this last: to be moral it would be necessary more not to be oneself. All the processes aiming at acquiring an impartial point of view are indeed processes dépersonnalisants (to try to put itself at the place of the other, for example).

This attack can be close to the critic of the renunciation of the moral agent. For utilitarianism it is the act which counts, whatever the agent which achieves it. However one can think that there is a difference when I achieved or not the action myself.

Bernard Williams proposes an example in which the consequences remain unchanged whatever the agent. A scientist working in a firm sees himself asking to manufacture a weapon which will be used in an unquestionable way to kill out of the thousands of people: if it accepts it will have to manufacture the weapon, if it refuses the firm will find someone else and it weapon is manufactured nevertheless. Utilitarianism does not make it possible to choose what it is necessary to do, however it seems well that the agent is vis-a-vis a moral problem. It could be thus that one cannot fully evacuate the agent of the questioning on morality.

See too

Moral
Utility
Harm principle

External bonds

French-speaking bonds

Presentation of utilitarianism by Francisco Vergara
John Stuart Mill: myths and realities a warning statement against spread errors, by Francisco Vergara. (pdf, also exists with the format of Word)
Utilitarisme and criminal justice, by Xavier Bebin
In defense of utilitarianism, by David Olivier, in the Cahiers antispecists (re-examined focused on the animal question)

Anglophone bonds

Utilitarianism.com Resources line

Glossary on utilitarianism

Utilitarian.net
Ethics Updates Resources line
utilitarianism on two levels of Hare

Random links:

Jean-Michel Truong | Sind Blitze, sind To give | Rottnest island | Assemble Castelo (Santa Catarina) | Microrégion de Vassouras