Zelideth Zambrano Argument Essay Philosophy 1000 Nov.

23, 2013 Critique of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a doctrine that determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences. So, as a psychological fact, happiness is the goal of actions, and so the production of happiness is most useful. John Stuart Mill in his book Utilitarianism, stated, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." According to Mill, Utilitarianism is hedonistic only when the result of an action has no decidedly negative impact on others. Also, according to Mill, the greatest happiness principle: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, so happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value. Furthermore, Mill explains that utility is neither pleasure in the vulgar, self-serving sense normally associated with the avoidance of pleasure. Rather, utilitarianism is about happiness and, by extension, the prevention of unhappiness. He also maintains that happiness for mankind is more than just a warm, fuzzy feeling. It involves the mind, body and soul (if such a thing exists.) For Mill, there is a quantitative difference between pleasure and happiness. Pleasure is a sensation; happiness is a state. Mills argument for utilitarianism is if one person increases their happiness, it will increase the overall happiness of society. Humans desire to increase their happiness, so people should act to promote the overall happiness of society. So, utilitarianism is a simple theory and

its results are easy to apply. It also allows for degrees of right and wrong, and for every situation the choice between actions is clear-cut: always choose that which has the greatest utility. Nevertheless, there are several objections or criticisms that we can apply in this theory or argument. First, impossibility is one criticism of utilitarianism because it is impossible to apply to happiness. It cannot be quantified or measured. There is no way of calculating a trade-off between intensity and extent, or intensity and probability, or comparing happiness to suffering. If happiness was not measurable, words like "happier" or "happiest" could have no meaning: "I was happier yesterday than I am today" would make no sense at all - it can only have the meaning which we (or most of us) know that it has if we assume that happiness can be measured and compared. Also, it is very difficult to quantify pleasures for cost/benefit analysis (but since this only has to be done on a comparative scale, this may not be as serious an objection as it at first seems). The second criticism of Mills argument of utilitarianism is impracticality, because it is too difficult to apply. We cannot calculate all the effects for all the individuals (either because of the large number of individuals involved, and/or because of the uncertainty). The principle of utility is, essentially, a description of what makes something right or wrong - so in order for it to fail, someone must give an example of something which is useful but obviously wrong. The principle does not imply that we can calculate what is right or wrong - completely accurately, in advance, or at all! It does not harm the principle of utility at all merely to comment that it is difficult for us to work out what is right - it is merely a lament against the human condition. The idea of practicality is often used to suggest a problem exists in the theory, when in fact it does not. Furthermore, the calculation required to determine the right is both complicated and time

consuming. Many occasions will not permit the time and many individuals may not even be capable of the calculations. The third criticisms or objection to Mills argument of utilitarianism is insufficiency, because some people are more sensible than others. So utilitarianism is "fine, so far as it goes", but that it fails to consider some sources of value, and that it will therefore produce the wrong results when these different sources conflict. There is potential for confusion here - sometimes "utilitarianism" is used too specifically for "hedonistic utilitarianism"; and, sometimes, it means a particular class of ethical theory (something like "value-maximizing consequentialism") ... under this meaning, an ethical theory which held the existence of plastic forks as supremely valuable, and therefore tried to maximize their number. So, theories which have other intrinsic values than happiness and exemption from suffering can be accommodated within a utilitarian scheme. As for those other things that are suggested as having value, there are a few worth mentioning: "life", "friendship", and "knowledge" among them. I think it is notable that these things are valued, but that they also generally create happiness... I suggest the reason that they are valued is precisely because they promote happiness. But, if they didn't, would we still value them? Does someone who suffers too much still value their life? Surely not, or else there would be no suicides. Do we value a friendship if we get no pleasure from it? On the contrary, it is more likely that we would define our friends as those people about whom we enjoyed being. And is it worthwhile learning and philosophizing, if our knowledge is never of any use at all? Or, rather, is it just so much meta-physical stamp collecting? The case against these "other" goals is quite clear. So, the theory fails to acknowledge any individual rights that could not be violated for the sake of the greatest good. Indeed, even the murder of an innocent person would seem to be condoned if it served the greater number.

Also, another criticism or objection for Mills argument of utilitarianism is distastefulness. Utilitarianism is alleged to be faulty in the way it requires us to think about all kinds of actions - to apply the felicific calculus in disregard to any feared distaste of the result. The argument from distaste is often expressed as a suggestion that utilitarianism doesn't provide enough support for individuals' rights. But what is a right, and what is its justification? If the justification of a right depends on its tendency to promote happiness and prevent suffering, then it is entirely redundant since this is the sole purpose of utility. And if rights aren't justified in these terms, how are they justified - what on earth are they actually good for? Of what use are they? It is generally found that the proponent of ethical rights has very unclear thinking as to what rights are and why they (should) exist - and it is therefore of unclear importance that utilitarianism does not support them. So, it is not always clear what the outcome of an action will be, nor is it always possible to determine who will be affected by it. Judging an action by the outcome is therefore hard to do beforehand. Finally, Mills argument of utilitarianism is a naturalistic fallacy. Philosophers attempt to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties. The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them. So, Mills argument of utilitarianism applies to this fallacy because he uses the term happiness as a good making us think about his argument as a good principle to do. In conclusion, Mills argument about utilitarianism is based on moral and social policies on experience and scientific principles. He also bases his theory using the reason to show that each individuals welfare ultimately depends on the welfare of the community. But, on the other hand, this theory brings a lot of objections because each individual is different and their

perception of happiness can object Mills argument. As a result, some objections of his argument of utilitarianism are first, impossibility because happiness cannot be measured. Second, impracticality because we cannot calculate the effects of happiness. Third, insufficiency because we cannot consider the source of value of each individual. Also, distastefulness because Mills theory makes us think about our actions. Finally, Mills argument is a naturalistic fallacy because he argues that because something is good everyone must do it. So, Mills argument of utilitarianism is arbitrary, subjective and unworkable. It relies less on abstract reasoning and more on such common practices as calculation of self-interest and desire for basic, identifiable happiness.