Bekir Konakovic
PHI 2630
March 2nd, 2017
Word Count: 1,993
Utilitarianism & Virtue Ethics
Utilitarianism as an ethical theory relies solely on a consequentialist outlook, maintaining
that the determinate factor of morality lies among the happiness and unhappiness created by the
outcome. Virtue ethics encompasses a more holistic and practical approach by looking towards a
person’s means and motives regarding an action; therefore, utilitarianism is reduced to a less
acceptable ethical theory when paired against virtue ethics because of the higher detriment that
arises from its institution and practice.
The final constructs of utilitarianism arose from Jeremy Bentham’s views on morality1. He
opposed the views of morality during his time by claiming morality is not derived from a
deontological faith in divine rules or duty to pleasing God, but rather morality is achieved by
attaining the greatest volume of happiness amongst the vast majority of people resulting from an
action. Thus, utilitarianism maintains that an action may be deemed morally right if it promotes
happiness and is beneficial to the majority of those affected2. A main component of utilitarianism
is consequentialism which looks to a person’s actions and the following consequences of those
actions to determine their place on the moral spectrum. The action’s reflection on the majority’s
happiness and benefit governs its status as moral or immoral. Per Bentham, “there is one ultimate
1
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Dubuque,
2015, pp. 91.
2
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Dubuque,
2015, pp. 91.
moral principle, the Principle of Utility”3. This principle stands at the crux of Utilitarianism; it
requires that a person faced with a choice amid various options and alternatives choose the one
with the superlative overall outcome for those involved. This principle was later solidified by
Bentham’s disciple John Stuart Mill as “the Greatest Happiness Principle”; Mill’s principle
confirms that an action must seek utility, or happiness, with the exclusion of pain to achieve a
moral standing, therefore binding Utilitarianism within these statutes. Utilitarianism focuses solely
on the happiness of those in the aftermath of an action, considering each person equal to the other.
Virtue Ethics on the other hand looks to a person’s moral character and the virtues by which
they act to determine the moral standing of an action or otherwise. A virtue is defined as “a trait
of character, manifested in habitual action, that is good for anyone to have”4. The strength or
weakness of the virtues respective to a person and their moral situation is considered by weighing
them along a metaphorical scale. The scale incorporates the two extremes of a virtue and a person
may move along the scale to either extreme dependent on their consistency and exhibition of the
virtue throughout time. To exhibit a virtue and fall under the moral category, the person must
exemplify that virtue habitually and unwaveringly5. Common virtues considered include, but are
not limited to, charity, compassion, courage, honesty, loyalty, and so on6. Virtue ethics as an ethical
theory is solely person based, focused entirely upon the character, values and intent of the person
doing the act without looking at the actual consequence to those related to the act.
3
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Dubuque,
2015, pp. 92.
4
Miller, Michael Ben. “Virtue Ethics.” 23 Feb. 2017, Tallahassee, Florida State University, Ethical Issues and Life
Choices. Slide 4.
5
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Dubuque,
2015, pp. 175.
6
Miller, Michael Ben. “Virtue Ethics.” 23 Feb. 2017, Tallahassee, Florida State University, Ethical Issues and Life
Choices. Slide 4.
Utilitarianism and its overall focus on the concept of consequentialism as the sole
determinate of morality completely disregards vital components of the ethics of an action, its actor,
and the result; the means by which an action is executed and the motives by which an action is
instigated are not considered under utilitarianism, however they hold a firm and decisive bearing
on the true morality of both a person’s action and its result. Why a person does something and how
they do it go hand in hand when trying to decide whether they are ethical in doing so and whether
the action itself is ethical at the end. In the case of York vs. Story 1963, a utilitarian perspective
would find the result of an unlawful, degrading and ethically unjust action morally sound solely
because the result of the action saw a greater amount of happiness in the majority involved as
opposed to unhappiness in a single person. York vs. Story 1963 was a case dealing with the
defendant, police officer Ron Story of the Chino police department, and the plaintiff, Angelynn
York, in which Story acting under his “police authority” subjected York to a series of unlawful
and degrading photographs (to which she objected) of her in the nude and in indecent positions.
Story claimed that the pictures were necessary to document “bruises”, however York assured him
this was not the case as the bruises would not show in any photograph. Story later told York that
the photos did not come out and that he had discarded them from existence. In actuality, he went
on to make copies and share the nude pictures to the rest of the Chino police department; the
officers involved would then go on to receive a great amount of happiness from this action, leaving
the majority of persons involved happier as a result. York sued the officer and the police
department and won the case7. York’s rights under the law of the United States as well as her
indivisible human rights were violated drastically by Story’s initial act of taking the pictures, and
further when he distributed these pictures to the department. Story’s means of taking the pictures
7
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill Education,
Dubuque, 2015, pp. 106-107.
and distributing them were immoral as they were unlawful and damaging to York. His motives
were malicious as he knowingly and purposefully broke the law and stripped York of her rights
for his own personal gain and happiness. “Utilitarianism requires [an actor] to be as strictly
impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator”8; the fault of utilitarianism is found within
that statement. “Benevolent” is defined as being well-meaning and kind. In no way, did officer
Story act benevolently towards Ms. York by directly lying to her and reducing her to a nude and
indecent state solely for the benefit of himself and those like him at the Chino police department.
His benevolence is non-existent and therefore utilitarianism in this situation will within itself,
implode. Additionally, utilitarianism requires the treatment of all individuals as equal when
considering a moral or immoral situation. If officer Story “needed” to take pictures of a family
member or significant other rather than a random civilian, would he have committed to the same
act to bring about great happiness to his department with the pictures? The virtues of loyalty cannot
be considered, as means and motives do not play a part in determining morality under
utilitarianism. A proponent of utilitarianism will ask in rebuttal to these points, does one person’s
unhappiness outweigh the happiness of many people; “many” reaching amounts anywhere greater
than the amount of the unhappy. The simple fact that more people are made happier with the least
amount of unhappy people in an end result should conquer over ethical thinking and dictate the
actions of moral agents. Story can be viewed as a moral agent as he acted to heighten the happiness
of his entire police department, which significantly surpass the one unhappy Ms. York. Taking the
pictures and leading Ms. York to believe they did not come out and that he had destroyed them
indefinitely was Story’s way of sparing her of any shame, embarrassment, or pain. Anticipating
her to remain unaware of his keeping and distribution of the pictures while the police department
8
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill Education,
Dubuque, 2015, pp. 102.
benefits and enjoys them without her knowing of any potential wrongdoing against her plays to
the utilitarian view that what Story did was indeed moral. Story’s efforts towards increasing the
majority’s happiness while accounting for the exclusion of pain for Ms. York, or at least sacrificing
her to make many others better off in respect to their happiness, is an ethically sound justification
of his actions. Further, in response to the claim that utilitarianism dictates that Story commit his
act in the same fashion even if it were a family member or significant other will be rebutted by a
utilitarian as he/she will maintain that utilitarianism is commonsensical and that such a response
to a scenario is preposterous as it is not a true simulation of the real world.
Virtue ethics is highly susceptible to objection. Virtue ethics is problematic in a similar
sense as is cultural relativism; the virtues of people of different cultures around the globe overlap,
differ, and change, therefore leaving morality of a character’s virtue up to chance and variance,
contingent upon said character’s location in the world and corresponding culturally relevant
virtues. Similarly, virtue ethics is disposed to immorality as moral virtues can be present and
exemplified in an action or situation, but that situation or act could end up being an immoral one.
The goal of virtue ethics to create a state of rules and norms relative to the virtues of character
exhibited by people falls highly prone to abuse and can end up turning a virtue into a vice that
ultimately results in an unethical action and result. Virtue ethics also risks potentially contradicting
one virtue with another, creating a moral quandary that may ultimately result in an unethical action
or outcome. A great deal of thought experiments embody the pitfalls of virtue ethics and present
the vulnerability of this philosophical position to immoral acts and outcomes. For instance, a poor
man who robs a bank for the sake of using that money for moral acts, such as feeding his young
children and sick wife, or acquiring health care for his terminally ill child or mother. It takes
courage to rob the bank, it takes loyalty to use the money for a loved one’s betterment (saving their
life), it takes benevolence, compassion and charity to understand that if the man had not done this,
great pain and loss (potentially death) would come about. Similarly, honesty, patience, prudence,
self-discipline, etc. are all virtues relinquished and abandoned by robbing the bank. Does the man
act on virtue or vice? Does he achieve a greater good and happiness in the end, or has he done
wrong and further escalated his problematic situation? Surely regarding the virtues by which he
acts on, his motives, heart and character lie in the right place as he tries to save life, but the means
by which he has done so ultimately result in an immoral act. A proponent of virtue ethics will
argue that this thought experiment, while potentially valid, does not discredit the validity of virtue
ethics as the theory is commonsensical and maintains that the virtues present at the time of a
person’s action deem its morality. Virtues turned to vices do not apply and therefore if a virtue is
used as a vice then virtue ethics will deem that person’s act to be immoral; this idea appropriates
the correct judgement of morality upon an action.
Utilitarianism operates on the premise of consequentialism, confirming that the outcome
of an action is the determinate factor of the morality or immorality of it. The confirmation of an
act as moral or immoral lies within the happiness ratio of the result; as long as more people are
made happy than are made unhappy, the act is moral. Virtue ethics looks to an actor’s motives,
virtues, upon determining whether he/she has acted in a morally just way or not. As the objections
of both utilitarianism and virtue ethics are analyzed and the counter arguments to those objections
are accounted for, virtue ethics looks to encompass a more holistic and practical approach by
looking towards a person’s means and motives regarding an action, rather than basing the morality
of the action solely on making more people happy with the result of the action than are made
unhappy. By this philosophy, utilitarianism allots a higher susceptibility to immoral and unethical
actions and results as it creates a large grey area for immoral agents to bend utilitarianism to their
liking and use the doctrine as a bypass for committing unethical acts and labeling them as moral.
Therefore, the institution and practice of virtue ethics, when challenged against utilitarianism on
the premise of true and accurate moral deeming, is superior with less disposition to immoral
results.
Works Cited
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill
Education, Dubuque, 2015, pp. 91-97; 102-111; 173-187.
Miller, Michael Ben. “Virtue Ethics.” 23 Feb. 2017, Tallahassee, Florida State University,
Ethical Issues and Life Choices.