Lecture 6 Objectives: After learning this material you will be able to:
1. Present the basic arguments concerning ethical egoism.
2. Understand Objectivist Ethics and its relationship to laissez-faire
capitalism.
3. Discuss the differences between self-interest and happiness and their
relationship to ethical self-understanding.
4. Understand the issues concerned with the theory of ethics called
Utilitarianism
5. Compare and contrast utilitarianism and the moral community.
6. Reflect on the principle of utility in public policy.
Welcome back! In the last lecture we presented some of the ideas that are
leading us past relativism and toward universalism. We studied whether or not
religion is necessary to morality and tried to understand the differences between
natural law, divine command, and American civil religion. We also explored ideas
concerned with conscience and moral development, compared the affective and
cognitive sides of our conscience and reflected on what it means to be a morally
mature person. In this lecture we will continue to explore some of the ideas that
imply that morality and ethics are based on universal principles. Specifically we
will study ethical egoism and utilitarianism to help us understand how these
theories influence our understanding of ethics.
What is Ethical Egoism?
The first universal principle sounds like subjectivism, but it is not. It simply says
that one ought to do what one perceives is in his or her own best interest. The
universality comes from saying that all people ought to do this all of the time with
no exceptions. “Ethical egoism differs from ethical subjectivism because it is
concerned with a person’s best self-interest. Our best self-interests are those
that are rational. Ethical subjectivism, in contrast, asks only what people desire or
feel is right for them. The ethical egoist identifies happiness with the pursuit of
rational self-interest. Egoism is not the same as egotism. An egotist is a person
who is arrogant, boastful, inconsiderate, and self-centered. Egotistical behavior is
not necessarily in one’s best self-interest because egotists tend to alienate others
and, by doing so, limit their opportunities for happiness” (Judith A. Boss, Ethics
For Life: A Text With Readings, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw
Hill, 2008] p. 238. Hereafter referred to as Boss.) I don’t really like this word
“egoism” because it is so easily confused with egotism, but this is the word that
comes down to us. The main thing to keep in mind is that egoism is rational and
thus thoughtful, whereas egotism is immature and hasty and therefore not
necessarily helpful.
Egoism is really setting itself up as an alternative to altruism, where you put
others before yourself. But this is not the same thing as ignoring others. Even on
planes they remind us that in the case of an emergency we should put our own
oxygen masks on first. We do this so that we can help others and not become a
1
burden to them. Egotism ignores the needs of others while egoism simply
reorders needs so that you take care of yourself first. Even the great “Socrates
acknowledged that it is morally acceptable for people to act in ways that benefit
themselves. In fact, Socrates argues that being just benefits a person more than
being unjust. However, he also argues that justice is good in and of itself,
independent of its benefit to the just man. At this point, Socrates deviates from
the position of the ethical egoist who claims that self-interest is the only moral
reason for choosing one particular course of action. Most moral philosophers, like
Socrates, agree that personal happiness is only one of several goods by which to
judge the morality of an action. Elements of ethical egoism are found in many
ethical theories, including those of Plato, Aristotle, Herbert Spencer, Jeremy
Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and David Hume” (Boss, p. 238.) The question we will
have to face in this lecture is whether or not egoism alone is enough of a
foundation for a universal moral code. Some will say yes and some will say no.
By looking carefully at the arguments you will become a more critical and deeper
thinker.
Egoism is not to be equated with a simple or shallow idea of happiness. There
are times when we put off what would give us the most pleasure in order to work
toward a goal that might be in our best interest. This is another example of how
egoism is not egotism. Just as we saw there was a difference between cultural
relativism and sociological relativism, so there is a difference between ethical
egoism and psychological egoism. “There are two main types of egoism: ethical
egoism and psychological egoism. Ethical egoism is a normative theory about
how things ought to be. We ought to act in the way that is in our own best selfinterest. Psychological egoism, in contrast, is a descriptive theory about how
things are (Boss, p. 240.) To describe how things are is not the same as saying
how things should be. It is very easy to confuse this.
Egoism seems to explain many of our actions, but it struggles with explaining our
motivations, especially for actions that seem to be self-destructive. “On the
surface, it may appear that psychological egoism is an airtight theory, but the
problem is that psychological egoists will not allow any explanations that do not
fit into their theory. No matter what happens, they explain it as an example of
egoism: People are always motivated by self-interest; therefore, whatever people
do must have been motivated by self-interest. Such circular reasoning, or
begging the question, adds nothing to our explanation of human motivation”
(Boss, p. 245.)
Sometimes people do very self-sacrificing things such as putting their own life in
danger to save the life of someone else. It is difficult to say that this is motivated
by self-interest when the greatest interest we can be said to have is selfpreservation. Psychological egoists will say that even here we might be more
interested in feeling good about ourselves than in helping another. They always
find a way to bring it back to self-interest. Many times this makes sense but
sometimes it seems like a bit of a stretch.
2
Psychological Egoism
Psychological egoism gives an explanation that allows us to understand why
some people do things to themselves that are actually harmful rather than in their
own best interest. They do so because the immediate benefit seems to outweigh
any future benefit. The correct way to change or modify destructive behavior
according to egoists is to simply inform and educate. Once people understand
where their good actually is, they will make the rational choice to change their
behavior. This sounds correct, but we will see that there are actually problems
with this, especially in regard to such things as egoism.
It is very difficult to adequately understand motivation and inner movements of
human will. We can look at outer actions and speculate, but it is much different to
then speculate further with egoism as our only guide. “Our motives for performing
an action and the consequences of that action are not always the same. People
like Mother Teresa may derive great satisfaction from their altruistic actions, but
this is not necessarily what motivates them to help others in the first place. It is
even difficult to figure out our own motives sometimes! Consider how often you
have replied, when asked why you did something, ‘I don’t know’” (Boss, p. 245.)
When we are very little we see the world only in terms of ourselves.
Psychologists can study this in child development. One of the things they look for
is growth and development as a child matures. Egoism explains many of a child’s
motivations. There is no question about that. The real question is whether or not
it is an adequate explanation for adult motivation.
Ayn Rand: Objectivist Ethics and Rational Ethical Egoism
An American writer made ethical egoism popular. For example, you may have
read her books The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. “The current popularity of
ethical egoism has been fueled by the work of American novelist, screenwriter,
and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Rand defended a version of ethical
egoism that she called ‘objectivist ethics’” (Boss, p. 247.) Rand grew up in Russia
under Communism and became disillusioned with its repressive form of
government. She was a great admirer of American freedom and independence.
She thought the freedom we enjoy to find success or failure was the best system
under which to practice ethical egoism. While some people saw the American
celebration of self-interest as a problem, she saw it as one of our crowning
glories.
Rather than a government that made people dependent on one another (her
perception of communism) Rand wanted a government that left people free to
make something of themselves or fall apart. When you hear “rags to riches”
stories you can see her point. She was also wary of the role of religion in forming
our ethics because religion pushes us toward altruism rather than egoism. Rand
could not see religious values as part of the real world, rather they were imposed
3
on the world. “According to Rand, there is no source of values other than
objective reality - hence, her term objectivist ethics. Rand maintained that we
value that which helps us survive, and that which helps us survive is what is in
our own self-interest” (Boss, pp. 247-248.) Religion was too idealistic for Rand. It
seemed to deal with an imaginary world, not the world of survival of the fittest.
As a philosopher she was not simply interested in raw self-interest, but in
thoughtful, rational self-interest. This is her strong point and the most convincing
part of her argument. “Rand adopted what first appears to be an Aristotelian view
of human nature; she argued that reason sets us apart from all other species.
According to both Rand and Aristotle, reason is essential for our survival as
humans. Because reason is necessary for survival, reason has moral value for
humans. Therefore, we ought to act in a rational manner. According to Rand, to
behave irrationally is to behave immorally” (Boss, p. 248.) The universal value
then is rationality rather than the relativism we studied earlier in this course.
Humans are rational creatures and therefore our morality needs to be based on
this inherent quality rather than on religious faith or on a “if it feels good, do it”
mentality. Both of these alternative approaches are not rational according to
Rand.
But Rand did not follow Aristotle in his thinking about ethics. While they both
agreed that humanity was rational by nature, Aristotle taught that we were also
social creatures by nature and Rand did not agree with this. “Rand, in contrast,
regarded humans as fundamentally solitary individuals, each pursuing his or her
own personal self-interest. Unlike Aristotle, who views the state, rather than the
individual, as a self-sufficient whole, she argued that ‘there is no such entity as
society, only individual men.’ Her ideal society, or more accurately ‘collection of
individual men,’ is an atomistic society where each of us must live and work only
for ourselves and never for others. This type of society, she claimed, is the
objectively real world - the only world in which we can prove our value and find
rational happiness. Rand’s rational virtues, consequently, all involve the
cultivation of individuality rather than social virtues. Her concept of rationality
counsels us to
1. Be independent. Live by the work of your own mind.
2. Have integrity. Don’t sacrifice your convictions to the opinions of others.
3. Be honest. Don’t fake reality.
4. Be just. Neither seek nor give that which is unearned or undeserved.
Rand assumed that any rational person would accept her list of virtues and what
she called the supreme value of productive work” (Boss, p. 249.)
We will see how each of these virtues plays very well into aspects of America,
especially our economic system. One aspect of capitalism, for example, is the
notion that if I work hard and make money for purely selfish reasons my wealth
will still end up helping people, but it will do so indirectly rather than directly.
Sometimes this is known as the trickledown theory of economics. Wealthy people
4
invest their money in a new business, this business provides work for people,
which then allows them to advance in our society.
Rand recognized that sometimes it was in our interest to help others, but only
when they could help us in return. There had to be a fair trade. Anything less
than a fair trade would not be just and thus would actually be an insult to the
dignity of the other person. “Rand disagreed with sociobiologists that altruism can
be compatible with our rational self-interests. Altruism involves self-sacrifice or
giving without expectation of return, therefore, altruism is immoral. Christian
ethics, in contrast, teaches us that selfishness and pride are the original sins and
that altruism is a virtue. Rand turned this equation upside down. She maintained
that centuries of being taught that we must live for others has eroded our sense
of self-esteem and left us feeling guilty and full of self-hatred. For her, altruism is
the equivalent of the Christian original sin, and selfishness is the greatest virtue.
Altruism and compassion are vices, she argued, because all altruism is based on
self-sacrifice and demands by others to give them something that they have
neither earned nor deserve. Altruists are willing to sacrifice their lives and
interests to benefit others. This attitude not only turns the giver into an object; it
also turns the receiver into a parasite. For this reason, Rand referred to an
altruist as a ‘second-hander’” (Boss, p. 251.) We have heard this argument in
modern politics regarding programs such as welfare. Some people call welfare a
handout while others call it a hand up.
Laissez-Faire Capitalism
We often think of ethics as very personal, that is, it has to do with our own
personal choices and behavior. But this is not entirely true, because it is possible
to analyze not just people but systems in regards to how moral they are. That is
why colleges are offering courses in subjects such as business ethics. Ethicists
are interested not just in how people treat one another but in how economic
systems treat people. “Scottish economist and moral philosopher Adam Smith
(1723-1790) laid out the foundations of laissez-faire capitalism in his book Wealth
of Nations. The best society, he argued, is one where everyone is allowed the
freedom to pursue their own self-interest in the marketplace. Smith’s book, which
was published in 1776, had a profound effect on the founding fathers of the
United States” (Boss, p. 251.) Capitalism is a great system of competition that
plays right into the survival of the fittest mentality. Especially back in the early
days of rapid industrialization, it was a very abusive system that was attacked by
Karl Marx and other famous thinkers.
Capitalism provided a way for the poor to become rich, but it also left a lot of
people’s lives torn apart in the process. Marx did not imagine that capitalism
could be self-correcting over time. For example, owners of factories did not
hesitate in hiring children and paying them very low wages and then getting rid of
them with no compensation if they were injured. But this changed with the birth of
the labor movement and unions that gained for workers some rights such as
5
healthcare, pensions and worker’s compensation. In the process, some people
would argue, capitalism became more moral. Would Rand agree?
This is an important question, not just historically but in our modern world. We
are still debating whether or not we can find a system of economics that does as
much good for people in general as it does for specific individuals. “There is no
doubt that capitalism, as an economic system, has produced massive wealth and
technological advancement. However, because capitalism is successful in raising
the overall wealth and productivity, does that mean it is moral? Both Marxist and
liberation ethicists argue that it is possible to have a successful economic system
that raises the gross national product and productivity but that is nevertheless
unjust” (Boss, p. 254.) This is what we now will study.
A Marxist Analysis of Laissez-Faire Capitalism
Sometimes it is difficult to hear Karl Marx with an open mind because he is
associated with the corruptions of communism. But he was not responsible for
what people did with his ideas, which advocated socialism rather than
communism and advocated a gradual process of change rather than a brutal
suppression of people. It helps us hear him when we recognize that the
capitalism we see around us today is much tamer than the capitalism that
horrified him in the factory towns of England nearly two hundred years ago.
Perhaps his criticism helped us adapt our own system to be a little gentler with
people. “Karl Marx did agree with the capitalists that people can find fulfillment in
productive work; however, he also believed, like Aristotle, that we are primarily
socially productive beings. The egoism of capitalism, therefore, was to Marx one
of its greatest evils. Marxists claim that, rather than promoting the interests of the
majority, capitalism benefits only a few at the expense of the many. Ethical
egoism, therefore, is not a philosophy of ‘humans qua humans,’ as Rand
claimed, but, according to Marxists, a philosophy of the elite” (Boss, p. 254.) A
trickledown theory says that everyone benefits from a system such as capitalism.
But is it true? This is where we need our critical thinking skills and we need to
search for the data and facts that either support such an assertion, deny it, or
qualify it in some other way.
Rand wrote that justice was a matter of trading. I scratch your back if you scratch
mine. That is, we help others only when it is in our self-interest to do so. This
means as human individuals we are traders. “Ethical egoists seem to assume
that everyone is in a position to be a trader. They do not question the assumption
that certain people deserve to control the wealth because of their socioeconomic
status. Marxists, on the other hand, point out that people’s talents and their ability
to trade skills and goods in a free-market economy vary enormously. Poverty,
lack of access to resources, poor health, and social discrimination are only a few
of the factors that place certain people at a distinct disadvantage. Women, in
particular, have suffered in a capitalist system because much of women’s labor,
6
especially that which is based on caring and communal values, is unremunerated
and undervalued. Patriarchal social structures also limit women’s opportunities
and access to resources and high-paying jobs” (Boss, p. 255.) In an ideal world
the trading system would work. But do we live in an ideal world? So much of
ethical egoism comes down to trying to discern the nature of individual versus
social responsibility.
If you have studied history you know some of the problems of communism. One
of the big issues has to do with motivation. For example, what motivates a
person to work harder and do more difficult things if they cannot move ahead in
their society and in their economic station? This problem was never solved. Rand
was quick to pick up on this, and many of her criticisms of communism were as
important as the Marxist critique of capitalism. “Both Rand’s theory of ethical
egoism and the critics of capitalism offer important insights. Rand emphasized
the importance of individual responsibility; Marxists and liberation ethicists
remind us of the importance of social responsibility. However, an adequate moral
theory must consider and integrate both the individual and social aspects of
morality. Although capitalists are not necessarily greedy or exploitive, an egoist
ethics offers no reason or incentive for people not to pursue their own ends at the
expense of others. On the other hand, an ethical theory like Marxism, which for
the most part ignores the individual, can just as surely create a sense of
alienation by swallowing up individual interests and goals into the concept of the
good of the community” (Boss, p. 258.)
The problem with all of the great systems, whether in philosophy or economics, is
that they tend to become insistent that their way is the only way. To solve the
problems of our world we our going to have to find a middle way between such
extremes. For example, some forms of socialism have not turned into huge
systems of authoritarian government that takes away human freedoms, rights,
and initiative. Some forms of capitalism have become much friendlier to people
with generous benefit packages, adequate compensation, and profit sharing
programs so that those actually producing the wealth can enjoy some of it as
well.
Egoism, Self-Esteem, and Moral Development
Earlier I mentioned that child psychologists recognize the motivations of young
children as being based on their own self-interest. A baby crying in the middle of
the night does not care if you are tired or not! But we also hope children will
expand their circle of moral concern to include not only their own interests, but
the interests of others as well. Is this idealistic or is it based on the evidence of
what it means to be human?
It is true that we need enough egoism to care for ourselves and make the most of
our lives. But is there more we can grow into? “By pointing out the importance of
self-love, Rand provided an important corrective to moral ideologies that glorify
7
self-sacrifice and putting the needs of others first. However, by universalizing
egoism as a moral principle - rather than seeing it as a stage in our moral
development - we remain forever stunted at the preconventional level of moral
reasoning. Indeed, most egoists are trapped in their own self-interest - shut away
from the richness of the wider moral community. Egoism and concern for our own
well-being become integrated into the higher stages of moral development rather
than being discarded when we move on to later stages. Egoism, in other words,
is not the goal of morality, as ethical egoists claim; it is the seed from which our
moral community grows to become more and more inclusive” (Boss, p. 260.) The
best image of this was used in an earlier lecture when we discussed the idea of
moral communities and studied the process of how some people and animals are
included in our moral community and some are excluded. One of the things we
saw was that these circles seem to expand as we grow more mature and see the
world with more wisdom.
There is an alternative to communism and capitalism that is trying to offer
another option when it comes to determining our moral community. It is called
communitarianism. “The primary challenge to ethical egoism in the United States
and the go-it-alone liberalism that it supports comes from a philosophy known as
communitarian. While strands of communitarianism are found in many traditional
moral philosophies, such as those of Aristotle and Confucius, modern
communitarianism developed primarily as a response to the individualism of
American liberalism. Libertarians, like ethical egoists, believe that the best
society is one where people are free to pursue their rational self-interests.
Communitarians, on the other hand, regard the democratic community as the
basis of ethics. The human community - which encompasses community
decisions, social conventions, and historic and religious traditions - rather than
the individual, defines the moral community” (Boss, p. 262.)
In order to make sense of this argument we have to answer one of the
fundamental philosophical questions: What does it mean to be human? Are we
basically loners or are we basically social creatures? How we answer this
question determines to a great extent how we perceive our responsibility. Modern
democratic societies have placed a great deal of emphasis on individualism. But
there are alternative views. Many of the great mystical systems, for example,
teach that our sense of being alone, individual and separate from others is one of
the great delusions that needs to be overcome through spiritual practices such as
meditation. Obviously this understanding would lead to a very different picture of
the world.
Too much community is almost as much a problem as too much individualism.
Once again we see the problems of relying on extremes. “Substituting a sense of
community for individual rights does not guarantee that everyone will be part of
the moral community or even that those who are will be treated with equal
respect. However, neither does ignoring community and defining the moral
community purely in individualist terms assure that all people will be treated with
8
respect. Instead, we need a moral theory that can take both individual dignity
and the value of community into account” (Boss, p. 262.) So we see that Rand
and ethical egoism need to have a place at our ethical table, but at the same time
we need to continue our search for universal values that are not so narrow.
Before we move on to utilitarianism I want look at some specific problems that
must be addressed by those who adhere to Rand’s philosophy.
Critique of Ethical Egoism
First, most philosophers agree that humans are all searching for happiness.
What is in dispute is not happiness but the definition of happiness. “James
Rachels argues that by having individual happiness as its only goal, ethical
egoism becomes self-defeating. This phenomenon is known as the hedonist
paradox. If we try to pursue only our own happiness, we are often left feeling
frustrated and alienated. Individual happiness seems to be more often the byproduct of other activities than a goal in itself” (Boss, pp. 265-266.) It is one of the
ironies of life that when we aim directly at happiness we often miss it. We also
must address the issue that some of the happiest people are those who live lives
of service to others, almost the complete opposite of what ethical egoism states.
Next we face the problem of how we advocate a universal way of life that sets
people up in competition with one another. “Ethical egoism cannot be
universalized. If people want to maximize their self-interest, then it is not in their
best interest to have ethical egoism universalized because their self-interest
might conflict with someone else’s. Thus, ethical egoism cannot consistently be
promoted as a universal moral theory” (Boss, p. 266.)
If two people want the same thing, how do they both follow this dictate to follow
their own self-interest? “Ethical egoism provides no guidelines for resolving
conflicts of interest between people. In a world of limited resources and
opportunities, people’s self-interests sometimes come into conflict. When this
happens, ethical egoism is unable to provide any moral guidelines for resolving
the conflict” (Boss, p. 266.) In other words, to arrive at an understanding of
fairness you have to include others, otherwise it is simply each person for him or
herself and there is nothing stopping individuals from using extreme measures to
get someone “out of the way.”
If everyone is suppose to follow their own self-interest then what makes my
interests more important than theirs? “Ethical egoism is arbitrary. While it may be
true, as Rand claims, that we cannot truly value others without first valuing
ourselves, it does not follow from this that we should habitually put our interests
above those of others. By doing so the ethical egoist violates the principle that all
people have equal dignity” (Boss, p. 266.) If all people do not have equal dignity
then why does anyone have it, including me?
9
On an even playing field competition can be fun and even helpful at times, but we
know that in fact the playing fields of our world are not level. “Ethical egoism, like
social Darwinism and ethical subjectivism, allows the powerful to exploit the
weak. Ethical egoism, and the system of laissez-faire capitalism that it extols,
may be attractive to those who are rich and have the power to pursue their own
self-interest. The devastating effects of this ideology on the people and nations
that are not in positions of economic power, however, are becoming more and
more evident with the increasing accumulation of wealth and social goods in the
hands of fewer and fewer people and the destruction of the environment in the
name of economic progress” (Boss, p. 267.) We see this in modern politics being
discussed when a company moves its jobs overseas to a cheaper labor market.
This movement of jobs is happening more and more often in a global world. If I
can get someone in another company to make my product for far less why
should I not do it? There is almost no reason, if you rely on ethical egoism
because you are only looking out for your own good rather than the good of
others. Some even argue that it benefits the poor in other countries by providing
them with jobs. But this too is not clear and that is why we need to ask good
questions and listen to the evidence.
What Is Beyond the Ego?
What are we to do if the great religious and wisdom traditions are right that we
are more than our ego? “Ethical egoism fails to take into account that we are
social beings who exist only as part of a wider community. We do not exist as
isolated individuals who can act independently of social constraints. There are
times when self-denial may be called for, such as saving a drowning child without
first negotiating to see what is in it for us. And it may sometimes be right to
pursue our own self-interest. But, in general, the right path consists of choosing
the medium between these two extremes. The association of the moral life and
happiness with seeking the mean is also found in Aristotle’s philosophy. The idea
that morality does not require putting our interests aside but balancing our needs
with those of others is also a central theme in Carol Gilligan’s theory regarding
moral reasoning and moral maturity” (Boss, p. 267.) The great wisdom traditions
agree that we want happiness, but they all insist that our happiness depends on
understanding what it means to be in right and harmonious relationship with
other people as well as with nature.
If it is true that we all start out as egos concerned only with ourselves, isn’t it also
true that this is only a stage - the lowest stage - of our development? “Ethical
egoism inhibits moral development. Rand believed that capitalism would
encourage people to be their moral best. However, studies have shown that this
is not the case. A business education in the United States and the socialization
process within U.S. business firms actually tend to inhibit and even decrease a
person’s level of moral reasoning rather than attract people of high moral
integrity. Indeed, people who use higher levels of moral reasoning have a poorer
10
chance of rising to upper management positions in U.S. business firms” (Boss, p.
267.)
There is a fallacy discussed in critical thinking called the wishful thinking fallacy.
This means we take something as true because we wish it to be true rather than
because we have evidence backing up its truth. Just because we want to believe
capitalism brings out the best in people - or communism for that matter - we need
to read and study and look at the evidence. Is it true?
In a global world we become ever more aware of other religions and philosophies
that are questioning the development of Western ethics. “Ethical egoism is based
on a false premise regarding the source of happiness. In many Eastern
philosophies, the moral life is not identified with denying the individual self or ego
nor with pursuing rational self-interest or productive labor. Many schools of
Eastern ethics, in particular, emphasize overcoming egoism and self-interest as a
virtue and the path to true happiness. Moral maturity is viewed in terms of going
beyond the self - the diffusing of the one or individual ego into the One, the I am
into the I AM. According to these philosophies, we are all part of the same web
of life - the same great ‘self’ - rather than separate, isolated beings” (Boss, p.
268.) Many native traditions are also telling us that the destruction of the
environment is directly related to the human belief that we are separate. Always
we have to ask ourselves if our assumptions about reality are true or not.
All of these criticisms demonstrate that ethical egoism has some deadly
weaknesses. That does not mean we cannot learn a great deal from it and how it
sees the world. There is a great deal I admire about Ayn Rand. It is a good thing,
it seems to me, to work hard to develop our talents and make the most of our
lives and not simply wait around for someone to give it to us. There is a lot to be
said for thinking for ourselves, making our own lives and not being so dependent
on others to make us happy and fulfilled. All of this makes sense to me. I just
don’t think it answers all of my ethical questions. I need more insight and
wisdom! And one place we can look for more ethical wisdom is the tradition
known as utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Jeremy Bentham headed the utilitarians and was followed by a number of others,
the most significant being John Stuart Mill. We will look at both of these
philosophers. Bentham was an eccentric fellow who trained to be an attorney, but
never practiced law. He spent most of his life in intense study and writing about
legal reform, though he made little effort to publish what he wrote. When he died
he left tens of thousands of manuscript pages. He also left a large estate to the
newly established University College in London, which was contingent on his
being able to attend all board meetings by being mummified upon his death. And
until this day his mummified body still sits in a cabinet in a main corridor of the
college!
11
What were the utilitarians trying to do? They wanted to apply the principles of
empiricism (which worked so well in science), to ethical and political issues.
Utilitarians “concluded that all theory, including moral and political theory, must
be grounded in empirical fact. [Bentham] claimed that in the case of the human
sciences this fact would have to be the primacy of the pleasure principle” (Donald
Palmer, Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made
Lighter, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 2006] p. 268.
Hereafter referred to as Palmer). What does this mean?
It means that when you look at all of the things that motivate us in our lives and
break down these reasons as far as you can go, you discover that we are trying
to find pleasure and avoid pain. The ancient Greek philosophy Epicureanism
taught a similar theory, called hedonism, claiming that only pleasure should have
value. However, Bentham’s contribution is that he taught “that hedonism doesn’t
have to be egoistic; it can be social. That is, one can (and should) be motivated
to act in the name of the pleasure of others as well as for one’s own pleasure.
His social hedonism is reflected in his most famous maxim, “the greatest amount
of happiness for the greatest number” (where “happiness” is defined in terms of
pleasure” (Palmer, p. 268). Pleasure isn’t simply sensual enjoyment. Primarily it
is the absence of pain and anxiety.
Bentham also connected this with a democratic idea of each person having one
vote, which means that we each have the chance to give our version of what
brings us pleasure and happiness. It is interesting that this ethical theory is
sometimes called “consequentialism” because the emphasis is on the
consequences of our actions. It is the results that count, it is the results that
make something morally right or wrong. This works out so that Bentham’s ethical
theory is the exact opposite to Kant’s categorical imperative. For Kant the value
of a moral act depended on the rational question of whether our acts could be
made into universal laws for all people to follow all of the time. In other words, it
was our intentions that counted, not the results of our actions. We will be looking
at Kant’s theory of ethics in a future lecture.
Both Kant and Bentham give us some important clues to how to make important
decisions, but they also both leave problems. What we really need is an ethics
that incorporates both views, which is, in fact, what most of us do whether we
know it or not. For example, (to jump ahead) Kant taught that we have a moral
duty to do only what we would have other people do and therefore we should not
lie because we do not want others to lie. But what if lying could prevent more
harm than not? Even then we had to follow the rule and not lie. This becomes a
problem for some of us when the rule seems to take precedence over seeking
the good, the whole reason for such moral rules in the first place. Here the
utilitarians come to our rescue, because for them the key issue is the
consequences. If our telling the truth will lead to the harm and unhappiness of
others then we have the moral obligation to lie.
12
However, this doesn’t always work either. For instance, imagine that you were to
visit a friend in the hospital and some doctors kidnapped you. They were going to
kill you and remove your organs to save several people who would die without
them. What then? Utilitarianism, looking at this from the point of view of “the
greatest happiness for the greatest number” might conclude that your death
would benefit the larger number and therefore it is O.K. We actually make these
kind of decisions all of the time when it comes to sending soldiers to war, using a
medicine that will benefit the many even though it may cause harm to a few. Yet
most of us would not think a person should be killed to harvest his or her organs
and our principle for this would not be utilitarianism, but Kant’s categorical
imperative that we would not want all people killing each other to harvest organs
because eventually there would be no one left!
Bentham taught that utilitarian ethics could be looked at mathematically and he
called this “The calculus of felicity.” One had to study pleasure scientifically and if
one did then you would come up with seven questions representing seven
categories: “1. Intensity: How intense is the pleasure? 2. Duration: How long
does the pleasure last? 3. Certainty: How sure is the pleasure? 4. Proximity: How
soon will the pleasure be experienced? 5. Fecundity: How many more pleasures
will follow in the train of this pleasure? 6. Purity: How free from pain is this
pleasure? And 7. Extent: How many people will experience the pleasure?”
(Palmer, p. 270). By practicing this method one would find that the process
becomes more intuitive as time goes on. Next time you don’t want to do
something, think about these seven questions and see how it works! Anytime we
go through the pros and cons of an argument we are doing a version of ‘the
calculus of felicity.” How does it work with marriage? Bentham asked himself
these questions about whether he should remain a bachelor or get married. He
decided to get married.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
John Stuart Mill was raised on Bentham’s philosophy because his father, James
Mill, was Bentham’s follower and a fairly important utilitarian philosopher in his
own right. His father, who kept John Stuart Mill away from boys his own age,
educated him and kept him learning and focused on intellectual accomplishments
to such an extent that he later admitted in his autobiography that his emotions
and body were neglected and led directly to a serious breakdown when he was
21. He spent his life in an enormous intellectual labor writing many books and
countless articles and reviews on many subjects in addition to philosophy. He
had a long term and important relationship with a married woman named Mrs.
Taylor who coauthored some of his writings. When her husband died they
married in 1851. He was active in politics and advocated for women’s suffrage,
the interests of the laboring class, and land reform in Ireland.
13
Having been raised on utilitarian ideas, Mill found some problems with them. For
example, think about some of the things we in an ethics course hold of value,
especially the study of philosophy. What if we asked the voters of a school
district if they wanted to subsidize the study of philosophy or receive a tax break?
Well, according to the one vote per person rule, the greatest happiness of the
greater number might very well lead to the end of philosophy. Mill was very
worried about this and thought we might as a society sink to the lowest common
denominator.
Mill came to the conclusion that some pleasures are more desirable and more
valuable than others and only those who have knowledge of both will be allowed
to vote. If someone were to propose that today, he or she would be accused of
being elitist. This is a problem, but so is sinking to the lowest common
denominator. Our own country is struggling with this issue today in terms of
economic issues and debating how much to support certain social programs
such as education, versus the need to cut the tax burden on people. Is it realistic
to vote on all of these issues and is everyone’s vote, informed or not, of equal
value?
Quantitative to Qualitative
Mill claimed that he was only changing the quantitative nature of utilitarianism to
a qualitative measure. But he was accused of abandoning the pleasure principle,
undermining the democratic principle, and becoming an elitist. “For what it is
worth, Mill’s doctrine did leave us some questions to ponder: In a democracy,
must the “one person, one vote” principle apply at all levels of decision making?
And if so, are democracy and higher culture compatible?” (Donald Palmer,
Looking at Philosophy, p. 273). If people will support football stadiums but not art
galleries should we just accept that as the democratic way, or do we want to find
another way of allocating funds? None of these are easy questions and their
difficulty helps us understand why living in a democracy can be so tough. There
are many competing demands!
In Mill’s most famous book, On Liberty, he “outlined his doctrine of laissez-faire
(hands off!). There were certain spheres where the government had no business
interfering in the lives of its citizens. Mill’s “principle of liberty” states, “… the only
purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Palmer, p.
273). Mill thought people should be as free as possible in their personal lives and
only restricted in their public lives. This sounds good on the surface, but one
does not have to go very deep before we see why society still struggles with
these questions.
For example, I do not ride motorcycles, but I thought it was kind of strange when
the government said bikers must wear helmets. The same goes for seat belt
laws. Why should the government tell me what chances I can take or not take? It
14
made no sense to me until someone pointed out that the injuries caused to
people who don’t wear seatbelts and helmets end up costing tax payers a great
deal of money in medical care and lost wages and productivity. And this is true of
so many of our activities. The problem with Mill’s love of liberty is knowing where
to draw the line between our public and private lives. You can see why I think
ethics is the most difficult area of philosophy to apply, if not to study.
Mill also influenced economics. His hands off policy basically said the
government should stay out of regulation and control, unless required by some
great good, and instead let the law of supply and demand take its natural course.
Nevertheless, he did feel that there were some things not to be left to the
marketplace, things that were for the overall good “the want of which is least felt
where the need is greatest. This is peculiarly true of those things which are
chiefly useful as tending to raise the character of human beings. The uncultivated
cannot be competent judges of cultivation” (Palmer, p. 275). And there is the rub.
How do we promote equality and at the same time only have the educated and
the informed take part in the voting? And this gets to the heart of secrecy in
government. To reveal secrets might bring great harm, and yet to keep secrets
means that we, the average voter, cannot make a competent decision about
things such as whether we should go to war or not. So what do we do?
Reflections on Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism can be criticized from a number of angles. If you push it too far, it
seems to go against ‘common sense’ morality. By that I mean those things that
seem obvious to us, such as the doctor not killing healthy people to harvest
organs. Of course, there is a problem here too, which is that what seems like
commonsense to me may not seem like commonsense to someone else. This is
why we look for ethical rules in the first place.
Another difficulty is in how we determine what happiness is. It seems that
Bentham thought there might be a "calculus of happiness," some quantitative
way to determine what is best, but John Stuart Mill and many others have shown
that that is not possible. And what do we do if it gives someone pleasure to hurt
others? Do they have that right or is that not fair?
Then there is the problem of predicting consequences. We do have our past
experience to guide us, but nevertheless the future is still unknown. Utilitarians
might argue that they are not required to know exact consequences, but simply
must make the best decision possible given the knowledge that they do have.
There is also a problem with dealing only with consequences and not with
intentions. What if someone intends to hurt others but mistakenly helps them?
Does that make their action O.K.? When we train our children we teach them to
follow our ethical values. But we are hoping that at some time their maturity will
15
be at such a level that they will buy into these ethics not simply to escape
punishment, but because they care about how their actions affect us and others.
One last example: What about human rights? If something like slavery or the
torture argument we have been hearing about were to the benefit of the majority,
utilitarianism would seem to give it approval. What is one to do? Utilitarians argue
that justification of slavery or torture would require unrealistically high benefits to
justify the direct and extreme sufferings of the victims. It also excludes the
indirect impact of inhumane policies; for example, general anxiety and fear might
increase for all if human rights are commonly ignored.
Summary
Utilitarianism does not work very well for me when it stands alone. But as
discussed earlier regarding Rand’s ethical egoism theory, it works very well as
one tool among many that we might want to use and have at our disposal.
Having some quantitative questions to ask makes sense some of the time, but
we want also to find a way to bring qualitative values into the picture.
In our quest to find some universal values on which to build ethics we have
looked at ethical egoism and utilitarianism. Both help fill out our picture, but it
seems we need further help. In the next lecture we will study deontology and
rights ethics, two more attempts to find a solution to solving ethical problems and
living a virtuous life. In the meantime, see if you can define happiness!
Bibliography:
Judith A. Boss, Ethics For Life: A Text With Readings, Fourth Edition, [New York,
New York: McGraw Hill, 2008]
Donald Palmer, Looking at Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy
Made Lighter, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 2006]
Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, [New York, New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1945]
Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That
Have Shaped Our World View, [New York, New York: Harmony Books, 1991]
Bruce Waller, You Decide! Current Debates in Contemporary Moral Problems,
[New York, New York: Pearson, 2006]
16