Dave Keeler
Utilitarianism - A reason to act
Introduction Many of the ethical theories are fairly reasonable; each argued by one or more individuals for its merits
and criticized for its flaws. Kantianism has some respectable details like unwavering standards of
‘rightness’ and an inability to cave into pressures of context or situation. Hedonism, too has value in it’s
recognizing the importance of pleasure in life. Mill’s utilitarianism is no different in the way it gets torn
apart and passionately defended by others. It is treated as a normal ethical theory by critics and
proponents alike. In contrast to this, Utilitarianism proposes the basis for all ‘moral’ action and all
selfless behavior done in favor of others. I assert Utilitarianism provides the most consistent,
reasonable, logical, noble, and ethical reasoning for behaving, for human to human conduct. Not all of
utilitarianism is universally liked, but it’s inmisinterpretable method of calculating pleasure vs. pain as
outcomes both short and long term make it invaluable for any individual trying to make ‘smart’ or ‘good’
decisions.
Argument -
Utilitarianism makes it possible for one to organize the vast sea of grey that life throws at us. Pleasures
are rankable, measurable. Eating a doughnut will provide temporary joy, but the eventual unhappiness
generated from that doughnut will far outweigh the joy derived from eating the doughnut. Utilitarianism
asserts that we as moral agents ought to allow ourselves to be guided by that decision which yields the
greatest total net happiness for the greatest amount of people, or the greatest total, overall happiness,
the most efficient result of happiness per action.
Some Utilitarian actions will necessitate undesirable courses of action to net better overall results. Once
I was driving home from a concert in Providence, RI, I found that I had taken a wrong turn and I had
driven in the opposite direction from my home for about 80 minutes. That was a painful truth for me to
accept. I did not want to accept that. But, once I had, I was able to produce for myself a greater amount
of total joy by confirming to myself that I was, in fact, finally going the right way, and in finally arriving
home, albeit a little embarrassed and fearful of leaving Aquidneck Island again. By enduring an
undesirable experience, an experience that caused me to experience pain (admitting that I had been lost
for over an hour and had created a great deal more work for myself), I was able to access a greater joy
that I would not have otherwise been able to reasonably attain. Utilitarianism does sometimes ask the
moral agent to give up something that produces a substantial amount of pleasure to produce something
that produces an un-ignorable amount of pleasure, significantly more than the quantity of pain suffered
in giving up whatever pleasure was given up. This can make some people uncomfortable, especially as
the stakes raise, but life shows us that the ability to make judgments on intellectual and moral value
concerning our future and our society that we can improve the lives of others and avoid catastrophe.
Utilitarianism is extremely valuable in helping one choose the lesser of two evils, often a disgusting
scenario to be caught in. The necessity of this originates in the heartless way life asks us to select our
favorite of two loves, and tells us the lesser-loved must be discarded to an extent. In Christopher
Nolan’s Batman: The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne is forced to choose between saving the love of his life
Rachel or the D.A. that protects Gotham’s’ hope for humanity, Bruce chooses to attempt to save Rachel.
I assert this was a utilitarian decision. Wayne knew that had he planned to save the District Attorney, he
would have done a lot of good doing so, protecting the hope, innocence, and safety of Gotham’s people,
certainly a very noble purpose. However, Batman also understands that he himself is an essential cog in
protecting Gotham from corruption, attack, and that if he loses Rachel, he will be crippled in his will to
live and fight for what he believes in. Batman knows that Gotham needs Batman to survive in a manner
that justifies survival, and that Batman needs Rachel to survive in a manner that justifies survival,
therefore, keeping Rachel alive keeps Gotham alive. As many know, Batman inadvertently saves the DA
instead of Rachel because the Joker deceived him, but that is irrelevant. Wayne was likely motivated by
what could keep him alive and kicking so Gotham could stay alive and kicking.
Rebuttal -
Quantifying pleasures or pains is an absurd science. How can one determine what is more pleasurable,
a Boston crème doughnut, or a longer life of health? Maybe it’s an intensely delicious doughnut. Who
are we to say which pleasure is higher and which is lower. Just because one pleasure requires more
work doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better. I could walk to the library and search in an old encyclopedia
for the average lifespan of the lobster, or I could type it into Google and get the same, if not more
accurate data answering my question. Utilitarianism is flawed because it tries to measure something
that is immeasurable.
Response -
There is no ruler for measuring the voltage of joy experienced when eating a doughnut or when being
still alive at 92 and running a 5k. That cannot be comparably measured in the way a machine might try
and compare those two. But looking back to history can help one determine what brings happiness.
Stable societies thrive on relative small gaps between classes, and a people active in searching, learning,
and working. People in history commonly remembered as happy tend to have worked for their
happiness, not simply having been given it. That happiness is unsatisfying and leaves the human spirit
thirsty. Prioritizing the type of pleasure that places effort over instant gratification reliably produces
more pleasure than pain.
Conclusion -
Utilitarianism is totally radical, even Batman practices it, and Batman is totally radical. It provides a
logical system for decision making where no one individual ends up with all the power. No one is selfcentered. No one is going out hurting others. Utilitarians all look out for each other, and for others who
aren’t utilitarians.