Utilitarianism
is a theory that states an action which brings about the greatest good for the
greatest number of people, is morally right. Jeremy Bentham, who devised this
theory, said that this principle will help you come to the decision of whether
an action is good or bad. Bentham saw pleasure as the ultimate goal for ethics.
His aim was to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. John Mills developed this
theory focusing on maximising the general happiness. Taking Bentham’s and
Mill’s statements of utilitarianism into consideration, it asserts that any
action can be justified as long as it brings about more pleasure than pain.
This tells us that sometimes the end does
justify the means. The ‘end’ being the outcome of our actions and the ‘means’
being the actions taken in order to reach this result. This phrase refers to the morality of
an action. It means that the morality of an action is based only on the
outcome, not on the action itself.
If
we followed this idiom, we would be acting on the idea that if you need a
specific outcome, the way we get there is not important. Can the benefits of
something, as the final result, outweigh the harm caused during the process?
This is what causes disputes on whether or not we can justify the means by the
end. Utilitarianism suggests that an action is morally right if it brings about
the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This suggests that the
means (actions) are not important if the outcome produces the greatest good for
the greatest number. We could say that this supports the idea that the ends do justify the means. However, in the
process of reaching an aimed goal, there might be many damages produced,
causing pain. Pain goes against the theory of utilitarianism as the idea is to
minimise pain whilst maximising pleasure. Even if the outcome produces maximum
happiness for many people, what happens to the people hurt in the process? There will always be a minority that are not satisfied as their needs are not met; which is a major flaw in the system of utilitarianism.
There
are many examples of this e.g. abortion. If a woman has fallen pregnant
unintentionally for various reasons such as rape, it is not expected of her to
keep the baby. It could be a very mentally challenging act if she was to give
birth to, and raise the child. In this case, the blameless conclusion would be
to abort this baby. However, the actions that cause the loss of the baby are
seen as morally wrong. Therefore, just because the conclusion of a decision may
be good, the actions that enabled this conclusion may not be so good.
AC
An interesting post - thanks for this! I am fast learning about utilitarianism!
ReplyDeleteIn the case you have suggested, you say, quite rightly about the pain to the mother. However it is not the greater good for the baby surely? How about the future happiness of the baby... and the possible effects? For instance someone who brought great good into the world Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa? Surely to let the baby survive, despite the pain to the mother, could still be the greater good?
great post!
ReplyDeleteabortion is commonly used as an example do you know of any others that are of relevance?
ReplyDeleteHow about euthanasia? If it saves the suffering of many members of the family over the one ill person? Nothing else from medical ethics? Healthcare rationing? Depriving one person for greater good of many?
ReplyDeleteIf pain is going to be caused during gaining pleasure, then surely it is going against UT in some ways.
ReplyDeleteI think that by following UT you are always going to get mixed opinions as it is not a direct approach to finding the utility of an action. Therefore it is more or less impossible to justify whether the 'means' and 'end' are proportional.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePreference UT looks at the views of the minority. Great essay
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post i agree with it. There is always going to be mixed thoughts as to the question on does the ends justify the means.
ReplyDelete