I was never really a big fan of utilitarianism. The
main idea behind utilitarianism is that one should always act in a way that
ensures the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.
This statement has three flaws. First, it does not take into account human emotions.
Second, utilitarianism might promote the oppression of the minority. Last, utilitarianism
never offers any way to quantitatively calculate happiness.
Can human beings make perfectly objective decisions?
I really don’t think so. Human beings have empathy. We let our emotions control
our actions. So, if we were put into the trolley situation, then we probably
wouldn’t push the fat man because we would know what it would feel like to be
in his situation. Even if the person who needs to push the fat man, has no idea
who he is, he still will feel that empathy and not push him. This is the
biggest problem with utilitarianism; we humans cannot make objective decisions.
Every decision we make is biased, if we want them to be or not. A completely
accepting and unbiased human being doesn’t exist. In class we talked about this
and the Mills responded by saying that a utilitarian action must not be influenced
by emotion. That’s where my problem comes in; I believe that humans can’t make
decisions without emotions getting in the way. A person who simply calculates
pleasures and “the greatest good,” isn’t really a person, but a robot.
Another flaw that I see in utilitarianism is that it
seems incompatible with human rights. If we have a society where we only act
upon the greatest good for the greatest amount, then we could have a society
where the minority is exploited. If exploitation of the 2% is beneficial to the
98%, then wouldn’t it be fine to oppress that minority? It is causing the
greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
Finally, utilitarianism never offers a definite and
quantitative measurement of happiness. So, it is impossible to calculate the
greatest good for the greatest amount. Since there is no definite way to
measure happiness, most people will differ in their definition and
quantification of happiness. So, different people will perform different
actions when put into the trolley situation or any situation where a decision
has to be made. One interesting point that Dr. J made in class is that if one
tries to quantify happiness it’s always (1+X) and that X is different for every
individual in every situation.
1. Utilitarianism does not take into account human emotions
ReplyDeleteYour claim that utilitarianism doesn’t account for human emotions can be made, but I find your argument for it weak. You state that human beings have empathy, and therefore wouldn’t push the fat man off the bridge. However, as a rational actor with empathy, one would also be able to empathize with the people in the way of the trolley, and their families. One’s ability to empathize would probably work towards pushing the fat man off the bridge, not against it. You also state that humans cannot make decisions without emotions getting in the way. That is a very bold claim to make. I don’t know about you, but I rarely get emotional when choosing which cereal to eat. Although humans are capable of irrational action or being influence by their emotions, that does not mean we aren’t logical, rational creatures. Although we may disagree over what constitutes the greatest pleasure or pain, that doesn’t mean they are completely inaccurate measurements.
2. Utilitarianism oppresses the minority
Utilitarian thought directly address concerns of human rights violations. In so situation is the oppression of another individual what is of the greatest good. A society built on oppression is not a society that is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people. If you would like to make a specific argument for such, you can, but it will not be as strong as the argument for the preservation of individual rights, as these rights are of much higher value than the gains society could make at the loss of those rights.
3. Utilitarianism doesn’t define happiness
Happiness and the greatest good are calculated individually. Utilitarianism doesn’t provide for a calculation for happiness because that’s what humans’ do- and as you so elegantly observed, we are human beings, no robots. While this will inevitably lead to conflict, the criticism that utilitarian thought doesn’t provide a means by which to calculate happiness or pain isn’t a legitimate claim against the logic of Mills work. While I agree that there are certain flaws within the utilitarian morality (it depends on imperfect human actors, and there will be conflict over what is the greatest good), be careful of misinterpreting a thought structure as inherently illogical and as susceptible to flawed use.