The objection to be considered in this essay will be that Utilitarianism is too psychologically demanding. The reply that I will be focusing on will be that an individual can do as Utilitarianism demands because he has free will. The paper contains several examples of factors that prevent one from exerting their free will in order to satisfy the requirements of Utilitarianism. It will list many different examples that will serve to fortify the defence of the objection.

For example, suppose that we were placed in a situation where we were stuck on a trolley rocketing towards five innocent people, and there was a switch located in the trolley could save them. However, flipping the switch would cause the trolley to transfer on to a track containing your loved one. There is no way to stop the trolley, and no way to save all six people. Utilitarianism says that you should save the five people. However, it would be incredibly difficult for us as humans to make this decision because the loved one is someone we value as being more important than these five complete strangers. This example shows how Utilitarianism is often too psychologically demanding. Mill writes “It is often affirmed that Utilitarianism renders men cold and unsympathizing…”1. This heartless character could be a result of the impossible choices that Utilitarianism presents to us. One reply made to this objection is that humans have free will, which allows them to do as Utilitarianism demands. In the example of the trolley, the person could overcome their own love for the person in order to perform the greater good, as we have no restrictions on our actions. Even if the loved was the most important person to them, they have the choice to ignore this and save the strangers. However, there are several factors that prevent us from exerting our free will to make these choices.

The example above describes a situation where Predominant Egoism is occurring. The term Predominant Egoism refers to the fact that people usually act to benefit themselves, which in turn includes those close to us, such as loved ones. This is a phenomenon that is encoded into our minds and cannot be removed. It is incredibly difficult for us as humans to overcome this self-preserving nature that is rooted in our DNA. Another factor that causes our minds distress is the reactions that other people may have towards us. One would wonder if they would be labelled as a murdered for killing the five, or would he return to his family only to be shunned by them for carelessly sacrificing his loved one? The perceptions of other people are another important factor that contributes to the difficulty of the situation. In a similar situation, the individual would have to consider whether or not he would be punished for making this choice. He would wonder if he would be punished for their murders upon exiting the trolley, or if he would be forgiven. An important thing to consider when talking about the Trolley example is the amount of physical stress that would be placed on the individual, as well as the mental stress. Forcing him to make a choice that has a negative result regardless of which choice he makes could be too powerful of a stress and cause him to make a decision that is founded on the individual being too stressed to consider the situation clearly.

Human beings are each engineered differently. We are raised and grow completely independently from each other. Due to this, each of us may have a conflicting view of the right choice to make. The trolley example is ambiguous in that there is no right answer, yet many individuals observing this example would believe that they are making the right choice. However, they may be influenced by those around them. Perhaps when exerting their free will, they are making choices based on what others have said to them. This is a psychological phenomenon that is a common cause for unintentional plagiarism. We often recall information read earlier and believe it to be our own, when the origin of this information was from another source. Knowing this, how is the individual in the trolley able to be certain that the choices he is making originate from his own mind, and not the minds of others? Supposing that he is consciously aware of this fact, it would be very difficult for him to make a decision without fear of retribution from the society around him. The original creator of the choice could very well make a comment, and the individual involved in the example may become stressed out that he has made a choice that is not his own. This is a good example of how free will is not a concrete thing, and can be distorted.

The issue brought up by many individuals in our society is the extent to which we still maintain free will. Many people would argue that our free will has been restricted by the government. In the trolley example, if you had knowledge that you would be punished for killing your loved one to a higher extent than killing the five people, would you break the laws in order to follow your free will? Utilitarianism says that you should, but you would face the dilemma of punishment, which is something that we all wish to avoid. It is ridiculous to claim that free will could prevail in this situation, where making the choice that you wish could result in severe consequences. Therefore, based on the type of closely knit societies we live in, it is apparent that our free will has been suppressed to such an extent that it is unable to overcome any of the factors listed above.

I have argued the invalidity of the reply to Utilitarianism being too psychologically demanding. I have shown that there are many societal, mental, physical and psychological factors that cannot be ignored by our minds. I have argued that free will is not enough of a deterrent to allow us to overcome these factors, and thus have shown that Utilitarianism is too psychologically demanding for us as humans. Therefore, I have concluded that it is impossible for humans to follow the rules of Utilitarianism.

1 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2001), P. 20.