The Greatest Good for The Greatest Number – Utilitarian Ethics

   Acting so as to insure the greatest increase of pleasure to the greatest number of people is, according to utilitarianists, how one should act to be moral.  The theory means that there is no distinction between what we might consider instinctively as right or wrong acts, only that the act we should undertake proves the one with the most wide reaching beneficient results. To utilitarians, all actions are to be judged by sole virtue of their consequences – the end justifies the means. Unlike deontological ethics then, there is (usually) no actual set of ‘rules’ for a given situation – utilists must decide on a case by case basis. At the most basic level, there is little really wrong with this theory – it may disadvantage some slightly, but on the whole there is benefit for all. If we need to make a choice, utilitarianism provides an ostensibly simple method of doing so.  This, utilitariansism of the simplest kind, is known as ‘classical’ or ‘act’ utilitarianism.

   The probems with this theory arise in three main areas – firstly, individual and difficult to judge situations pose a problem simply in determining the course of action. If one had the choice of burning a tabacco plantation thus saving hundreds of lives at the expense of those who need the job to live, what would the utilitarianism do? Here then, there is obviously something of a dilemma. Bentham devised the ‘felicific calculus’ which can be used to calculate and quantify potential pleasure and thus can be used in such situations to compare outcomes. This seems well and good, but if it so happens that more smokers will be saved than plantation workers, then it will be in their favour that we act. This seems to run contrary to what we innately see as the best course of action. Secondly, when we have to actually decide what would provide the greatest good, judgements can become a little confusing. For example, if one had the choice of saving two octogenarian cancer patients at the expense of a healthy toddler, utilitarianism dictates we sacrifice the child – something most people would inherantly view as ‘wrong.’ Following a utiliarian life then can lead to acts all but the most steadfast and staunch belivers would find truly difficult conscientiously to bear. However, this approach does avoid problems posed by other forms of ethics – deontologists would argue we should aways follow certain rulesets e.g.: don’t kill. If one came across Hitler’s cradle, surely the ‘right’ thing to do would be obvious. To a utilist, yes – kill the baby. To deontologists, also yes – let it live.  Finally, following utilitarianism to the letter can lead to ridiculous situations. If spending all one’s money on charitable donations is the most beneficial thing to do, utilitarianism states we should – at the expense of our own social and personal lives. This however can be argued against simply be saying that to act so is the whole point of utilitarianism.