Utilitarianism: Weighing the Balance
The common good is often spoken of as a principle for social justice: that which benefits the whole should be promoted. Or, that which is universally good should have the highest support. It could be said that this is a utilitarian concept -- yet in modern terms of justice where egalitarianism can appear to be at odds with the "common good," the role of minority voices and diversity present an obstacle in the appeal to universalism. What is good for one set or cultural group may not be good for another. Thus, the question may be raised: Is it just to maximize the happiness for the greatest number of people as the utilitarian approach argues? The answer depends on one's viewpoint. If one believes the democratic principle is the highest principle of all, then might (or strength in numbers) makes right. If, on the other hand, one believes that the transcendental values of the classicalist philosophers, like Plato -- the unum, bonum, verum (the one, the good and the true) -- are the highest principle, then one can answer that even if the greatest number of people are made "happy" through some method that is not rooted in virtue or holiness then no matter how great their number it should not be supported because their "happiness" is not real happiness but rather founded in error and will lead to disorder and unfulfillment. This paper will discuss the potential strengths and weaknesses that accompany the utilitarian approach to happiness and why I believe the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
In the modern era, the way of looking at justice and freedom is made all the more complex by the fact that moderns tend to have a contradictory view of freedom: freedom is espoused as a great, if not the greatest, principle in all democratic societies -- and yet in nearly all democratic societies there is discernibly less freedom today than there was yesterday, as totalitarianism takes firmer and firmer hold, limiting individual choice and movement. As Michael Sandel notes, "The idea that justice means respecting freedom and individual rights is at least as familiar in contemporary politics as the utilitarian idea of maximizing welfare" (20). But here the utilitarian concept is complicated by two conflicting ideologies: on the one hand, there is the appeal to freedom as the way towards the "common good" or happiness for the greatest number of people (Halbert, Ingulli 15). And on the other hand there is the appeal to social welfare as the way. The two are exclusive: one cannot have absolute freedom and yet still be dependent upon the state. Either one is cut loose or one is chained (by dependency). But this way of looking at the issue is somewhat superfluous considering the argument made in the opening statements of this paper. If the utilitarian concept is not based in truth -- that of the unum, bonum, verum kind -- then it has no real basis for stability and growth. It is illusory, as Plato would say. Thus, whether or not the true and the good are perceived as such by society will play a major role in how fundamentally happy (and holy -- in Platonic terms) that society will actually be. A utilitarian or pragmatic happiness is only as endurable as the society's ability to control the environment which produces that pragmatic happiness. True happiness, on the other hand, is rooted in transcendental values (virtues) that are not dependent upon any environmental circumstances, as Socrates shows innumerable times in Plato's Dialogues.
John Stuart Mill himself wrote that the utilitarian philosophy held actions to be "right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness," which is a very similar argument to Plato's adversary in Euthyphro. A comparison of these two viewpoints can help in examining why the utilitarian approach is not a just approach as it is too subjective to really be effective in asserting any objective principle or ethic. (For it is the argument of this paper that an objective and universal principle must be applied in order for true justice and happiness to be pursued, regardless of differences between ethnicities and cultures; here the Golden Rule best applies in order to make fundamental sense of the application of universality. It is also important to note that while utilitarianism may promote the "common good" its concept of the "common good" is still rooted...
The order of approach is different -- as utilitarians emphasize the means rather than the end, even though they assert that their philosophy is directed towards the "end" of the "common good." It is not. It is directed towards utility, and the "common good" is dependent upon the pleasure and pain of the greatest number of people. What that group of people uses to decide what is pleasurable and painful may be completely detached from truth and is therefore liable to be false. Thus, justice should be directed towards the end of justice, which is goodness or holiness as Plato asserts. This point will be made by exploring the relationship between utilitarianism and Euthyphro, the dialogue partner of Socrates in Plato's Euthyphro).
Euthyphro imagines he is in the "right" when he prosecutes his father for wrongdoing. But Socrates asks Euthyphro what piety is (what is pleasing to the gods) and Euthyphro can only give a subjective answer -- piety is that which he is doing. Socrates then says, "So whatever Euthyphro does is good and therefore we should all imitate Euthyphro," and Euthyphro sees the absurdity of this logic and has to rethink his answer. But rather than admit that he may be wrong in prosecuting his father, he chooses to not face the question and rushes off, secure in his ignorance and subjectivity. Socrates meanwhile insists on an objective standard, a universal law that applies to everyone -- not one law for Euthyphro, one law for Socrates, with the individual determining what is right or wrong. Socrates says that in such cases the individual sets himself up as judge, when in reality the true judge is God for God alone is above everything and indeed the writer of the truth which is written in men's hearts (Plato, Apologia).
When Mill says that people should protect themselves "against the tendency of society to impose ... its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them" (13-14), he is speaking precisely about this "subjective truth" that Euthyphro believes in: if everyone has his own truth, he is making a utility out of truth rather submitting his mind to truth. Euthyphro and the utilitarians want truth to submit to them. They want truth to conform to their own wills, rather than have to conform their wills to truth. For Plato it is quite the opposite: his teacher Socrates died because he refused to attempt to force truth to conform to his will. Better, he believed, to submit one's mind and will to the highest of all truths, which is God, and to die for that submission than to imagine that one is truthful and live "happily" even though that happiness is founded on self-deceit and will ultimately lead to a life which is not up to par with the one, the good, the true, and the beautiful. Failing to live according to those transcendental, universal truths -- which are defined for one and all -- and require objectivity to see them -- will in the end only lead to real unhappiness. As Sandel notes, the utilitarian founder Bentham believed that "the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility" (Sandel 34) -- but utility is simply a means to an end and is not an end in itself. By basing one's governing principle on a "means" as opposed to an "end" that is objective, whole and universal (and only the transcendental virtue is this) one's governing principle is subject to change with the wind -- for what is practical one minute may not be practical the next depending upon the current. Yet if one's principle is based on an unchanging value -- such as goodness -- then one can withstand any change in external current and continue to pursue a policy of goodness that will manifest the most happiness for all who apply themselves to this policy.
Utilitarianism, first of all, is a philosophy whose morality is based on the preservation of self, and is thus subjectively situated. According to John Stuart Mill, actions are morally acceptable and "right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Fox). Utilitarianism in other words is not based on the "objective" transcendentals of ancient definition, such as the one, the good, and the true. Instead, it is based on a cross…
