Something on Utilitarian Theory
Utilitarian theory presents numerous problems in it's conception, most of which lie in the fact that
the theory oversimplifies many aspects of human life. It would make life very easy and simple if all
we had to worry about was causing the greatest amount happiness for the greatest amount people.
However, this gives no protection to the rights of the minority or individual, nor does it allow for
the ideal of justice. It also does not take into account the possibility of an intransitive preference.
Utilitarian theory states that "morality is nothing more than the attempt to bring about as much
happiness as possible" to as many people as possible. In Utilitarian theory, every person's
happiness is weighed evenly. However, if there are more people to be made happy by an event or
decision, then those in the minority, no matter how many or how close in umbers to being the
majority, will have to suffer unhappiness. For example, in a small community, there are two men
running for mayor: a democrat and a republican. If those voting in favor of the democrat are fewer
in number than those voting in favor of the republican, the republican will win. Those who
supported the democrat will now be unhappy because their candidate did not win. However, since
the majority voted for the republican, they were in the right. Their decision to vote for the
republican was morally right, while those who voted for the democrat were wrong.
Another example could be the case of the Salem Witch Trials. Convinced by two young girls that a
lady of the community was a witch, the community turned against the lady and tried her as a witch.
Several more "witches" were found and tried, often sentenced to execution by fire. Although it is
generally held that killing people is wrong, the majority of the community wished to do away with
the witches, which they believed would bring about the consequence of greater happiness to the
community. By Utilitarian theory, the majority of Salem were right to kill those they thought to be
witches. However, what of the rights to life of the individuals being prosecuted? Were their natural
right to live violated by the will of the majority? Indeed their rights were denied, and thus the will
of the majority was wrong. However, Utilitarian theory only states that what is moral is what will
bring happiness to the majority. Thus, Utilitarian theory is in direct opposition of individual rights.
Next, we see that Utilitarian theory makes no room for ideal justice. Ideal justice is the equal
treatment of each individual. As seen before, Utilitarian theory does not give in to individual
liberties. Thus, if being just to the individual is in opposition to the will of the masses, and justice
being served to the individual would cause unhappiness to the masses, then the individual cannot
morally receive justice. For example, a high school teacher has a strict policy against students
turning in assignments late. There is in this teacher's class a young man who is the community
sports hero. Due to the amount of time this student spends on sports, he has been unable to turn in
several assignments. This student will soon be unable to participate in school sponsored sports
because of his academic short-comings. However, the community, the majority of people within
the area of this school, enjoy very much seeing this man in sporting competitions. Thus, it would
be morally correct, under Utilitarian theory, for the teacher to allow this athlete to continue missing
assignments in order to work on his sports skills. Although it would make the rest of the students
in this class unhappy that they must do the assignments and the athlete does not, the majority of
people in the area would be made happy by seeing the athlete compete. Thus, there is no justice for
the class. Also in the example of the Salem witch trials used above, there was no ideal justice
served. The accused were rarely, if ever, allowed to testify in their behave, and usually just
commanded to confess to witchcraft. There was no ideal justice, but the majority was made happy.
Utilitarian theory is dependant on one thing always being more pleasing than another. Given two
choices, one is always desirable. When given three, one is less desirable, one is in the middle, and
one is more desirable. To cite the algebraic transitive property of inequality, if a>b, and b>c, then
a>c (If "a" is greater than "b", and "b" is greater than "c", then "a" is greater than "c"). This
mirrors transitive preference rankings. For example, a young man likes grapes more than apples,
and likes bananas more than grapes. Therefore, it is assumed that the young man prefers bananas
over apples. This fits nicely into Utilitarian theory, in that choosing the one fruit over the other
brings the boy pleasure; he chooses the one over the other because it brings him the most amount
of pleasure. However, what should happen in the case of an intransitive preference. For example,
another young man likes grapes more than apples, and likes bananas more than grapes. However,
if he prefers apples over banana's, then we have an intransitive preference. To state it
mathematically, a>b, b>c, and c>a. If the boy were given the choice of all three together, then it
would become extremely difficult to make a "moral" decision among the three, since he prefers
each one over each of the others. If it is possible for such a case to happen in a small decision
affecting one person (and it is, as proven by my six-year-old brother), then it is possible to be the
case in a large decision affecting a large amount of people. Since each choice is of greater
preference to each of the others, no one decision can be made to please the majority, and thus no
moral decision can be made based on Utilitarianism.
The problems with Utilitarian theory lie in oversimplification of what is right. Although bringing
the most amount of happiness to the most amount of people is ideal to those included in the
majority, there is a minority which will be unhappy. The rights of the individuals of that minority
will be violated and they may not receive justice. Thus, Utilitarianism cannot be accepted as a
universal truth and a standard for making moral decisions.
Back to Ethics Essays Main Page
Back to Corey's Written Stuff
Back to Corey's Home Page.