Download Ian Horkan ERH-207W Mr. Morgan Word Count: 1641 The Injustice

Ian Horkan
ERH-207W
Mr. Morgan
Word Count: 1641
The Injustice of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism, otherwise known as doing what is best for the greater good, presents
complex ethical questions for those in positions of power. Often when people contemplate
utilitarianism, doing what is best for the greatest number of people has a strong logical appeal.
Why not act in favor of the majority, and ensure that the course of action taken benefits the
largest amount of people? However, often when thinking along these lines, something seems to
block human’s decision making when they think about acting in a utilitarian way. It appears to
them that discounting the minority seems wrong, and complicates their moral and ethical
reasoning. I firmly believe that utilitarianism is incompatible with justice, but that does not
mean that it is not “good” to act in a utilitarian way. In this essay, I will discuss various concepts
of justice from Plato to Aristotle to Immanuel Kant and how their concepts of justice are
incompatible with utilitarianism. Consequently, I will take into consideration dissenters to my
opinion such as David Hume, and disprove how their opinion are false.
Utilitarianism as an ethical principal was developed in England during the 19th century
by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham, considered the founder of
utilitarianism, was a proponent of hedonism. Hedonism is the belief that happiness is equal to
pleasures, while unhappiness is equal to pain. Using this belief, Bentham developed his”
Principle of Utility” where the greatest happiness of the majority is the measure of right and
wrong, and by extension justice. Building off Bentham’s theories, Mill further developed
utilitarianism into the theory it is today. Mill developed his “Greatest Happiness Principle”
1
where actions are right when they produce happiness, wrong when they promote the reverse
of happiness (Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2).
Based upon Platonic philosophy, there are several reasons why utilitarianism is
incompatible with justice. These reasons center primarily on Plato’s Theory of the Forms (Plato,
The Republic). What this theory says’s that for each object and concept, there is a universal
“form” that exists for all (Plato, The Republic). Therefore, there is one universal form of justice
that exists universally. Based upon this concept, the idea of justice is inflexible, as the standards
for one society’s concept of justice are the same in spirit as another’s. The conclusion can be
drawn from this that even if in some society utilitarianism acts in such a way that it is just, it still
is overall unjust because of the universal Form of Justice. If for example, a population believed
that killing their parents when they reached a certain age because they believe it expedited
their journey to paradise, as well as preserving from the shame of becoming infirm in a warrior
culture, as was done in Fiji (Westermark 389), at its core it would still be an unjust act because
of the way a majority of the world’s population perceives killing of parents. By killing their
parents for the good of the population, Fijians acted in a utilitarian way, but the fact that the
rest of the population refuses to do this presents a conundrum. Essentially it means that the
Fijians had incorrectly interpreted the Form of Justice, because if the rest of the world believes
that this version of utilitarianism violates just actions, then it is more than likely that they have
correctly interpreted the Form of Justice. Plato defines this form of justice as social justice, or
justice in society the same way that utilitarianism seeks to act (Plato, The Republic, Book I).
Acting in a just manner, according to Plato, is when a society acts according to their
specializations, when everyone performs their job, hypothesized by him as Guardians,
2
Auxiliaries, and Producers (Plato, The Republic, Book II). These Fijians, by acting out of
accordance with norms that are acknowledged by the rest of human society, likely acted
outside of their specialization, resulting in their actions being perceived as unjust.
Aristotle’s philosophy too shows the incompatibility of justice and utilitarianism.
Aristotle acknowledges that justice deals in relations with others (Aristotle, Nicomachaen
Ethics, Book II) thereby establishing a connection between justice and utilitarianism, as
utilitarianism is by definition dealing with what is the greatest good for people. Aristotle also
defines justice in two separate ways: as particular justice and universal justice (Aristotle,
Nicomachaen Ethics, Book II). Aristotle said that particular justice dealt with equally divisible
goods, whether it be honor, money or safety where people can lose things, while universal
justice is the state of a person who is lawful and fair (Aristotle, Nicomachaen Ethics, Book II). By
these definitions, utilitarianism cannot be just at all. By choosing one group, in this case the
majority, to favor by doing an action or actions that benefit them over another group, you are
denying the fairness that Aristotle believed must be present in universal justice.
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy also illustrates the incompatibility of justice and
utilitarianism. In Kant’s philosophy, pure reason is the source of moral knowledge, and that the
only good is goodwill (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Chapter 1). Going off
this, Kant states that only good actions are based upon doing a person’s sole duty, and that
moral and just actions are only that is they are done with the sole motivation of duty (Kant,
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Chapter 2). In utilitarianism, since you are taking
action for the greater good, you are not acting strictly with the motive of duty. The concept of
duty is acting for strictly moral purposes, so if for example during a storm aid was given to one
3
city over another because it had more people and was a large industrial center, this would not
be an act of duty. In this example the person making the decision is not acting out of strictly
moral principles, but rather out of one that says how can I do the most good. Kant’s
philosophy does not necessarily care about the ends of an action, only the means by which the
action was taken. Examining utilitarianism through Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative
also illustrates how incompatible it is with justice. In Kant’s concept of the categorical
imperative, one takes a maxim that they wish to test and apply it as if it was a law of nature, if
this is an illogical way to act, then one should not adopt that maxim (Kant, Groundwork for the
Metaphysics of Morals, Chapter 2). If we took the governing idea of utilitarianism, that one
should act to maximize the pleasure for the most people, and always acted on that, it would
create a distinctly unjust world. Primarily, it would lead to a section of the population being
complete de-prioritized and disenfranchised, as their pleasure is never taken into account since
they do not fall into the majority. Additionally, if this was always applied it could have even
more drastic and dark consequences for those who are not in the majority. For example, if to
create a vaccine for a virus it needed to be hosted inside of a human body, and it needed as
many individuals as possible, then 49% of the population would be sacrificed, a distinctly unjust
outcome. In utilitarianism, the ends are the central goal, as the objective of utilitarianism and
what determines the justice of an action is determined by maximizing happiness for the
greatest amount of people.
Opposed to the idea that justice is not feasible in a utilitarianism system are realist
philosophers like John Stuart Mill. Mill would likely counter that utilitarianism is just because of
its ability to maximize pleasure, and by extension good, for the most people. It would be unjust
4
he would likely argue, to make decisions in accordance with a rule that worried about pleasure
for all, because it does not ensure that the majority of people will receive the maximum
amount of pleasure, thereby failing to do the best for the most people, and have the most
impactful effect (Mill, On Utilitarianism). However, Mill contradicts himself on this idea in
earlier writings, describing the injustice of the tyranny of the majority. Mill describes how in
democracy the majority has the capability to railroad the interest and rights of the minority
simply by the virtue of winning the vote (Mill, On Liberty). In utilitarianism, following this
reasoning, acting to maximize pleasure for the most effectively “gives them a vote”. Since in
utilitarianism you should always act in the way you can do the most good for the most people,
this practically guarantees tyranny of the majority, which mill himself describes as unjust.
Utilitarianism and justice present a complicated moral conundrum for people. One one
hand, acting for the benefit of the majority empirically appears correct. It seems to be the most
successful course of action and the one that will most likely lead to prosperity for the most
people. But as human beings we are drawn to justice. It seems to us, something that defines us
from animals and the uncivilized because we can reason what is right and wrong. Acting strictly
utilitarian in nature can blur that line and lead to less and less right decisions, possibly
compromising humanity’s moral compass.
5
Works Cited
Hume, David. "An Enquiry into the Sources of Morals." (n.d.): n. pag. Earlymodertexts.com.
Jonathan Bennett, May 2007. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
"The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle." The Internet Classics Archive
| Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
"The Internet Classics Archive | The Republic by Plato." The Internet Classics Archive | The
Republic by Plato. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
Kant, Immanuel. "The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals." (n.d.): 1-17.
Earlymodrntexts.com. Jonathan Bennett, July 2005. Web.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. 1859.
Mill, John Stuart. On Utilitarianism. 1863.
6