Utilitarianism

How do we justify our actions? I know, such a broad question. I could be referring to one of an infinite set of actions, but the justification of doing something always has a logical explanation…unless you're a psychopath of course. 

When you look at society at large, the logical justification for making a decision is that you can help the most people possible through that choice-- make the greatest number of people happy. That's Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill, one of the primary philosophers credited with establishing this principle, describes Utilitarianism as the basis of morals. He states, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote overall human happiness.” However, I’m sure that you’re going to see some questionable aspects of this system.

Imagine this: the world population has reached an all time high and there simply aren’t enough resources to support such an immense population. However, if you eliminate 20% of the population, the remaining 80% will be prosperous. So, what do you do?

Utilitarianism would tell us to wipe out 20% of the population if the remaining 80% “could be happy,” but how is that morally right? Mill describes Utilitarianism as the basis of ethics, but in such a scenario, how would this apply? More specifically, is it morally correct to outweigh the prosperity and happiness of 80% of the population, while fully disregarding the other 20%. 

This is one of the flaws with utilitarianism and why we cannot truly apply it to our society. 

Utilitarianism can be paradoxical from a moral standpoint. While it does technically make up the basis of morality, this system can still go against one’s morals. According to utilitarianism, if an action does not maximize happiness in some way, then it may be the incorrect choice to make-- even if it is considered the moral choice. In the example above, I’m sure we can agree that it is morally wrong to eliminate 20% of the population, but utilitarianism tells us that it is the correct choice as the majority of people will “be happy.”

Another flaw with this system is that “happiness” isn’t the sole governing principle of society. You might love your spouse, but if they make you unhappy one day for any reason, then the utilitarian choice would be to instantly “remove” that unhappiness, by immediate separation, instead of taking the time out to find a solution to reach a consensus. This leads to my next point: utilitarianism isn’t the best long-term philosophy. In the previous example, the relationship could’ve been continued; however, utilitarianism tells us to maximize happiness in the moment and neglect the impact in the future. 

You may have been wondering: who decides what “happiness” is? That’s a good question. Happiness is subjective, so implementing such a philosophy would require authoritative rule, where a regime decides the concept of happiness for the people. So, would people really be happy then? Well, people would lose some of their freedom, but they would have the basic requirements and resources to be “happy.” At least everyone can be “happy.” Sounds like communism right?