Utilitarianism

Nowadays, Utilitarianism often gets dismissed due to some problems which it cannot resolve. This is shown in „Contemporary Political Philosophy”, where Will Kymlicka demonstrates why Utilitarianism cannot serve as a moral compass in everyday decision-making. However, I will now argue that we should not completely dismiss Utilitarianism.

First, I will invalidate one of Kymlicka’s points against Utilitarianism. Kymlicka argues that Utilitarianism does not respect personal duties such as promises and debt: If we, for example, owed somebody money, Utilitarianism would tell us to donate it to UNICEF rather than pay it back. However, this scenario assumes that only the debtor acts utilitarian – not the moneylender. If he, too, had a utilitarian view, he would agree that the money should be donated rather than given back. This would make it just for the debtor to donate the money. As we can see here, Utilitarianism would work out if all people involved acted according to it. Utilitarianism never claimed anything else.

Now, we are obviously not there yet. So how can we make use of the utilitarian theory? In „Utilitarianism as a public philosophy” Robert Goodin argues that while Utilitarianism is not suitable for everyday decisions, it should be used in political ones. I do not fully agree. While Goodin does demonstrate why the main arguments against political Utilitarianism are not relevant, Utilitarianism still does not take certain aspects in accord. For example, it does not consider future generations. If we make political decisions about the environment, we should not only focus on what would bring the most utility for us, but also on what we want the world to be like for our descendant. I also do not think that political Utilitarianism can solve all criticisms. Since, for example, utility were higher the more people there are, the government would be required to introduce a law which prohibited birth control. This shows that, even politically, Utilitarianism does not suit as a moral compass.

However, try to image of a fully utilitarian world: A world in which everyone is entitled to the same chances and rights, the same amount of food – which would be enough for no one to starve. No leaders were necessary, for everyone would always do what is best for mankind. I am sure we can agree that this world is just. This shows that utilitarianism, if everyone lived by it, would not only work, but is something we should all strive for.

So maybe Utilitarianism should not be the guidance in decision-making – political or not. It should, however, be some sort of goal we should strive for. When asked to make an important decision (political or not), we should not wonder „what would bring the greatest utility”. We should, among other things, ask ourselves: „how can this world become a utilitarian one?”. This would make Utilitarianism an ideal – one of many. Utilitarianism should not be a moral compass; it should be an ideal of justice.

References

Goodin, Robert E. “Chapter 4: Government House Utilitarianism.” In Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge.

Kymlicka, Will. 2002. “Chapter 2: Utilitarianism.” Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (2nd edition). Oxford.

Mill, John S. 2008 [1863]. Utilitarianism.