Utilitarianism
WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM?
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory particularly attractive in moral dilemmas where we have to choose between two evils or where we have to choose between two goods. What is our moral obligation in these cases? How to act well?
Utilitarians affirm that moral obligations are the result of the reasoning that each one must do while thinking for himself. Utilitarians do not tell us what to do, but give us a general principle that we can apply (if we want to be moral) to each specific situation. In this, utilitarianism is similar to Kantian ethics: it gives us a general principle that we must apply to each specific situation.
The general principle of utilitarianism says: act in such a way that you try to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people affected by your decision .
To understand this principle well, we must make some clarifications:
What is happiness? If you have to try to get it, you will first have to know what it is. Different utilitarian philosophers have understood happiness in different ways:
Happiness = pleasure and absence of pain. Thus understood, utilitarianism is very close to the theory of Epicurus, who argued that we should seek pleasure and flee from pain. And it is true that both utilitarianism and Epicureanism are both hedonistic theories , since they hold that what is good is pleasure. But there is also an essential difference between the two:
Utilitarianism = Hedonism + Altruism
Epicureanism = Hedonism + Selfishness
Happiness = achievement of our best wishes. Thus understood, utilitarianism approaches the Aristotelian idea of happiness. Some utilitarians consider our desires to be the result of our upbringing. Depending on this, this will be our ideal of happiness: in societies that promote freedom, equality and respect for others, our ideal of happiness will be different from what we can have if we live in slavery, inequality or if we are not respect.
Who are the affected people? Well, it will depend on each decision:
There are decisions that affect many people, such as being a blood donor.
There are other decisions that affect very few people, even just one person, yourself. For example, when you are alone and you have to say what TV show you are going to watch.
Finally, there may be decisions that do not affect anyone, not even you, For example, when you have to choose which coin to throw into the wishing well.
What if things go wrong and my decision ends up hurting the majority instead of benefiting them? Very rarely we can control all the consequences of our actions, that is why the general principle of utilitarianism says that you should try to achieve , it does not say that you should achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of those affected.
And what about my own happiness? Well, nothing special, if you are one of the people affected by your own decision (most often) you should also try to achieve your own happiness. What you should not do is put your happiness above that of others affected.
What if someone is harmed in exchange for others to benefit? This is a crucial point, and it must be analyzed in great detail:
You have to be as sure as possible that there is no other alternative that avoids the harm of some, including the alternative of doing nothing and waiting for the situation to be different.
You have to be very sure that the benefit of those others really outweighs the harm of some.
And assured the two previous points, it is possible that the happiness of the majority entails the damage of a few. This has always been a hotly debated point among utilitarians and critics of utilitarianism.
How to know how much happiness each affected person gets? In order to choose the alternative that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, it will be necessary to "measure" how much happiness each one of those affected obtains. This is not easy, but there are a few options:
Putting oneself in the place of others, we are not so different from them and most likely what seems most beneficial to us is the same as what it will appear to others affected.
Ask each of those affected to compare their happiness with a common scale that we can then use to make comparisons between them. For example, how much money would they be willing to pay to obtain that happiness? or how many hours of effort would they be willing to put in to achieve it?
EXAMPLES OF APPLICATION OF THE UTILITARIAN PRINCIPLE
The retired guitarist
Consider the case of a great guitarist now retired who gives free classes on Saturday mornings in the cultural center of his city to four young people who want to learn to play the guitar. Asked the old guitarist if he enjoys teaching, he answers that from 0 to 10, he enjoys it 2. What if instead of teaching he stays at home, playing the guitar instead of going to teach others? Imagine that he answers us that he enjoys it more , let's say 8 out of 10.
But if he enjoys staying home more than giving free classes, why does he spend his time teaching his four students? Utilitarianism would answer something like this:
If the old teacher stays at home, he enjoys it 8, but his students enjoy nothing (0). In total, the pleasure obtained is: 8 + 0 = 8
If the old teacher is going to teach the class, he enjoys it 2, but each of his students, let's say they enjoy 5 out of 10. In total, everyone enjoys 2 + 5 * 4 = 22
It is clear that there is more total pleasure, more happiness for more people, if the teacher gives the class, even though he would enjoy more staying at home. His behavior is altruistic because he does what is best for the group even at the cost of his own pleasure, at the cost of his own happiness.
You and your brother
Now consider this other example: you have to take care of your little brother this afternoon and you consider the following choice:
Staying at home watching a TV show that you like but my little brother doesn't.
Going out to the park, which is what my little brother likes but you don't.
To simplify things a bit, let's say that the TV show and the walk in the park last the same time (one hour). How much happiness, how much pleasure do both activities produce?
If you had to give a score of 0 to 10 for how much you like the TV show, you would give it a 3 .
Your little brother would give an 8 to play in the park.
If you had to give a score of 0 to -10 how much you dislike going to the park, you would give it a -2 . Your brother also gives him a -2 to watch that tv show.
We can summarize the scores of each one and present the different alternatives (both go to the park, both watch television, do one thing each) in a table like this:
In each of the four possibilities, we see in red the result of adding the pleasures or pains that you and your brother experience depending on what each one does. Seeing the figures in red, it is clear that the best option is for you to watch television and your brother to go to the park (the result is 11), but since that option is impossible because you cannot leave your brother alone, the only possibilities are :
Go both to the park, and then the sum is 6 even if you have a bad time .
The two of you stay watching television, and then the sum is 1 and it is your brother who does not enjoy.
Seeing these figures, the utilitarian theory would advise you to go to the park, even if that decision is a detriment to you personally. Once again, utilitarianism advises us to look at the happiness of all those affected and to act altruistically.
UTILITARIAN SOLUTION TO MORAL DILEMMAS
A train has lost its brakes and is not going to stop at the station. The station manager has been warned and has to choose between letting you continue on the next road or diverting you to an auxiliary road. On both tracks there is a risk of people being run over by the train. What is the best choice?
A city council has the budget to build either a cultural center or a new bridge that shortens the trip to the residents of a new neighborhood. What reasons can be given for spending the money on one thing or another? Should the decision be influenced by the reach and majority of the councilors living in the new neighborhood?
Organ donation
Enbryo selection
Technological development and global well-being
WHY BE ALTRUISTIC?
A key point of utilitarianism is to consider the happiness of all those affected and not only our own happiness or only that of our family and friends. In general, we must put the happiness of the group ahead of our own happiness. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which we will find reasons in favor of altruism .
Philosophical reasons
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that is the result of various ideas contributed by various philosophers throughout history. Different utilitarian philosophers have given different reasons why we are (at least sometimes) altruists.
David Hume (1711 - 1776)
Hume's reason for atruism is the natural sympathy we feel for our fellow men. Not only do we feel pleasure and pain when something affects us directly, but we also have the ability to feel pleasure and pain when we see that others are enjoying or suffering. This ability to feel (to a lesser degree) what others feel is empathy , or sympathy as Hume calls it.
Hume considers empathy to be an ability that:
We all have (to a greater or lesser extent)
We are born with it, it is natural and not learned
When we act guided by empathy, we are altruistic. When the feelings that move us are other (egotism, revenge, hatred), we do not act morally.
Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
In case our feelings of sympathy are not strong enough, Bentham suggests that we consider our own convenience .
We may not be naturally inclined towards altruism, but if we are rational beings we will realize that:
Often times, our altruistic actions pay off later, when we are the ones who need the help of others. Although out of selfishness we are tempted not to help others now, we should do so thinking about the future.
The law and the authorities are concerned with prosecuting and punishing those who harm or harm others. Although out of selfishness we are tempted to break the law, we should not do so because the punishment does not compensate .
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
Neither the feeling of sympathy nor the calculation of our own convenience are, according to Stuart Mill, adequate reasons to act altruistically:
If sympathy is a natural feeling that we are born with, then our moral decisions are due to something we have not chosen.
If when we act morally we are basically acting for our own convenience, we are not really altruistic.
We look for a motive that is the result of our free choice, not of our nature, and that promotes altruism without having selfishness behind it.
For Stuart Mill this motive is sympathy for others, but a sympathy fruit of the advancement in freedoms and equality. As a result of an education in the values of freedom, respect and equality, men progressively adopt the moral point of view.
Biological reasons
Is altruism a programmed behavior in our brain? Are we altruistic by nature?
