Why do we do the things we do? Why haven’t you jumped out of a plane without a parachute or punched someone famous in the face with brass knuckles? Why haven’t you robbed a bank (assuming you haven’t…) or made mustard popsicles for your friends? You might be saying, “Well, because those things wouldn’t be normal…and the mustard popsicle idea is just gross.” If we look closer into our societal norms, we will see that we do things because of the consequences that follow, and, for that matter, we don’t do things, like offer our friends mustard popsicles, because they might not consider us friends anymore.
Consequentialism is defined as “the theory that the center of value is the outcome or consequences of the act.”(Pojman 247) We do things because we think about the consequences that will follow. We oft times do things because they are beneficial to the greatest number of people. This philosophy is a branch of Consequentialism called Utilitarianism, and is what I would like to focus on.
Utilitarianism is “the greatest goodness for the greatest number- and not merely the good of the agent.”(Pojman 102) When asked whether to help five people or just one, a utilitarian wouldn’t ask whom the people were. He would help the five (assuming the same or more good was done this way), because there lays the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham articulated the original concept of Utilitarianism and John Stuart Mill later built upon it.
They recognized a few strengths to this theory- the first being it’s simplicity. In a world full of complexities, it’s nice to be guided by an ideal that doesn’t have loopholes or exceptions. It is an absolute system that potentially has an answer for every situation. The next strength is that Utilitarianism goes hand-in-hand with morality. Utilitarianism is virtuous because it supports that morality isn’t so much about keeping the rules as it is about helping people and alleviating the suffering in the world. The last strength is that it proposes a solution to the problem of posterity. We have an obligation to look out for future generations, as prior generations have looked out for us. Utilitarianism advises helping the greatest number, even if that number includes people that haven’t been born yet.
Don’t get too comfortable just yet. As Newton’s Third Law states, “For every action [and ethical theory] there is an equal and opposite re-action [and dispute]” and Utilitarianism has some weaknesses of its own. The first is the very definition: “The greatest goodness for the greatest number.” So which is most important- good or number? Though simplicity is typically a positive aspect, here it inhibits our understanding of what we’re striving for. Another crucial problem with utilitarianism is the lack of foresight that we, as human beings can see. The results of action A will bring action B, etc. In the end (if there be an end), will this decision bring more happiness to more people than the other option? Pojman captures the next problem, “Following utilitarianism, I should get little or no rest, and, certainly, I have no right to enjoy life when by sacrificing I can make others happier.” (Pojman 112) There is always a better option to do greater good for more people than what we are currently doing. Economists call this “opportunity cost,” and it’s near impossible to know what the best thing to be doing is. Relativism is another objection to utilitarianism- that what’s important to one community might not be to another.
Even with all of these concerns, I feel that utilitarianism is our greatest option when deciphering what to do in any given ethical situation. So the next time you want to make mustard popsicles for your friends, don’t ask yourself, “Is this weird?” Instead, ask, “How many people can I make these for and how nutritious would they be?”
