You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Politics » Theories Of Justice

Free Essays - Politics Essays

Theories of Justice - Critically assess utilitarianism asa theory of political morality.

Ever sinceBentham and Mill formulated the basic tenets of the utilitarian doctrine in the19^th century, the theory has attracted strong criticism. To many observersutilitarianism seems to advocate principles for human action that potentiallylead to more suffering and misery rather than alleviating them. As a moraltheory, utilitarianism never dispelled the suspicion that it inevitably leadsto some very repellent conclusions, is philosophically incoherent and thereforeinvites rejection. As a political theory, utilitarianism finds more supporters.Utilitarian principles, so one could contend, somehow run parallel to the basicidea of democracy: the maxim of majoritarianism. Ultimately however, so theessay will argue, the problems of moral utilitarianism are necessarilyreplicated in utilitarian political theory.

The essay will proceed as follows. I will analyse the general problemsand precepts of the utilitarian doctrine as a theory of human morality in thefirst section. Then the essay will examine the advantages and disadvantages ofutilitarian principles when applied to political theory. In analysingutilitarianism it is unavoidable that the essay will highlight some of theshortcomings of the utilitarian doctrine that other utilitarian thinkers havesubsequently tried to address.

I. Theory ofutilitarianism - advantages and problems

We may usefullybegin with a brief outline of the general tenets of utilitarianism as it evolvedover time. There can be no doubt that the principle of maximising the happinessof all is at the core of the utilitarian system. Most clearly stated by JohnStuart Mill it runs like this:

'The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or theGreatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion asthey tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse ofhappiness.. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain.'

What characterisesthis summary of utilitarianism as a moral theory is that aspires to saysomething about what constitutes the rightness or wrongness of actions.If utilitarianism would fail to extend to the conception of right and wrong,just and unjust, it would fall short of being an ethical theory. Whatdifferentiates it from other moral theories is that it wants to explain rightand wrong in terms of the idea of individual or aggregate happiness. Also, it clearlyfalls within the domain of consequentialist philosophical beliefs. We areadmonished to judge whether an act is right or wrong by the outcomes of theaction, i.e. whether it produces happiness. Since utilitarianism is resolutelyconsequentialist, the problems that beset consequentialist moral theories alsoapply to utilitarianism.A point to which we will return. Furthermore, Mill and others thought thathappiness is the fundamental value in human life by which we can evaluatewhether a life flourishes or not. Mill is at pains to point out that utilitariansare not obliged by their theory to support pure hedonism.He argues that pleasures can be of many kinds and to recognise this fact is tolend greater depth to the theory rather than to dilute it.But it is worthwhile mentioning here that utilitarians could not propose thathappiness as a consequence of some action has intrinsic value. Happiness as astate of affair would then easily collapse into the Kantian argument over doingsomething for duty's sake. That, as Williams has pointed out, runs counter tothe aspirations of Kantian as well as utilitarian theory.

Leaving this point aside, we may propose that utilitarianism rests on areasonable view of human nature insofar as everyone is inclined to pursue herown interests. As a necessary clarification we must at this point however bringup an important distinction. Utilitarians distinguish between act and rule utilitarianism.Smart defines the two in contrast to each other thus:

'Act-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an actionis to be judged by the consequences, good or bad, of the action itself.Rule-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action isto be judged by the goodness and badness of the consequences of a rule thateveryone should perform that action in like circumstances'.

The latterversion of utilitarianism moves the theory noticeably closer to Kantians categoricalimperative, something that created insurmountable problems forrule-utilitarians and which motivates many utilitarian thinkers to reject it infavour of the former.What represents a good ground to prefer utilitarianism to deontological moraltheory is that act-utilitarianism can prevent scenarios of calculating humanaction which may produce future misery, whereas the deontological (just as arule-utilitarianism) fails to tackle this since it enjoins people to follow arule rather than judge the action on the particular consequences as theypresent themselves to the specific agent.Smart uses the term rule-worship which presumably illustrates the deficienciesof rule-utilitarianism as well as deontological Kantian theory.

Several problems have consistently beset utilitarianism throughout its history.Four big themes somehow capture this cluster of problems. First of all, thereis the charge that utilitarians advocate hedonism when they rest their theoryon the principle of pleasure maximising. Secondly, philosophers argue thatutilitarian theory fails to appreciate the diversity of values and that someends, besides happiness, in human life have intrinsic value. Thirdly, scholarsquestion the implications of proposing individual happiness as the ultimate endin human life. This argument takes two forms. Firstly, critics point to thefact that frequently people make sacrifices that indicate that achievingpersonal happiness is not the ultimate principle in their lives. Secondly, theutilitarians' claim that individual happiness somehow leads to collectivehappiness is highly contentious. If I wanted to achieve personal happiness howdoes this pursuit of my own interests result in the happiness of all? Thecollective good is conceptually different from the individual good, andutilitarians appear to have no way of linking the two. Yet, this strikes at theheart of the connection between moral and political philosophy. If utilitarianscannot account for the link between individual ethical precepts and collectivegood, it falls short of offering a political morality that can be used as anorganising maxim for social life. The last of the problems (4) relates to theimpression that utility principles often leads to counterintuitive results;there are instances when it somehow contradicts our most basic moral intuitions.

II.Utilitarianism as political morality

Politicalphilosophers argue over whether or not it is possible to advocate a politicaltheory that has no moral implications. Kymlicka seems to attach littleplausibility to such an attempt but maintains that it makes sense totemporarily separate moral from political theory when considering theimplications of utilitarian enjoinders.He points out that one could argue for two different scopes of theoryapplicability: one view would assume that utilitarian precepts offer obligatoryframework for all our personal conduct, whereas the second view would restrict utilitarianismto the sphere of social institutions.He calls the first version 'comprehensive moral utilitarianism' as opposed tothe second which he calls 'political utilitarianism'.Regardless of this debate that we cannot decide within the confines of thisessay, we can specify a short list of themes that govern the discussion aboutthe usefulness of utilitarianism as a theory of political morality. There arefive broad themes that seem to be of relevance. Firstly, there is the allegedaccord between democratic principles and utilitarian maxims. Some philosophersassume that the principle of maximising the happiness of the greatest number ofpeople coincides with the principle of eliciting the will of the majority whichunderlies democracy. Secondly, utilitarian thinkers have argued that theprinciple of utility itself correlates to the way in which we calculate thebenefits of the various policies in actual politics. Thirdly, it remainscontentious whether duty or happiness shall be presumed to be the primeregulatory idea for organising the political life in our society.

Last but not least, utilitarians need to address the charge that thenotion of utility is only suitable to the economic sphere of modern life, or asMill expressed in his criticism of Bentham: 'Utilitarianism is a theory thatonly applies to the business part of individuals'.I will examine each of these themes in turn.

Before we analyse utilitarianism as a distinctly political doctrine, weneed to specify the criteria by which we can judge its success or failure as apolitical theory. Philosophical method offers us two ideas in this respect. Itadvises that any theory needs to comply with the concept of coherence and musthave some explanatory force. Additionally, for some philosophers, any viabletheory must also be able to make sense of our commitments as they emanatethroughout the course of our life.We can employ these criteria of coherence, explanatory force and making senseof our commitments in evaluating the utilitarian notion of political morality. Iwill consider the doctrine through the lens of several problems that have beenarticulated by critics of utilitarianism.

The view that utilitarianism somehow coincides with the basic tenets ofdemocracy goes back to Tocqueville.He argued that the idea of maximising the happiness of the greatest number ofpeople corresponds with the majoritarian principle of democracy. Benthamgenerally agreed with this view and provided a conceptual reason for it. Hesuggested that since everybody is alike in pursuing the happiness principle, tofind out the will of the majority of people must be equal to identifying theaggregate good of the people.J. S. Mill felt distinctly unsatisfied with this argument and tried to respondto some of the criticism that Bentham's argument evoked. Mill argued first ofall that Bentham employed a deficient view of human nature. Mill conceded tocritics that men had a variety of motives for their political behaviour. It isa fallacy to assume that the motives on the side of the ruler coincide with thebehavioural motives of the voters. Yet, any coherent moral philosophy that is intendedto cut some ice in politics must show that moral precepts are valid foreveryone. Politicians are not exempt from ethical rules. Even utilitariansagreed on this point. Hence, since Mill argued it is wrong to think that theinterests of the rulers necessarily converge with those of the ruled, it isimpossible to rest democracy solely on the majoritarian principle.He tries to alleviate this problem by suggesting a string of mediatinginstitutions that can bring about a closer 'fit' between democracy and the utilityprinciple. Without going too much into the detail of these proposals, it can besaid that few if any philosophers find Mill's suggestions satisfactory.

The second problem concerns the problem of how to calculate the happinessof the greatest number of people in policy formation. We may illuminate thedilemma of utilitarian theory here with an example. It we wanted to increasethe happiness of the greatest number we may still be obliged by the utilityprinciple to accept some deplorable misery of the few. The utility principleadvises us to permit this calculation of off-setting the misery of the few withthe increased happiness of the many. In the context of anti-Semitism, a Jewishcommentator once illustrated the implausibility of the utilitarian theory bysketching the following scenario. If people were told that everlasting happinessfor everybody on the world could be brought about by annihilating the world'sJewish population (a tiny minority in proportion to the world population) manypeople would be prepared to make this sacrifice. Although he wanted toillustrate with this example that latent anti-Semitism still exists, thisexample also shows to what action following the utility principle would commitus in politics. On reflection we would certainly find this a deplorable andrepellent conclusion. Yet, utilitarian theory clearly would obligate us to actin this way since the only criterion is the increase of happiness of thegreatest number of people.

Utilitarians have responded to this challenge by transforming the theoryfrom act-utilitarianism to rule-utilitarianism. However, as even utilitariansadmit, this is not a viable option open to utilitarians.The counterintuitive results of applying utilitarian principles to deliberatingthe common good show that utilitarians still have failed to provide a coherentaccount of policy formation which reconciles the demands of practical politicswith our intuitions about moral obligations.

The third problem surrounds the question whether society and politics canflourish without the sense of duty. Applying utilitarian theory to politicallife means that we need to organise social life without reference to theprinciple of justice. For utilitarians, the utility principle is paramount indetermining the structure and outcomes of political institutions. At the centreof this debate often stands the distinction which Mill felt he had to makebetween legal and moral justice, a procedure that ultimately has failed toconvince many thinkers of deontological and utilitarian outlook alike.Mill tried to tackle the particular problem of reconciling the notion ofjustice with utility. Critics of Bentham's theory had pointed out that bothprinciples diverge in certain instances which give rise to counterintuitiveconclusions. To increase the amount of happiness of the many may not be just.Justice as a principle of duty (within the Kantian framework) is not ofinstrumental nature. Utility fails to achieve some similar quality. Millthought that he could adjust utilitarian theory in such as way as to alleviatethe chasm between justice and utility. He argued that being just relates to twodifferent notions, the one relating to the law, the other to morality. As faras morality is concerned he assumed that it is identical with the utilityprinciple of maximising the happiness of the greatest number of people. Withrespect to justice as law, the issue is more complicated. He introduced a thirdconcept which would allow individuals to judge whether a human action is justin the moral sense as well as just or right in the sense of the dictate ofutility. For Mill the idea of punishment or social sanction generated thenotion of law and is in turn regulated by the principle of utility.This however would lead to the conclusion that those actions that arepunishable are bad, a conclusion which makes little sense since we clearly seethe relationship between law and morality the other way around. Punishabilityis not the criterion for injustice; rather we believe to rightly punish thosedeeds that are unjust.

With having failed to put forward a coherent account of the utilityprinciple in the sphere of law and politics, the question remains whetherutilitarianism may simply be overstretched as a political theory. Perhaps itmakes more sense to think of it as a theory of economic affairs only, as Millsuggested for Bentham's theory.What is at stake here is the coherence of utilitarian theory for politics. Ifit turns out to be only of local applicability, it ceases to be a theory thatexplains our commitments in society and therefore is not morally relevantanymore. This challenge can be analysed through the issue of conflictingvalues. For utilitarians the happiness principles must regulate the entirety ofpolitical actions. Let us think of a person who values biodiversity for its ownsake. He learns from the news that somebody will build a refuge for whiteelephants which will certainly ensure the survival of this rare species. Now,within the utilitarian framework, this person is pleased because these actionssatisfy his particular desire, to ensure biodiversity. However, this wouldhardly give an accurate account of what this person experiences. Surely, he isnot simply pleased because his wish has been granted that biodiversityin this instance is secured. He is in fact pleased because biodiversity issecured. The two versions of explaining his state of pleasure are different.Utilitarians must prefer the first and cannot account for the second. They failto acknowledge that there are some values which people hold for other reasonsthat them giving pleasure. Philosophers speak of 'intrinsically valuable goals'and utilitarians have problems appreciating this diversity of values in theirtheory.

This produces the biggest challenge to utilitarianism as a theory ofpolitical morality. It cannot generate universal coherence across theboundaries of human engagements, and sometimes even within particular spheresof social life. It fails to make sense of the entirety of human life, aconclusion that renders it grossly deficient as a moral philosophy in generaland as a theory of political morality in particular.

Bibliography

Geoffrey Scarre.Utilitarianism. London and New York: Routledge 1996.

BernardWilliams. A Critique of Utilitarianism. In J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams.Utilitarianismfor and against. Cambridge e.a.: CUP 1973, pp.75-150.

J.J.C. Smart. AnOutline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics. In J.J.C. Smart and BernardWilliams.Utilitarianism for and against. Cambridge e.a.: CUP 1973,pp.1-74.

Jonathan Riley. UtilitarianEthics and Democratic Government. In Lincoln Allison (ed).The UtilitarianResponse. The Contemporary Viability of Utilitarian Political Philosophy,pp.161-192.

Will Kymlicka.ContemporaryPolitical Philosophy. Oxford e.a.: Clarendon 1990

John StuartMill. Utilitarianism. In John Stuart Mill.On Liberty and Other Essays.Oxford New York: OUP 1991, pp.131-201.

All of the essays in this section were written by students and then submitted to us to publish and help others. Thanks to all of the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do not condone plagiarism! If you need custom essays on your exact essay questions, then have a look at our essay writing service.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: