The Morality of Utilitarian Society

Introduction

First introduced by the philosopher and moral thinker John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is a derivation off of a normative ethical theory known as consequentialism. Mill applies this form of consequentialist theory to correctly evaluate and answer the moral question of what are right and wrong actions to take within society. The overall gist of this theory builds upon the foundation of making decisions and taking measures that will substantially minimize the magnitude of pain we experience and maximize our pleasures. Utilitarianism relies upon the idea that the end result of an action can be justified if and only if the consequence of that action outweighed any other choice in terms of maximizing happiness. Strictly speaking, Mill believes in the notion that the end result justifies the means, no matter what that situation may have been. This is because it is morally correct to bring pleasure; however, it is incorrect to burden the greater good of people with pain. In doing so, Utilititiarianism establishes a guideline for what it means to live a good life and morally-just life. The “good life,” which Stuart Mill refers to within his research, is one that follows the notion of bringing the greater good happiness. Although the theory proposed by Mill may be appealing to the surface-level view, the feasibility of such a proposition is unrealistic in a society where everyone caters to different perspectives, needs, and relations of life.

Morality and Moral Duty

The functional groundwork of Utilitarianism sometimes calls for individuals to make difficult moral decisions. For example, a squad of U.S. soldiers are stationed within a foreign country such as Iraq. On their daily drive around the town to make sure that the inhabitants of a city are safe, they encounter a child and mother standing in the middle of the road. Even after an order to move out of the way, the child and mother do not move; instead, they begin walking towards the squad of vehicles. Now, the leader of the team has a difficult decision to make, either tell his team to stand down, allow the child and mother to approach, or be forced to use coercion against the child and mother. People might believe that it is immoral to harm a child; however, according to Utilitarianism, it is moral to shoot the child and the mother as it protects the interests, happiness, and well-being of the greater good (in this case the squad of U.S. soldiers). The idea of morality within Utilitarianism is inconsistent, and the boundaries of what is ethically and morally correct are ambiguous. Although Utilitarianism promotes that the moral choice as one which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain, everyone has a different perspective on how to approach certain situations, meaning that there is no consensus amongst the population.

Consensus

What types of pleasures can be taken into consideration when determining if an action is moral or immoral, is still open to debate. For many individuals, pleasures are not represented by completing our moral duty. Instead, acts of temporary happiness such as listening to music, buying a new car, drugs, and taking part in leisure can be considered pleasurable. Yet, as explained by the groundwork of Utilitarianism, they have no relation to serving a moral duty. For many people, that is what pleasure means, not what is morally or ethically correct. One primary reason as to why Utilitarianism is an impractical way of looking at consequences/actions is that there is no unified consensus as to which pleasures and pains should be taken into consideration. For example, one individual may believe that specific pains, such as failing a class or rejection are necessary building blocks to build character and improve upon one’s self. However, others may look at those pains as irrelevant to their lives.

Much like pain, everyone has a different understanding of what pleasure is to them. Different types of perspectives bring about a strict level of difficulty in making a case for what kinds of pleasures and pain should or should not be included in the overall scheme of life itself. Also, there is much ambiguity surrounding the moral aspect of the Utilitarianism theory. Within this theory, when determining what is right or wrong, it is necessary to contemplate which action is going to be best to maximize pleasure and minimize pain for the greater good. However, it is hard to conclude which choice is better than the other (which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain) because the question “what is moral” is left unanswered in the scope of the broader population. Not every single person is going to share the same consensus on what they believe is right or wrong. Utilitarianism relies heavily on the idea that pain, happiness, and pleasure can be measured on a scale. Unfortunately, this is not true at all. For one individual, true happiness lies within a relationship and not what goes on in society and the politics which may come with it. However, for another, happiness and pleasure may lie within other areas of life, such as traveling or achieving personal goals. In a sense, making a choice that benefits all is nearly impossible and not feasible. As a result, it is almost impossible to make a justified moral decision (Hedonic Calculus), which will maximize everyone’s pleasure and minimize their pain.

Conclusion

Without taking into account different perspectives, relations, and needs of all people. Instead, the notion of deciding for the greater good outweighs any personal relationships we have with one another. Utilitarianism forgets to take into account other moral principles of life. For example, if there are two people, a 70-year old doctor and a child trapped within a collapsing building and only one can be saved, many people would save the child because he/she has a long life to live. However, Uttilitarinism exerts that the doctor must be protected because, in the end, he can help the greater good. Although the moral theory of Utilitarianism can co-exist within certain realms of life (such as politics and setting laws), the feasibility of such an ethical approach is unjust within every-day social life. The consequences of an action are indeed significant; however, the consequence is not all that should be taken into account when discussing morality.