Utilitarianism

[BlackBillBlake]

Pioneered by the English philospher Jeremy Bentham in the early 19th c, and taken forward as a 'philosophy' by J.S.Mill and John Stuart Mill, the principle of utility was supposed to satisfy the needs of all our ethical dilemas and questions.

Bentham's idea is that an action is good, it has 'utility' if it leads to 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'.

What do you think? Was Bentham right or wrong? Can you think of an ethical question that cannot be solved by the application of this principle of utility?

What do you think the social consequences of such an ethic might be?

[sourdiesel06]

I find that in cases of medical ethics, Utilitarianism makes the most sense to me. However, when making everyday ethical decisions, it is useless as a decision making tool because it is impossible to instantaneously calculate every consequence of a particular action.

Also, I think the idea of utilitarian calculus, which I believe was a product of Bentham is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. How utility can be quantified is beyond me and comes across as being completely unrealistic.

[StayLoose1011]

I love utilitarianism. It's one of the best philosophical schools I can think of... it makes perfect sense to spread the greatest amount of happiness possible, and I think we should aim to do that.

However, there is a big problem.

Utilitarianism is wrong.

Why? Because good/happiness/whatever is a completely subjective thing, and can never be measured. It seems obvious that a dying kid in Africa would be happier with the medicine needed to cure him than some rich guy would be with his 80th pair of nice shoes, but when one thinks deeply about these matters, it becomes quite fuzzy.

It's a great concept with much wisdom and good intention underlying it, but unfortunately it cannot be applied to real life in a meaningful way because it relies on subjective experience that can never be understood.