Question

Help me maximize my pleasure by critiquing my philosophy paper over utilitarianism.

Answer 1

Yes, that is a utilitarianism joke in the title.

Answer 2

Themes of utilitarianism have been observed in philosophical writings long before it was named as a movement. The first philosopher to mold those themes into a movement and set of ethical theories was Jeremy Bentham with his book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Bentham put forth the idea that every action humans take is in pursuit of pleasure and in avoidance of pain. Another influential classical utilitarianist was John Mill. Mill agreed with Bentham, but clarified his ideas by suggesting that happiness should be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. As time went on other philosophers developed their own contemporary concepts of utilitarianism, such as ideal, act and rule, two-level, and preference utilitarianism. However, all forms of this ethical theory circle back to Bentham’s and Mill’s main concepts of human relation between pleasure and pain.

I believe that the ethical theories behind utilitarianism are flawed in a multitude of ways. The principle beliefs of Utilitarianism suggest that humans are less self-interested beings, and are more concerned with the happiness of those surrounding them at all times, which I believe is not true. Utilitarianism also suggests that when making emotionally-conflicting decisions, that the person involved in such a situation will do things for the greater good, rather than for their own self interest. Theoretically this sounds best, but I believe that in reality almost all people would choose whatever would be best for themselves in most given situations.

There are many examples of utilitarianism used in present life and past life that are questionable when it comes to the ethics behind utilitarianism. There are many historical events that a utilitarianist would view favorably but are in actuality horrible. An example of this would be slavery. Slavery could be seen in the eye of a utilitarianist as maximizing the greater good from product production, while harming only a small group of people. They would argue that the outcome of cheaper goods for a large number of people and economic stability to Southern inhabitants justified the forced labor of a smaller group of the population, and maximized utility. However, one cannot quantify human suffering on that mass scale and weigh it up against a list of cotton prices. Even if the happiness of the unenslaved in society was of a greater magnitude than the unhappiness of the enslaved, the happiness does not negate the suffering. The suffering still occurs, whether or not others feel a benefit. In this way, utilitarianism overlooks huge parts of situations by only looking at the overall picture.

In a famous moral predicament, there are four men stranded on a boat. If one of the men is weaker and therefore eaten by the other three, those three can survive until rescue. The utilitarianist solution supports that the weaker man should be eaten because the live men will produce more happiness for society than all four men dying would contribute. The suffering of the weaker man is justified by the happiness of the other men. However, in this situation none of the men stranded on the boat would not base their decisions on the greater good, but would rather base their decision on personal gain. Each man who ate the weaker man would not be looking at his contribution to society, but simply was driven by his will to live. The weaker man would not look at this situation and quietly surrender himself for the group, but would also be motivated to live for the sake of himself. Utilitarianism ignores the fact that people do not act logically under dire circumstances.(Logic under utilitarianism during those moments of dire circumstance becomes subjective). People seek their own self-preservation and survival often at any costs, and are willing to go to great lengths to benefit themselves, often disregarding group gain.

Another common criticism of utilitarianism's impracticability is that, in daily life, a person would not have the time and ability to meditate on all the complex factors of a situation and be able to calculate its utility. Mill’s direct rebuttal to this critique of utilitarianism is that mankind has had many years to reflect on a variety of moral dilemmas and that there are both cultural and intimate figures in one’s life to reflect on when making such decisions. In chapter two of Utilitarianism, Mill states that for “the whole past duration of the human species… mankind have been learning by experience the tendencies of actions”. However, I believe in a morally demanding moment, most people would not reflect on cultural icons or historical happenings and how they apply to the moral situation that the person is in, and rather would act upon their immediate instinct. People may have cultural heuristics for how to take action, but these generally do not involve utilitarianist principles, and are simply basic ideas of moral behavior. Therefore, Mill’s rebuttal to this critique is flawed in its premise.

Utilitarianism is still prominent in modern culture, especially when enacting cost-benefit analysis in the business world. An example of this would be a man getting fired from a team who did not lack business skills, but did not work well socially with the team. While his firing negatively affected him, the team benefited overall from his absence. Another example of modern utilitarianism would be a pharmaceutical company releasing a drug with mild side effects because overall the drug cures more problems than it causes. In these examples, an analysis of the loss compared to the benefit is studied at great lengths by higher authority, while in everyday ethical decisions, one cannot easily or accurately meditate on or determine the outcome of their decision. As such utilitarianism should not be used as a sole basis of moral decisions, because they are too complex to be determined by a formulaic system of philosophy.

Answer 3

I am lacking an into and thesis paragraph.

Answer 4

I haven't really studied philosophy that intensely, but I can critique grammar, writing style, and such, if you like.

Answer 5

Sure, I know there are some definite typos (such as me capitalizing utilitarianism in some places) in the paper. I also feel that the paragraph focusing on slavery is a bit choppy in some places as well.

Answer 6

Do you have quotations in your actual paper?

Answer 7

Okay, paragraph 2, you use "I," but I haven't noticed this anywhere else in the paper, and you use "one" in other places. So, keep the point of view consistent throughout the paper.

Paragraph 1 sentence 1: I think the antecedent it is a little unclear since utilitarianism is used as the object of a preposition. So, you might want to reorder that sentence a little (I mean, I understand it perfectly, but my grammar nazi side desires a reorganization of the parts of speech).

More in paragraph 1: comma after "as time went on" and no comma before such as.

Just stuff like that (and the capitalization and such).

Answer 8

@isry98 yes, book titles and stuff are in italics in my paper. and quotes are in quotations.

@geneticrockhopper247 thanks for pointing all that out!

Answer 9

Okay I thought so just making sure

Answer 10

Does anything sound bias?

Answer 11

Is this supposed to be a research paper or an essay?

Answer 12

Essay.

Answer 13

As you all can tell, I am arguing against the classic principles of utilitarianism, but I want to make sure i'm not making illogical or bias points.

Answer 14

You're welcome. :) Like I said, I'm a grammar nazi, so, if you'd like me to continue going through it, I can, but I figured I'd just stop in paragraph 1 so that I didn't get too nit-picky.

Answer 15

Then you should be fine where bias is concerned you clearly stated your opinions and made logical and well founded arguments against utilitarianism... you do not just make generalized statements against it... you have the utilitarianism argument as well as your own... the only thing I could think of to possibly make your paper stronger as far as the overall idea goes is to have one or two quotations from sources that agree with your statements just to show that you are not just making these arguments out of thin air

Answer 16

I would normally agree with you, but my philosophy professor has strictly said that this is paper that cannot have any outisde references :P Only from the readings that we've done in lecture.. Thanks a lot! :)

Answer 17

Interesting... in that case then your arguments are fine. As far as the introduction goes, it might be a good idea to clearly and concisely outline your views on utilitarianism in the introduction then you could tie in your thesis to your intro and have a strong structure for your arguments to build off of.

Answer 18

I'm going to start working on that now!

Answer 19

YES! It lacks a proper thesis. Also it contains conceptual flaws in the example such as the slavery. According to Mill's essay On Liberty, individual pursuit of happiness is comparable to that of the "greater good" of the many. Meaning that slaves' individual pursuit of happiness do not differ nor weigh less compare to the whole society's. This is the very basis in which our constitutional rights was grounded upon - that the majority has no rule over the few. :)

I will continue reading and provide my input.

Answer 20

I think she is working on the thesis right now

Answer 21

I remember sharing John Stuart Mill's essay in our early encounters. :D

Answer 22

Yes Nin, I am working on intro and thesis now. I thought writing the paper would help me organize my thoughts better.

I have not read Mill's "On Liberty", which means in this essay I cannot refer to it or base any of my original thoughts on what Mill stated in the essay. Can you suggest how I could improve my writing knowing that info?

Answer 23

Whenever I argue for utilitarianism, I think along the lines of maximizing good for the many without sacrificing the few. Also, the use of slave in today's society or even 100-years ago in the context of a society 300-years ago is not a good way to craft an argument against any philosophy. Remember that Individuals make up a society, so in essence the aggregate is just as important as the individual for everyone's pursuit of happiness is identical in value. This is my take, but I do not know if your professor has a different one. I can debate him on this one.

Answer 24

John Stuart Mill's essays are a little difficult to read based on the syntax of how Englishmen wrote their papers then. But it is crucial that you read this essay specially when using Mill as part of the argument. There is always a special weight to the individual's pursuits of happiness. The essay revolves around actions attaining happiness without breaking anyone's legs. My pursuit of happiness is justified if I didn't break your legs, unless you want me to because it made you happy (kidding for the last part).

Answer 25

The majority is what builds a society because with out the majority then nothing would go anywhere in terms of ideas for a better society... This can be seen with communist Russia which had the Bolsheviks and the Minsheviks quite literally the Majority and the Minority which as we all know the Bolsheviks won out and thus communism came to be the government of Russia. Also in France during the French Revolution we can see the same sort of thing happen. Where the Majority of the people decide that the current people in power are not satisfactory and install their own form of government. In both cases the Minority was sacrificed for the "greater good" of the Majority. This is a classic example of utilitarianism.

Answer 26

Also regarding Mill's her professor said that she was not aloud to use sources outside of the reading that they did in class and she did not read "On Liberty" in her class.

Answer 27

argh... that is bogus LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY INSIDE MY HEAD

Answer 28

These are examples of the Majority over ruling the Minority

Answer 29

Where utilitarianism fall is the lack of absolutism.

Answer 30

We can use your thesis that utilitarianism works for cost-benefit analysis, but fails in moral absolutism.

Answer 31

Do your sources actually claim that these people felt this was the impetus for human behavior? Because utilitarianism, as far as I know, is the promotion that it should be... not that it is.

Answer 32

"Another example of modern utilitarianism would be a pharmaceutical company releasing a drug with mild side effects because overall the drug cures more problems than it causes." Hmmm.... I am not sure this is a sound argument because the pharmaceutical companies are driven by personal proffits, not by public good. See, the greatest good would be if they released the formula as public domain so that anyone could use it, but that does not make them money. Thus, they halt their progress to utilitarianism by going into a more commercial motive.

Answer 33

@e.mccormick it would seem that most of these moral philosophies are difficult to apply or merge with capitalism in an extensive manner. Capitalism's philosophical underpinning is maximizing profit at all cost (get the joke here? profit at all cost), which undermines morality.

Answer 34

I still stand that we can use your thesis that utilitarianism works for cost-benefit analysis, but fails in moral absolutism.

Answer 35

Nin, yes, I think you can apply them too, but more as showing how a company could opperate more in line with moral philosophy and less with Fanatical Capitalism. I find that Capitalism alone is fine when guided by moral principals, but Fanatical Capitalism, or the most extreme form, tends to forget morals and go for short term proffits only.

Answer 36

It wouldn't be capitalism if it didn't maximize profit (monetary). Even neo-capitalism wouldn't apply.

Answer 37

Not necessarily. Capitalism includes non-profit. It is more about private ownership and control than it is about making money. That lack of government control is a big part of it. The problem is that more and more it is divorced from any form of moral compass as a side effect of the private control. Objectivism a la Rand looks at Capitalism this as the pinnacle of development by saying that business people are ethical in their search for profit and that only politicians are corrupt... however, things like the drug company profit margins (6000% in some cases,) Enron, British Petroleum, the SNL scandal, the more recent housing loan bubble pop, and so on show the flaw in this idea and that Capitalism is divorced from any sort of moral compass in many situations.

So can Utilitarianism overlap with Capitalism? Yes! A good example would be some of the new power efficiency companies that are doing unified solution to retrofit buildings. They come in to sell you on not one upgrade but on several that are synergistic. Then it is financed so that the customer can see a small reduction in costs over the next few years while it is paid off, after which they see a huge gain in costs for the expected 20 year life span. This is Capitalism in that it makes money for a group of privately owned companies as the customer and the contractors. It is Utilitarianism because it reduces energy waste, which is good for the environment and thus the entire world.

Answer 38

hmmm... I studied capitalism under economics and cultural anthropology. Not-for-profit organizations follow models that would include accumulation of funds for the company to stay afloat, but would not be considered profit in taxation and regulation terms and would then follow certain restrictions for that to apply. While it is true that NPO's will have to think like any for profit businesses, the nature of the restrictions do not make the business a good example for a model for capitalism even though these organization operate in places where capitalism is the economic foundation. I sense a misunderstanding the philosophical concept of utilitarianism in the arguments that you are providing - they lack the act and rule as well the consequentialism.

Answer 39

Well, I have not studied utilitarianism much. Just did intro to philosophy.... which is something I think more people need for a little dose of metaphysics and epistemology.