Mill's Utilitarianism

6 PAGES
1226 WORDS


Mill's Utilitarianism

When faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate
considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information
to make the required calculations. This lack of information is a problem both in
evaluating the welfare issues and in evaluating the consequentialist issues
which utilitarianism requires be weighed when making moral decisions.

Utilitarianism attempts to solve both of these difficulties by appealing to
experience; however, no method of reconciling an individual decision with the
rules of experience is suggested, and no relative weights are assigned to the
various considerations. In deciding whether or not to torture a terrorist who
has planted a bomb in New York City, a utilitarian must evaluate both the
overall welfare of the people involved or effected by the action taken, and the
consequences of the action taken. To calculate the welfare of the people
involved in or effected by an action, utilitarianism requires that all
individuals be considered equally. Quantitative utilitarian would weigh the
pleasure and pain which would be caused by the bomb exploding against the
pleasure and pain that would be caused by torturing the terrorist. Then, the
amounts would be summed and compared. The problem with this method is that it is
impossible to know beforehand how much pain the bomb exploding or how much pain
would be caused by the torture. Utilitarianism offers no practical way to make
the interpersonal comparison of utility necessary to compare the pains. In the
case of the bomb exploding, it at least seems highly probable that the bomb
exploding would cause a greater amount of pain, at least in the present. This
probability suffices for a quantitative utilitarian, but it does not account for
the consequences, which create an entirely different problem, which will be
discussed below. The probability also does not hold for Mill's utilitarianism.

Mill's Utilitarianism insists on qualitative utilitarianism, which requires that
one consider not only the amount of pain or pleasure, but also the quality of
such pain and pleasure. Mill suggests that to distinguish between different
pains and pleasures we should ask people who have experienced both types which
is more pleasurable or more painful. This solution does not work for the
question of torture compared to death in an explosion. There is no one who has
experienced both; therefore, there is no one who can be consulted. Even if we
agree that the pain caused by the number of deaths in the explosion is greater
than the pain of the terrorist being tortured, this assessment only accounts for
the welfare half of the utilitarian's considerations. Furthermore, one has no
way to measure how much more pain is caused by allowing the bomb to explode than
by torturing the terrorist. After settling the issues surrounding the welfare, a
utilitarian must also consider the consequences of an action. In weighing the
consequences, there are two important considerations. The first, which is
especially important to objective Utilitarianism, is which people will be
killed. The second is the precedent, which will be set by the action.

Unfortunately for the decision-maker, the information necessary to make either
of these calculations is unavailable. There is no way to determine which people
will be killed and weigh whether their deaths would be good for society.

Utilitarianism requires that one compare the good that the people would do for
society with the harm they would do society if they were not killed. For
example, if a young Adolf Hitler were in the building, it might do more good for
society to allow the building to explode. Unfortunately for an individual
attempting to use utilitarianism to make for decisions, there is no way to know
beforehand what a person will do. Furthermore, without even knowing which
building the bomb is in, there is no way to predict which people will surely be
in the building. A subjectivist utilitarian would dismiss this consideration and
would examine only what a rational person would consider to be the consequence;
however, even the subjectivist utilitarian must face the question of precedent
setting. Utilitarianism considers justice and humane treatment to be good for
society as a whole and therefore instrumentally good as a means to promoting
happiness. Utilitarianism considers precedent to be important, but does not
offer any method of determining exceptions. It is impossible to determine how
much effect on precedent any given isolated action will have. In the case of
determining whether or not to torture the terrorist, one must consider whether
it is good for society to allow torture to be used as a method of gaining
information. If

Read the full essay 1226 words