Utilitarianism as a Moral Framework
Introduction
Utilitarianism is a conception of morality based on the principle of usefulness. It judges actions based on their ability to maximize positive consequences, such as happiness or satisfaction, for the greatest number of people. This framework can be summarized as “the maximum welfare for the maximum number of people.”
Pros of Utilitarianism
Any purpose we propose is related to happiness. Virtue and happiness share common ground: being virtuous makes us feel good (pleasure), while not being virtuous causes pain or dissatisfaction. Therefore, happiness and virtue coincide in their basic components (pleasure and pain).
- Happiness: Obtaining pleasure or eliminating pain (individually and/or collectively).
- Pursuant: Complying with rules or standards for their own sake.
Ultimately, utilitarianism recognizes that fulfilling duties provides satisfaction, a feeling of pleasure, or emotional well-being.
- Unselfishly wanted: Not selfishly. Refers to virtue or moral self (in the Kantian sense), not consequentialist (deontological).
- Psychological fact: Feeling of satisfaction, psychological well-being from fulfilling duties.
Moral Development and Intuition
Moral feelings are not innate but acquired through experience. With practice, morality becomes natural, like other skills humans develop. It is the ability to acquire moral learning that is natural and spontaneous.
- Natural: Characteristic of human nature, innate, not acquired by experience.
- Transcendental: Enables the acquisition of morality (in the Kantian sense). In a certain sense, one can say that it is “innate” (but not in the rationalist sense).
A comparison between moral intuitionism and utilitarian intuitionism as “innate” or “transcendental” is not necessary. Both coincide with the innate ability to estimate the amount of pain and pleasure in others. This aspect is crucial for both moral and utilitarian morality.
- Implemented: Acquired, not innate.
- Intuitionist: The belief that morality is not acquired by experience.
Social Sanctions and Private Morality
Anyone who does not act according to the interests and feelings of others is subject to social sanction. One cannot hide behind the argument of privacy if it causes harm to the community.
- Private morality: Attitude or behavior that affects only the private sphere, free from public interference.
- Field of freedom: Reproval or public criticism (whether by social authorities or majorities) of a given behavior.
The harm we inflict upon ourselves can also affect others. In this case, the action goes beyond the private sphere and society or the state has the right to intervene.
- Private morality: The sphere of behavior that affects only the individual; a space free from public interference.
- Moral disapproval: Reproval or public criticism (whether by authorities or social majorities) of a given individual behavior.
Mill’s Utilitarianism vs. Hume’s Emotivism
Comparing emotivist moral theory with Mill’s utilitarianism reveals similarities and differences. Like Mill, Hume is an indeterminist and believes in human freedom of choice. However, there is a fundamental difference. For Hume, all actions have equal moral worth – there is no criterion to determine if one action is more or less moral than another. In contrast, utilitarianism provides a criterion to evaluate different moral positions. Utilitarians claim that morality is governed by the criterion of maximum good for the maximum number of people. An action that benefits more people has greater moral value. For example, helping a hospital through voluntary donations is morally superior to spending the money on personal pleasures. This does not imply that small personal pleasures are bad; they are simply not as good because they do not increase the happiness of as many people as in the other case. Mill’s ethics is consequentialist: an act is better as its consequences are better. Utilitarianism cannot be understood without individual commitment to doing the most good, which requires determination and freedom. Hume’s morality, being purely subjectivist, lacks these elements.
Public and Private Spheres
John Stuart Mill clearly separates the public sphere, where communities can intervene, from the private sphere, where no one can use social coercion, whether institutional or spontaneous. Mill aims to ensure individual space for self-development, with the understanding that the use of personal freedom does not harm others. According to Mill, this space (individual freedom) is a defining characteristic of modern civilized societies. There is no social progress without space for individual peculiarity. The right to be different must be protected from democracy because, according to Mill, democracies based on majority rule risk suppressing individual freedom, either overtly or subtly, using powerful mechanisms of public opinion.