Utilitarianism
is the philosophical concept that defines “good” as “whatever brings about the
greatest total happiness”, developed in fruition across the 19th
century. Specifically however, utilitarianism involves the greatest amount of
good produced by the most morally righteous actions. There are many things that
must be considered in the analysis of utilitarianism when put into context of
living a “Good Life”. In application of utilitarianism to the Good Life, the
definition is altered, to something along the lines of ‘a life which is a
result of morally righteous actions which bring about the greatest happiness
for everyone’.
However,
many problems arise in the discussion of utilitarianism in relation to the Good
Life. Like a science experiment, there are many ways to achieve the end, and
there are many variables and guidelines to consider. For example, one can
achieve a utilitarian end by means of Consequentialism. Consequentialism is the
theory that states that a motive behind “a morally righteous action” is irrelevant,
and only the consequence of the action is important[1].
So, for example, say a man walks into a
bar with intention of killing thirteen people, but instead happens to shoot all
of the life threatening cancerous cells inside the gun-wounded victims, out,
saving their lives, and leaving very little damage behind. A consequentialist
would say that the gunman has done the morally right thing; he’s saved their
lives, to a point of course.
Utilitarianism
isn’t without its guidelines either; it has its constant variables,
scientifically speaking. For instance, utilitarianism cannot be possible
without the acceptance that it is not partial to any party, and that it’s a
neutral subject[2].
As a result of this, no one’s happiness is worth more than another, and such
happiness cannot be selective of individuals, because then partiality arises
and utilitarianism cannot work. This
however, does not only apply to the end result [being the greatest total
happiness achieved for the most people]. On top of this, the motives behind the
morally righteous actions (which result in the greatest total happiness
achieved for the greatest amount of people), are all essentially worth the same
in order to keep the impartiality balance.
A factor
that must be considered when applying utilitarianism as a means to living the
Good Life is the form that utilitarianism takes. This is because there are many
forms of utilitarianism, and while utilitarianism generally aims at achieving
the greatest total amount of happiness for the greatest number of people
through morally righteous actions, there are some varying subsets of
utilitarianism that may contradict this ideal. For example, there is a form of
utilitarianism known as rule utilitarianism. While the same principle of
“aiming for the greatest total … righteous decisions”, still applies, rule
utilitarianism differs from utilitarianism in that, rule utilitarianism
involves an unconditional principle that must be met above the pursuit for the
greatest total happiness for the most people. For example, a teacher could
easily, give everyone in the class 100% on every test and maximize happiness
everywhere, but a rule would contradict this in that a teacher has a teaching
guideline to stick to, which prevents this from happening[3].
Another
example of a different example of utilitarianism that must be put into
consideration in the discussion of the subject matter of the Good Life is
negative utilitarianism. Whole act utilitarianism puts forth the notion that
one should aim for the greatest total happiness for the greatest number of
people (through morally righteous actions), negative utilitarianism suggests
that one should aim to reduce sadness to a minimum for the greatest number of
people.[4]
There is a very obvious problem when these two are compared in that the ideas
will inevitably contradict each other. For example, is it really better for two
people out of fifty to be happy, whilst the other forty eight are unhappy as
opposed to having fifty people in a state of unhappiness, but at the same time,
not in a state of sadness? Consequentially the question is raised, which
doctrine is the one that should be followed in pursuit of the Good Life?
However,
the question is eventually asked, “How does utilitarianism (or more
specifically, the “greatest happiness principle”) help one to achieve the good
life? Utilitarianism generally relies on the greatest total happiness for the
greatest number of people principle. This means that if everyone in any given
society acts in a utilitarian manner, then everyone who is on the receiving end
of a utilitarian act will gain happiness from the action. However, personally,
the concept that “Utilitarianism is not a
simplistic moral principle to be mechanically applied, it is a long term social
project”[5] holds some elements of truth, because utilitarianism is
a long term social project, and it was designed for a more widespread audience
than it was for individual use. Utilitarianism cannot be mechanically applied
to everyone, because everyone would have different standards on what the Good
Life is. Furthermore, it is very well possible that acting in a way that
maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people possible may not necessarily
make the individual happy; as there is nothing to suggest that making others
happy will make oneself happy. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest at all
that one can achieve the Good Life through the attainment of happiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment