Utilitarianism

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

As a legal argument, utilitarianism directs the policymaker to assess the results of existing or proposed laws. If it is criminal law, seeking to prevent certain behaviors through threat of punishment, an attempt is made to “make the punishment fit the crime” by being sufficiently unpleasant, but no more, to deter such actions. In this context, an argument for (or against) capital punishment will examine both particular and similar cases to assess whether the death penalty produces the desired results (i.e., whether it reduces the chances of people killing each other). If, on the other hand, the law is one that aims at distributing economic resources in a way to increase the satisfaction of needs and desires (through welfare measures), studies must assess the altered circumstances of the persons affected.

There is no specific list of material or moral preferences and goals linked to the utilitarian analytical approach other than the satisfaction of individuals and the production of happiness. It is not a Big Brother approach to social policy, directing the one or the many toward that which is “best for them” in the mind of the researcher or the policymaker. Happiness is a personal thing, and the happiness of a group or community of individuals is the sum of what they choose for themselves, whatever those things may be. Utilitarianism does not intrinsically contain any need to “improve” the type or quality of choices that one might make. We might be told how to make choices by keeping our happiness to the fore—Bentham said that we should do it with mathematical care by means of a felicific calculus—but, other than that, in the words of Bentham, “pushpin is as good as poetry.” In modern vernacular, playing a computer game is as valuable as reading a good book—if that is where one's pleasure lies.

Such a “vulgar” orientation has not always satisfied the utilitarian turn of mind of the student of the social condition. The well trained and well educated, or simply those with a passion for their own particular brand of truth and justice, often implicitly or explicitly formulate their analyses and conclusions in a form that would persuade or coerce their subjects toward goals never imagined by them. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), an intellectual giant in the promotion of utilitarianism, could not imagine that a contented ignoramus should be left alone. Some kinds of happiness are, for this kind of utilitarian thinker, simply better than others and should be given preference and promotion.

...