Utilitarianism? More like Futilitarianism...

I have a confession…

I am a recovering utilitarian

I’ll admit, I was a proponent of utilitarianism. I liked the idea of a results-based ethical theory and the calculation seems straightforward. Judging by all the criticism voiced in class, it seems like that is an unpopular view. There seem to be far more Kantians in the class or, at least they seem more vocal than the closet utilitarians.

But looking back now, after half a semester of Ethics, I'm starting to question Mill's ethical theory. It seems like the utilitarian calculus is a heavy-handed method for confronting ethical problems. I mean, the utilitarian calculation requires that you determine the value of intangible concepts and then compare them in the abstract. That is a monumental task (and it certainly isn't precise)

Let’s take the torture example we talked about in class a few weeks ago.

The problem is not so much that there are other consequences beyond merely torturing a suspected terrorists. In other words, it isn’t just that there are social consequences that come along with torture. Rather, the problem is defining their worth. We are tasked with identifying those consequences (otherwise, how do we assign value to things we cannot identify?), assigning a value to them, and then weighing that against entirely different measures.

The utilitarian would have to take into account: Social consequences of state sponsored torture vs. the lives of thousands of innocent people

So the relatively straightforward example regarding torture requires that we (somehow) determine the value of human life AND the social consequences that may be accompanied by a particular action. Then, even IF we can assign them some value or determine how much they are worth, how do we compare those things? They’re apples and oranges. On one hand, you have human life and on the other we have to determine (1) the social consequences that would follow from torture and (2) assign a “value” to that.

Clearly, Mill’s ethical theory is far from simple. The utilitarian calculus is demands that we assign value to intangible objects or abstact concepts and then compare them. That’s just not feasible. There are better ways to gauge the rightness and wrongness of actions.

This calculation unnecessarily complicates the process of determining which actions are morally good and which are morally unacceptable. I’ve got to tip my hat to Kant for, at the very least, attempting to create an a priori ethical theory. (That’s not to say that I’m a fan of Kant either. I’ve got my own problems with him. But that’s for a different post).

This whole time I praised Utilitarianism because of its simplicity when, instead, I should’ve been criticizing it for the same reason.

There you have it ladies and gentlemen,

My name is Thomas Cull and I am a recovering utilitarian.