The theory of utilitarianism. The theory of utilitarianism Utilitarianism as a pedagogical idea
In the 19th century, compiled ethics of utilitarianism, it considers any socio-cultural or natural phenomena based on their usefulness, and not in accordance with their objective properties.
I. Bentham(1748-1832) - the founder of English utilitarianism. James Mill(1773- 1836) and John Stuart Mill(1806-1873) - his successors - substantiated the position of this direction.
Work I. Bentama"Introduction to the Principles of Morality and Legislation" is considered the first exposition of the concept of utilitarianism. The beginning of utilitarianism as a direction of moral philosophy was laid in this treatise.
I. Bentham believed that the "principle of utility" operates in four areas: political, physical, religious and moral. He did not predict that, based on this principle, all people would regulate their behavior. This principle primarily applied to legislators and politicians who make changes in society.
Speaking of personal ethics "in its typical form", it should give instructions to the individual how to increase personal happiness, which is part of the happiness of the whole society. In this treatise, a classification of suffering was carried out - 12 types and 14 types of pleasures, such concepts as "suffering", "emotion", "thirst", "motive", "evil", "charity" and others were analyzed.
J. Mill separates "useful" from sensual pleasures and benefits. He believes that pleasures are quantitatively and qualitatively different. Those that are preferred by most people are considered the most valuable. Whenever possible, people strive for the satisfaction of self-esteem, that is, they give preference to higher needs.
A-priory J. Mill ,morality- these are the rules for guiding human actions, through their implementation for all mankind the most rich in pleasures and free from suffering existence is created. According to J. Mill, utilitarianism develops the traditions of Stoicism and Christianity, the ideal of universal unity and love. It is also equally important to make efforts to achieve personal happiness for each person.
In addition to the main principle of usefulness, there are also secondary principles: “take into account the interests of your neighbors”, “oppose misfortune”, “do no harm”. The formation of this direction took place in a dispute with intuitionism and priorism, with the views of Kant, in particular. However, this theory has not bypassed internal contradictions. First of all, this refers to the problem of finding the foundations for evaluating actions.
In classical utilitarianism the evaluation of an act is based on the consequences of the action taken as an independent act and the observance of the rights of other people as one of the consequences of the action. At the same time, human rights act as a standard, the fulfillment of which is mandatory for all people.
According to Bentham, the mechanism, the engine of human actions is the human psyche: suffering, feelings and pleasure. Man is always between these mental states. The usefulness of actions can give a feeling of satisfaction, which is equivalent to the concept of happiness.
Utility- this is what brings prosperity, pleasure, happiness and goodness, and the opposite of it is a feeling of unhappiness. Bentham puts the concept of utility at the center of understanding the motives of people's actions, believes that it is advisable to derive legislative and moral norms from it. He believes that the concept of utility is the basis of human nature.
The issue of the relationship between public and private interests is considered on the basis of the concept of "essence". According to Bentham, there are two types of entities. The first are those that really exist, or those that can be comprehended by common sense. The second - those that do not really exist - these are categories, in particular ethical ones. Bentham refutes the existence of moral ties between people, since, in his opinion, they are an imaginary value.
James Mill- a follower of the teachings of Bentham - came out of Hume's ideas in the problems of epistemology, which influenced the ethical theory of the philosopher. According to Mill, sensation is the basis of knowledge about the world. He also translated his understanding of the foundations of knowledge into morality. Feelings of dissatisfaction and pleasure - the simplest - are associated with a certain act.
The community of actions and feelings is the content of morality.
The basis of the feeling of satisfaction is power, wealth, self-assertion, - these selfish reasons for behavior are the basis of morality. Mill, through educational influence, tried to develop ways to translate subjective egoism into socially desirable behavior. To this end, he considered it necessary to create a legal system of punishments and rewards.
Son J. Mill, John Stuart Mill, continued to develop the ethical system of utilitarianism in his own work "System of Logic". Utilitarianism entered the history of ethics as a kind of moral theory thanks to Mill. He explains the moral value of actions by their usefulness and considers moral rules and feelings as the result of the moral experience of mankind. He believes that when a person achieves “his own”, then in this way he contributes his part to the creation of “world good”; sees moral significance in loving another as oneself; rejects a purely quantitative way of relating to pleasures, emphasizing their qualitative parameters, distinguishing them from happiness.
According to Mill, human rights are a certain standard, its implementation is a duty for everyone. Unlike his predecessors, Mill does not reduce utility to selfish enjoyment. In his ethics, we are talking about the altruistic principle, however, the transition of egoism into altruism is not disclosed.
J. S. Mill divides pleasure into higher - intellectual and lower - sensual, which is distinctive from the views of his predecessors. The basis of social phenomena is the general laws of human nature, the object social sciences. Ethics on the other hand, it is an art that is called upon to realize a set of norms, relying on which a person would have the opportunity to get rid of experiences and be happy. Ethics- a way of moral self-improvement of a person, and hence the whole society.
Today, modern utilitarians are discussing the qualitative heterogeneity of pleasures and desires, which make significant adjustments to the methodology for determining quantitative indicators of personal well-being. Followers J. S. Mill determine the qualitative difference between higher pleasures and lower ones.
Many contemporaries recognize the general legitimacy of the distinction Mill, but they try to avoid the thesis of a fundamental incompatibility of various pleasures. Philosophers use the following quantitative parameters to explain the relative advantage of higher pleasures - the expansion of the general susceptibility and sensitivity of a person. J. J. Smart considers this approach to be quite rational, because in real moral practice, the qualitative and quantitative approaches to the differentiation of pleasures are not very different.
UTILITARIANISM
UTILITARIANISM
Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .
UTILITARIANISM
(from lat. utilitas - benefit, benefit) - philosophy. and ideological. principle, according to Krom every natural and cultural-historical. is considered not in its own specificity, but only as an external goal - a useful effect. Art. sp. W., every, every wealth is determined through that benefit, which consumption (individual or productive) or a certain institution, erected as an end in itself, can derive from it. For W., everything is only service and there is only a reservoir of "things" more or less suitable for disposal. Burzh. considers the objective world of culture "... from the point of view of some external relation of utility ..." (K. Marx, see K. Marx and F. Engels, Iz early proizv., 1956, p. 594). This consciousness is determined by reification and the corresponding system of utility relations. The relation of utility is such a real one, associated with alienation, in which the objective embodiments of human abilities function predominantly. without their de-objectification (see objectification and de-objectification), as ready-made useful means, regardless of the creative that created them. activity, to its character, genesis, meaning, etc. For example, in science, thinking acquires independence. the form of "ready-made knowledge" corresponding to its possible utilization. The relationship of utility is most developed in class exploitation.
Hegel saw in the "theory of utility" the result of the ideology of the Enlightenment: "... in utility, pure sanity completes its realization... Just as everything is useful for a person, he is also useful, and... his definition is to become a generally useful and generally useful member of human detachment ... Where he is, there is his proper; he benefits from others, and others benefit from him ... For a person as a thing, conscious of this relationship, this reveals his his position..." (Soch., vol. 4, M., 1959, pp. 312, 302). Marx explored behind perverting creativity. of human culture by the "verbal masquerade" of the utility theory "real masquerade": that real perversion, when "for an individual, his relations matter not in themselves, not as, but as masks of some real third goal and relationship", which is substituted in place the concrete content of these relations (MEGA, Abt. 1, Bd 5, B., 1932, S. 388). In a class society, the actual material production over culture imposes a measure of utility on it, makes utility a way of including the individual in society. as a means, reducing it to the level of economic. character. In the system of division of activity, those endowed with independence and art are transformed in the image and likeness of the actual material production. Burzh. production creates "... a system of universal exploitation of natural and human properties, a system of universal utility; even science, just like all the physical and spiritual properties of a person, acts only as a carrier of this system of universal utility, and there is nothing what is outside this circle social production and exchange would act as self-exalted, as lawful in itself" (K. Marx, see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 46, part 1 , pp. 386–87).
In relation to utility, performers utilize the objective forms of culture and thus each other. Utilization creates the illusion of a connection where, in fact, the gap continues to deepen between the culture developed in an alienated form and the individual abilities of "partial workers" that are insignificant in comparison with it, whose behavior is becoming more and more algorithmic and hostile to creativity. Criticizing the petty-bourgeois egalitarian concept of "rude", "barracks communism", Marx revealed the reactionary nature of the desire to eliminate all that culture, which cannot be utilitarian and accessible to every layman, therefore, to eliminate the intelligentsia, replacing it with officials. Denying private property, this one only more consistently holds individuals as private property, striving to universalize the relation of utility, to make everyone equally mutually utilizing each other, i.e. to establish a kingdom of collectivized U. The category of the exploited proletarian "... is not canceled, but extended to all people" (K. Marx and F. Engels, From Early Works, p. 586). The contradiction between the growing need for creativity, for individuals capable of it, and the attitude of utilization is resolved only on the path of the communist. transformation of the world, in which a person step by step throws off all the roles of an agent within the actual material production. Thus overcoming the dominance of "external expediency", the communist. a person eliminates the very soil of W. and affirms the development of his essential forces as an end in itself.
G. Batishchev. Moscow.
Utilitarianism in ethics is a theory of morality that became widespread in England in the 19th century. and reflecting the mentality of certain layers of English. liberal bourgeoisie. Bentham, the founder of U., made utility the basis of morality, which he identified with pleasure. Based on naturalistic and unhistorical. understanding of human nature, Bentham saw the ultimate purpose of morality is to promote nature. people's desire to experience pleasure and avoid pain. In promoting the "greatest happiness" (pleasure) for the "greatest number of people" is, according to Bentham, the meaning of ethical. norms and principles. Considering the general welfare as the sum of the benefits of individuals, Bentham assumes the benefit of one person is equivalent to the benefit of every other. According to Marx, Bentham "with the most naive stupidity ... identifies the modern philistine - and, moreover, the English philistine in particular - with a normal person in general. Everything that is useful to this variety of normal man and his world is taken as useful in itself" (K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 23, p. 623, note). The way of thinking of the bourgeois was reflected in Bentham's ethics and in the fact that he reduces the problem of moral choice to a simple calculation of gains and losses, pleasures and sufferings, which may entail various alternatives of actions.
Int. ethical contradictions. W.'s theories were revealed by J. S. Mill, who tried to smooth over the selfish. moments of ethics U. and eventually came to the eclectic. combination of different principles. Thus, Mill supplemented the principle of personal happiness (pleasure) with the requirement to harmonize various interests, introduced a qualitative distinction between "lower" (sensual) and "higher" (intellectual) pleasures, which should be given preference, recognized virtues in itself, and not in the benefits brought her, etc.
Naturalistic morality in W. was criticized in modern. bourgeois ethics and, above all, J. Moore, who, however, himself used a utilitarian assessment of actions according to their consequences (the so-called ideal W.). Other bourgeois theorists, rethinking Bentham and Mill, believe that the principle of utility can be the basis of only general moral norms, but not of each individual. actions; the act must be chosen in accordance with the existing general norm ("limited U." J. O. Ermson, J. D. Mabbot and others in the "extreme U." adherents of the classical U. - J. Smart, G. J. Mack -Klosky). The discussion between the two, which took place in the 1950s, was mainly formal and methodological. character, and it did not even raise the social reasons why the ("usefulness") of a general moral norm can enter into with expediency otd. deed.
Lit.: Mill D.S., Utilatarianism, trans. from English, 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1900; Moore, G. E., Principia ethica, Camb., 1903, p. 16–19; Urmson J. O., The interpretation of the moral philosophy of J. S. Mills, "The Philosophical Quarterly", 1953, v. 3, No. 10; Mabbott J. D., Interpretations of Mill's utilitarianism, ibid., 1956, v. 6, No 23; Smart J. J. C., Extreme and restricted utilitarianism, ibid. No 25; Mc Closkey H. J., An examination of restricted utilitarianism, "Philosophical Review" , 1957, v. 66, No 4.
O. Drobnitsky. Moscow.
Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .
Synonyms:
See what "UTILITARISM" is in other dictionaries:
- (utilitarianism) The best-known definition of utilitarianism is based on the belief that the best action is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Usually such an interpretation is associated with the name of Bentham ... ... Political science. Vocabulary.
Utilitarianism- Utilitarianism ♦ Utilitarisme Any doctrine that bases its value judgments on the concept of utility. So utilitarianism is the same as selfishness? No, it doesn't. Most utilitarians (in particular, Bentham (***) and John Stuart Mill (***)) ... ... Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville
- (fr. utilitarisme, from lat. utilis useful). 1) a term introduced by D.S. Mill, the main representative of utilitarian morality, which sets as its ideal the greatest possible benefit (happiness), the greatest possible number of people. The principles of utilitarianism were... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
Utilitarianism- (lat. utilitas payda) - moral philosophy, dagy bagyt. Onyn negizin kalaushy agylshyndyk philosopher, economist, zanger - theorist, ataқty Adam Smittin (economist) shakirti I.Bentamboldy ("Introduction to the principles of morality and legislation" ... ... Philosophical terminderdin sozdigі
One of the most influential in business ethics is the theory of utilitarianism. Jeremiah Bentham (1748-1832) is considered the founder of the theory of traditional utilitarianism. In his writings, Bentham developed a methodology for searching for objective criteria for measuring values, which was supposed to provide the possibility of a simple and satisfactory from an economic point of view determination of the adequacy of social policy and public legislation. In his opinion, the most effective criteria could be the degree of conformity between the mode of action and existing laws and the degree of usefulness and harmfulness of the activity (according to the assessment of its consequences).
An action is ethically justified if and only if the total beneficial effect of this action exceeds the total beneficial effect of any other action that could be taken instead of the first action.
Thus, the principle of utilitarianism implies the possibility of quantitatively measuring the benefits produced by performing actions, the possibility of summing them up, as well as calculating the difference between the number of benefits and the number of negative results, and hence the ability to determine which of the actions will give the maximum net profit. profit or minimum absolute cost. Consequently, on the basis of this principle, it is possible to carry out a quantitative measurement of all types of profits and expenses and, using a certain common numerical scale, to implement the addition or subtraction of certain values of the desired indicators. For example, the level of satisfaction of workers with the state of the environment in which labor process, can be estimated at 500 units. (positive) utility, while the corresponding negative effect (bank bill sent next month) will be equal to 700 units. (negative). Thus, the total result of the described action, aimed at improving the state of the environment in which workers work, will be 200 units. (negative) utility. If the principle of utilitarianism says that a particular action is lawful because it is more useful than
any other relevant act, this does not mean at all that such an action is lawful, which brings maximum benefit to the person who performs it. Rather, the following statement is more correct: an action is lawful that brings maximum benefit to all those persons who find themselves in the scope of the results of the action (including the person who performs this action). Nor can the principle of utilitarianism be interpreted in the sense that it presupposes the need for a positive effect to prevail over a negative one (profits over costs). It is correct to consider that, according to this principle, in the long run the rightful action is one that gives the greatest net profit in comparison with other options. Finally, it would be a mistake to think that the principle of utilitarianism implies the need to consider only the immediate and instantaneous results of our actions. On the contrary, the analysis of all possible courses of action should both take into account the current positive and negative effects in terms of costs and benefits, and predict their consequences, including any indirect results.
The theory of utilitarianism is attractive in many respects. Its provisions are consistent with the criteria that are used to intuitively assess the morality of behavior. So, in the case when a person tries to explain why he is morally obliged to perform this or that action, he is often guided by considerations about the benefits or harm that his actions can bring to other people. Considerations of morality require taking into account the interests of all those around on a par with their own interests. Such behavior fits perfectly into the theory of utilitarianism, since the provisions of the latter include the requirement to determine the result of an action in relation to all persons participating in the action, and the requirement to choose such a course of action that provides the maximum beneficial effect for everyone, regardless of whether he profits directly.
Using the principles of utilitarianism, one can explain why some types of acts are considered immoral (lying, adultery, murder), while others, on the contrary, are morally justified (truthful statements, loyalty, observance of obligations). A supporter of the theory of utilitarianism can argue that it is not good to lie because lying will lead to a decrease in social welfare. When people lie to each other, they are less able to trust and cooperate. And the lower the intensity of trust and cooperation, the lower the overall welfare. Truthfulness in communication is a positive factor, because it builds trust and enhances cooperation, thereby contributing to the strengthening of well-being. In general, it can be argued that
the best rule is to tell the truth and refrain from lying. Proponents of traditional utilitarianism, however, deny the fact that an action can be unequivocally wrong. Thus, they would not agree that dishonesty or theft is always unconditionally bad. If in a certain situation a dishonest act leads to more favorable consequences than any other action that can be performed by the same person in the same situation, then, according to the theory of traditional utilitarianism, the dishonest act will be morally justified (in this particular case ).
The ideas of utilitarianism had a rather strong influence on the development of economic sciences. Many economists in the XIX century. categorically stated that the mechanisms economic activity lies the natural desire of man to maximize his well-being, and the usefulness of the goods produced is measured by the price that people are willing to pay for them. By accepting these and other simplifications, economists were able to clarify the well-known relationship between supply and demand, thus determining the nature of the relationship between supply and demand, between the seller and the buyer, and also explained the reasons for the equilibrium of prices in a free market. competitive market. Moreover, and this is especially important, economists were also able to show that the development of a system of free markets based on competition would lead to such a way of exploiting resources and establishing such a mechanism for varying prices that the consumer would be able to maximize his social utility (up to optimum, if we use Pareto's terminology), and this will happen due to an increase in purchasing power. Thus, being on the positions of the theory of utilitarianism, economists come to the conclusion that there is no alternative to the free market system.
The theory of utilitarianism underlies the method of cost-benefit analysis. This technique is used, in particular, to determine the effectiveness of investments (for example, in projects for the construction of dams, factories, public parks, etc.) by assessing the difference between the values of present and future profits and the values of present and future costs. In order to calculate the desired indicators, methods of discounting the prices (in monetary terms) of all existing and predicted effects that are associated with the implementation of these projects are used, and these effects are considered in relation to environment, as well as the population. It is sometimes very difficult to make such calculations, although various methods are known for determining the price (in monetary terms) of such seemingly intangible parameters as the beauty of a forest (for example, in a situation where we are interested in how many people pay money for pleasure contemplation of the landscape of a similar, but privately owned park). If it turns out that the profit from a public project exceeds the costs of this project (in monetary terms), and also if the difference between profits and costs in this case is higher than in the alternative, then we can conclude that it is necessary to implement the first project. Within the framework of this approach, the use of the concept of utilitarianism to determine public utility is thus reduced to calculating the ratio between the monetary equivalents of profits and expenses.
Finally, it can be noted that the provisions of the theory of utilitarianism are in good agreement with ideas about the category of efficiency, and although they have different meanings, nevertheless, many people use it to describe the possibility of producing a maximum of products with a known amount of resources. In other words, it is customary to consider such an operation as effective, the implementation of which allows to ensure the required output of products with a minimum of resource costs. This is also how efficiency is commonly understood from the point of view of utilitarianism, since within the framework of this theory, such a course of action is considered legitimate, which makes it possible to produce maximum profit with a minimum of costs. In the above definition of efficiency, it suffices to replace the words "required output" and "expenditure of resources" with the words "profit" and "expenses" - and we get the basic formula of utilitarianism; thus, according to the theory of utilitarianism, the correct course of action is always the most effective at the same time.
Utilitarianism is a direction in ethics (ethical theory), according to which the moral value of a behavior or act is determined by its usefulness. The beginnings of utilitarianism are already contained in the writings of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. In a more complete form, the teaching was developed by Jeremy Bentham. According to Bentham's classic formulation, morality is that which "brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people." The main disagreement in the theory of utilitarianism relates to the definition of the concepts of utility and happiness. Bentham and many other philosophers considered the maximum superiority of pleasure over pain as a benefit. Some philosophers, such as the Australian Peter Singer, see "happiness" as the most complete satisfaction of a person's preferences and desires, even if it does not involve maximizing pleasure.
In everyday life, any activity is called utilitarianism, which is based on a rough material calculation, the desire to benefit from everything, narrow practicality.
All people, according to Bentham, strive to satisfy their desires. Happiness or benefit lies in pleasure, but in the absence of pain, i.e. happiness lies in pure, lasting and uninterrupted pleasure. Both pleasure and benefit were understood by Bentham as broadly as possible: pleasure is all kinds of pleasures, including sensual ones, benefit is any benefit, including benefit. Bentham certainly "generalized" the principle of utility, believing that it generalizes all known principles of morality. After citing nine different principles advocated in eighteenth-century moral philosophy, Bentham remarks: "The phrases are different, but the principle is the same."
By combining virtue and utility, and also, as can be seen from the detailed formulation of the principle of utility, morality and politics, Bentham seriously encroached on stable stereotypes of moral consciousness and ethics, namely, that virtue is the opposite of utility and that in politics and morality the fundamental principles are different. . However, Bentham adhered to the notion of the integrity of the value sphere and considered the antithesis of virtue and utility as the result of a vague understanding of both one and the other. As the Russian follower of Bentam N.G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), the differences between benefit and good are only quantitative in nature: benefit is a superlative degree of pleasure, good is a superlative degree of benefit. Therefore, for Bentham, with a correct understanding of the good, there is no essential difference between pleasure, utility, virtue and happiness: this different words to mean the same thing. Benefit is a general concept, but we can really verify whether a certain act of a person or a measure of government is moral, or useful, or good, only by examining the extent to which it contributed to an increase in the quantity and quality of people's pleasure. Therefore, having given a register of the basic pleasures and pains of man and given their classification, Bentham devoted a special chapter to the possibility of measuring pleasures and pains. But if in this he continued the traditions of English moral philosophy, then in the analysis of various cases of moral evaluation based on a comparison of motive and result (and not only according to the criterion positive - negative, but also according to their qualitative and value diversity), Bentham has an undoubted priority.
John Stuart Mill gave utilitarianism the status of a concept, not only refuting numerous critics of Bentham's teachings, but also formulating the positions of utilitarianism in relation to a priori and intuitionism, in particular, as they were expressed by Kant and his English followers.
In continuation of the line in moral philosophy that comes from Aristotle and Epicurus, and in opposition to Kantianism, Mill derives morality from what constitutes the ultimate (highest) goal of man. All people strive for the satisfaction of their desires, and happiness or benefit lies in pure, lasting and uninterrupted pleasure. At the same time, utilitarianism is a theory directed against selfishness, i.e. against such a view, according to which goodness consists in the satisfaction of a person's personal interest. The acceptability or unacceptability in each particular case of the pleasure or benefit received is determined by whether they contribute to the achievement of the highest goal, i.e. general happiness. The definitions of phenomena and events as good or bad are also based on this.
Accordingly, morality is defined by Mill as "those rules for guiding a person in his actions, through the observance of which the existence of the most free from suffering and rich in pleasures is delivered to all mankind."
In polemics with critics of utilitarianism, Mill clarifies the principle of utility. The real benefit is happiness. But this is not personal, but general happiness: the individual is required not to strive for his own happiness, but to contribute to the happiness of other people. These kinds of requirements make sense. Since it would be naive to hope for the achievement of general happiness and even the happiness of a significant part of people, the principle of benefit actually implies a human desire to eliminate and reduce misfortune.
Proclaiming the common good as the highest principle of morality, Mill, like his predecessor Bentham, emphasized that a person should, bearing in mind the highest moral principle, strive to ensure at least his own private good. Quite in the spirit of Protestant ethics, it is thus assumed that a person must fulfill, first of all, his professional and social destiny; but to fulfill it with clean hands, according to conscience, is virtuous. Accordingly, Mill also solved the problem of virtue: although virtue can be perceived by an individual as a good in itself, it is not an end in itself, but only a means to achieve it. "A man has not the slightest impulse, not the slightest desire to be virtuous: virtue excites his desire only because it is a means to obtain pleasure and, in particular, to eliminate suffering ...". Virtue is valuable not in itself, but as a means to achieve happiness or as part of happiness.
Utilitarianism
The inability of the theory of the social contract to justify the legitimacy of the state and the duty to obey the laws forces us to turn to other theories of the justification of this duty, including the theory of utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) became the founders of utilitarianism.
The key idea of utilitarianism is that the morally right action is the one that brings the most benefit in a given situation. In another way, this principle can be formulated as follows: when we have a choice between different actions (between different options public policy etc.), we must choose the one that will have the best consequences for all concerned.
Utility was understood by different authors in different ways: as happiness, pleasure, satisfaction of desires or preferences, well-being. Most often we are talking about happiness, therefore, when this is not specified, we will also understand happiness by utility. Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of utilitarianism, in his book Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) puts it this way: “The principle of utility is understood to be that principle which approves or disapproves of any action, based on whether it increases or decreases the happiness of the party whose interests are affected<...»>. Elsewhere, Bentham formulates the goal of utilitarianism "to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."
Note that the theory of utilitarianism thus implies that it is possible to measure the amount of happiness and compare the level of happiness experienced by different people. This already seems absurd. How can we make statements like "Ivanov today is 2.5 times happier than Sidorov, although yesterday he was 3.3 times happier than Sidorov"? However, in principle, such comparisons are possible, and we make them. We know that some people, for example, experience much more pleasure from this or that food or entertainment than we do ourselves. We know that some people are unhappy while others enjoy life, and so on.
It may seem that utilitarianism is not at all a radical idea that preaches "common truths". Who will argue that people should try to do so that there is less suffering and more happiness? But, firstly, what Bentham and Mill did was no less radical for their time than the other two intellectual revolutions of the 19th century. (revolutions of K. Marx and C. Darwin).
Utilitarianism does not rely on God and any divine institutions. His goal is happiness in this world, and we have the right (and even the obligation) to do everything to achieve this happiness. At the time it was a revolutionary idea.
What is the attraction of utilitarianism? It has two advantages. First, the goal pursued by utilitarians does not depend on the existence of God, the soul, or similar dubious and controversial (from the point of view of modern man) grounds. In ancient times and in the Middle Ages, the basis of the existence of society and man was a myth or religion, the belief that the universe has some meaning and purpose.
Many people still believe that without these foundations, we will be left with only a set of rules, such as "do this", "do not do that", the meaning and purpose of which are unclear.
You can't say the same about utilitarianism. Its goal (happiness or well-being or well-being) is what we all strive for for ourselves and for those we love. Utilitarians simply demand that this be done impartially, for everyone. Whether we are children of God or not, whether we have a soul, whether we have free will or not, we can suffer and be blessed, we can be better or worse. No matter how religious or non-religious we are, we cannot deny that we strive for our best and prefer happiness over unhappiness.
Another attractive feature of utilitarianism is its focus on the results of action (what is called consequentialism). Utilitarianism requires that we consider whether a particular action of an individual or a group, a particular measure taken by the state, actually benefits or harms.
There are people who claim that something is evil (for example, homosexuality, striptease, rock music), but are not able to specify what exactly this evil is. Consequentialism says: "If you condemn something, show someone who got worse from it." If adult people enter into homosexual relationships by mutual consent, who feels bad about it?
On the other hand, consequentialism argues that something is good only if it makes someone's life better. This is its fundamental difference from moral theories, which consist of rules that must be followed, no matter what the consequences will be.
Utilitarianism seems to offer a clear way to deal with moral and socio-political problems. To determine which policy is correct, we do not need to look for spiritual leaders, turn to tradition, which often does not give a clear answer to modern questions, study the theories of the universe and human nature, which are usually vague and contradictory. We only need to measure changes in people's well-being.
Utilitarianism has historically been progressive. He demanded that the customs and authorities that had oppressed people for centuries be tested to see if they improved people's lives.
returning to main topic, consider what the utilitarian theory of political commitment looks like. Jeremy Bentham argued that we should obey our rulers as long as the benefits of submission outweigh its burdens. It looks like a theory that one should obey the law if and only if obedience brings more happiness to society than disobedience.
But if this is so, then the theory of utilitarianism is a program of disobedience to laws. Indeed, my happiness is a part of universal happiness. So if breaking the law (for example, stealing a chocolate bar from a large supermarket) increases my happiness, and no one suffers tangible harm, then it turns out that utilitarianism not only allows, but even requires stealing.
This is hardly the result that utilitarians want, and they have a good objection: what happens if we all break laws when it seems to us that breaking them will increase everyone's happiness? For example, any person will steal my things if his happiness from this will increase more than mine will decrease. The right to property will be threatened, everyone will fear for their property, and this will lead to an increase in general misfortune, not happiness.
Therefore, the utilitarian might say, we need to keep the laws, even if the violation of one of them in any particular case leads to an increase in public happiness. In general, we need a system of laws that is binding on everyone, since this will lead to maximum social happiness in the long run. This kind of utilitarianism is called "indirect utilitarianism" or "rule-utilitarianism".
Apparently, this was the point of view of J. Bentham, the author of the following ideas:
Laws should be passed when and only when they are more conducive to the happiness of the people than other possible laws (or lack thereof).
Laws are to be obeyed because they are laws (and will be obeyed because disobedience will result in punishment), disobedience is only to avoid disaster.
Laws must be repealed and replaced by new ones if they do not fulfill their proper utilitarian function.
Thus, the utilitarian argument for the duty of obedience to laws can be represented by the syllogism:
The best society is the one in which the greatest amount of happiness is achieved.
The state and the system of laws are better conducive to the achievement of happiness than the absence of laws and the state (the "state of nature").
Therefore, we have a moral duty to support the state and obey the laws.
If both premises are true, then the conclusion is also true. No one, except anarchists, doubts the correctness of the second judgment. Therefore, the only vulnerable part of this syllogism is the first premise - the fundamental principle of utility itself. This is where a serious problem arises. Few modern philosophers are ready to agree with the basic idea of utilitarianism. Most believe that it leads to morally unacceptable consequences. In particular, it allows the commission of terrible injustices in the name of universal happiness.
Let's consider some counterarguments to utilitarianism that touch upon a number of fundamental philosophical problems.
First, utilitarianism asserts that the right actions are those that bring the greatest good. But what is good? The classic utilitarian answer: the good is happiness and nothing but happiness. Mill wrote the following: “The doctrine of utilitarianism is that happiness and only happiness is desirable as an end, everything else is a means to an end” (indeed, what are money, things, etc. for?).
The idea is that happiness (or pleasure) is the only and highest goal (and unhappiness or suffering is the only evil). The theory of utilitarianism is attractive because of its simplicity and plausible idea, according to which things are good or bad not in themselves, but depending on how they make us feel. To highlight the shortcomings of this theory, consider a few examples.
In the Soviet Union, conservatory students were sent to the collective farm to harvest potatoes. For musicians, this is an extremely risky activity, for example, a hand injury can end a pianist's career. Let's say this happened. A talented music student has seriously injured his hand and can no longer play. Why is it bad for him? The hedonist will say that this breeds misfortune. The injured person will be very upset, worry, suffer every time he thinks that everything could have been different. And this is his misfortune.
But, as it seems to us, this way of explaining misfortune is not correct. After all, the point is not that the situation in itself is neutral, but becomes bad, as the young man gets upset and upset. On the contrary, his experiences are a natural reaction to a truly tragic situation. He could become a musician, give concerts, but now he cannot. The tragedy is in this. We cannot eliminate this tragedy simply by telling him not to be upset.
The American philosopher Robert Nozick has proposed a very interesting way to prove the fallacy of utilitarian ideas. Let's suppose that a "Pleasure Machine" is invented - a device that injects a person with chemicals (completely harmless) that cause sensations of incredible bliss. Moreover, these will be not only “low”, but also the most “sublime” pleasures. Suppose you seem to be eating the most delicious food and drinking the most exquisite drinks, hearing the most beautiful music, admiring the magnificent paintings of artists, seeing stunning landscapes, reading and writing amazing poetry. It will seem to you that you are wandering along the sandy beach on the ocean and admiring the sunset, that you are starting an amazing love affair ... Would you agree to spend your whole life like this? It's safe to say that very few will agree to this. And many will even prefer death to such a life, believing that such a life is empty and meaningless.
What do these examples say? About how we value “things,” including creativity and friendship, in and of themselves. We are happy when we have them, but only because we already consider them good "things". We don't think they are good just because they make us happy. Therefore, to lose these “things” is a misfortune for us, regardless of whether the loss is accompanied by negative emotions or not.
Thus, hedonism misunderstands the nature of happiness. Happiness is not the highest goal to which we strive for its sake alone, and everything else is not only a means to achieve this goal. No, happiness is a response to achieving what we consider to be good in itself. We believe that friendship is good in itself, so having friends makes us happy.
It is not true that we first strive for happiness, then decide that friendship could make us happy, and then look for friends as a means to this end. “We want to do things in life that we think are worthwhile. And although we hope that by doing them we will be happy, we are not ready to give them up, even for the sake of guaranteed happiness.
The hedonistic views of the classical utilitarians (Bentham and Mill) are not obligatory element doctrines of militarism. They are now rejected by most of their followers.
But a necessary part of utilitarianism is the assertion that only results matter. In other words, in order to determine what action is right, we must ask ourselves: what will be the result? If we come to the conclusion that something else, besides the end result, influences the choice of the right action, then the very foundation of utilitarianism will be struck.
The strongest anti-utilitarian arguments deal with this very problem: they argue that not only utility, but many other factors are important in determining whether an action is done correctly. Let's look at three main ones.
Justice. Critics say that utilitarianism (in the pursuit of universal happiness) will often commit terrible injustices.
Let's say it happens in Ancient Rome. The stadium has 100,000 spectators. You are a Roman emperor. The crowd demands that a Christian be taken into the arena and given to be torn to pieces by lions. What should you do as an emperor? Let's say you're a utilitarian. You see that 100,000 people will get such great pleasure from the spectacle, which, let's say, will far outweigh the suffering of one Christian. If you refuse, the audience will be very upset. Thus, according to utilitarianism, the life of one in this case should be (profitably) sacrificed.
Or, suppose that a terrible crime with numerous victims is committed (for example, a residential building is blown up by terrorists). In such a situation, strong psychological pressure is exerted on the investigating authorities - they are expected to solve the crime as quickly as possible and detain the criminals. The population wants revenge and wants guarantees that this will not happen again. It is clear that the general happiness will increase significantly if the perpetrators are apprehended and brought to justice. But opponents of utilitarianism note that it will increase even if the population believes that the perpetrators are arrested and convicted, but in fact those who did not commit this crime are arrested. At the very least, our need for revenge will be satisfied and we will sleep better (even if based on lies). Of course, then the innocent will suffer. But it seems very likely that the increase in happiness (or decrease in misfortune) of the population as a whole will outweigh the suffering of the falsely accused, and then the condemnation of the innocent from the point of view of utilitarianism will be justified.
According to critics of utilitarianism, this example shows one of the most serious shortcomings of this theory - its incompatibility with the ideals of justice. Fairness requires that we act honestly towards people so that people get only what they deserve. An innocent person who has not done anything wrong: did not commit murder, etc., should not be punished for these crimes. The claims of fairness and utility can conflict, so a theory that says nothing matters but utility is wrong.
Human rights. Let's turn to real occasion, which was considered in one of the US Courts of Appeals in 1963.
In October 1958, the plaintiff, Angeline York, was the victim of a beating. She came to the police station to apply to the court. The defendant, police officer Ron Storey, who was on duty at the station that day, told Angeline that he needed to photograph her. He escorted Angelina into the room, closed the door, ordered her to undress and take various poses, let's say, quite relaxed, in which he photographed her. The victim herself objected, saying that the bruises would still not be visible in the photographs. (No photographs were required by law.)
Storey later told the plaintiff that he had not shown her photographs to anyone and had already destroyed them. In fact, he distributed them among his colleagues, and some of them printed additional photographs from the negatives for themselves, also distributing them to their friends. Angeline York sued the police and won the case: her legal rights were clearly violated.
But what about the immoral behavior of the police? Utilitarianism says that actions are justified if they bring more happiness than misfortune. In this case, we must contrast the unpleasant experience of Angeline York and the pleasure received by Storey and his cronies. It is quite possible that their actions caused more happiness than misfortune and, therefore, from the point of view of utilitarianism are justified.
But, as it seems to us, this is a perverted approach to business. What does the pleasure of Storey and his colleagues have to do with it? Why should it be taken into account at all? The police had no right to treat Angeline like that.
To make the matter even clearer, let's assume that things were different. Let's say Storey peeped at Angeline through her bedroom window and then took photos of her naked. Suppose that no one noticed this, and he himself did not show the photos to anyone, using them only for his own entertainment. Thus, the only result of his actions would be to increase the amount of his own happiness. How can utilitarianism deny that its actions were right?
Now, hidden cameras are installed in the bathrooms of some unsuspecting people, and anyone can see these people in the nude on the Internet. Can we assume that these people did not suffer any damage? No, for people have rights that cannot be cavalierly handled just because someone expects to get good results as a result.
In the cases cited above, people's right to privacy was violated. But one can imagine cases where other rights are at stake - the right to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, or even the right to life. It may happen that, from time to time, good purposes will require the disregard of these rights. But we do not believe that our rights should be easily relinquished.
The concept of individual rights is not a utilitarian concept. On the contrary, the idea of law is the idea of a "protective sphere" around a person that controls how a person can be treated, regardless of hypothetical outcomes. Maybe very good results are possible if a person is subjected to torture. But the essence of human rights lies precisely in the fact that, despite this, a person has the right not to be subjected to torture.
Reflections on the past. Let's say you promised someone that you would meet him in the city center in the evening. But you don't feel like doing it - you have some business to do and you'd better stay at home. What to do? Let's say you think that the benefits of completing your affairs somewhat outweigh the inconvenience caused to your friend. According to the standards of utilitarianism, you may conclude that it is right to stay at home.
But this reasoning does not take into account the fact that this promise places an obligation on you that you cannot easily ignore. (Of course, if the consequences of "keeping a promise" are severe; let's say your mother has a heart attack, you have the right to break the promise.)
But a small increase in utility cannot be a reason for not honoring the obligation that is imposed on you by the fact that you made a promise. So utilitarianism, which emphasizes only consequences, is wrong.
Why is utilitarianism vulnerable to this kind of criticism? Because it looks to the future. Concerned only about the results, he focuses all his attention on what will be the result of our actions. However, we usually think that considerations about the past also matter. The fact that you promised a friend to meet him is a fact already accomplished (a matter of the past). And utilitarianism does not attach importance to the past. Many more similar examples could be cited.
If a person has not committed a crime, this is the basis for not punishing him. If someone has done you a favor, it may be a reason for you to do him a favor. But utilitarianism deprives the past of all meaning and does not allow it to influence the choice of our actions. This is the big mistake of utilitarianism.
Reacting to criticism, supporters of utilitarianism have proposed modifying this theory into "rule-utilitarianism" (rule-utilitarianism). Let me remind you that the original theory is called "action utilitarianism" (act-utilitarianism).
Classical utilitarianism, "action utilitarianism," suggests that each individual action must be judged by its likely consequences. If you feel like lying, whether you can do it or not is determined by the possible consequences of lying. That is the problem with the theory, say some of its advocates. Although we know that lying is generally evil, it is clear that in some individual cases it can have good consequences.
Thus, rule utilitarianism does not imply that individual actions will be judged according to the "principle of utility." Instead, rules should be established based on this principle, and individual actions should be considered right or wrong already in accordance with these rules.
"Utilitarianism of rules" seems to us to cope with all anti-utilitarian arguments. "Utilitarianism of action" suggests that one should bear false witness against an innocent person when the consequences of perjury are good. An advocate of "rule utilitarianism" would not argue in this way. He asks himself: What general rules behavior will bring the most happiness? Imagine two societies, in one of them people strictly observe the rule “do not bear false witness against the innocent”, and in the other they do not. In which society will people live better? It is clear that in the first.
If we know that we live in a society in which innocent people are thrown into prison, we will not feel safe, and this will significantly reduce our level of happiness. How can I know that I won't be the next scapegoat? Therefore, we must accept the rule that people have the right not to be punished if they are innocent.
Similarly, it can be argued that rules should be established against violation of human rights, violation of promises, etc. We must accept these rules, because following them makes life better, contributes to the well-being of citizens. After we adopt such rules, we will no longer have to remember the “principle of utility” when making this or that decision.
As it may seem, “rule utilitarianism” is not contrary to common sense, justice, individual rights, etc. It also corresponds much better to our moral standards.
Indeed, it is better to live in a society in which promises are kept, people's rights are respected, etc., than in a society where people are guided in each particular case by considerations of utility.
However, we have no guarantee that the rules that maximize utility will always coincide with the requirements of justice, never allow minority interests to be sacrificed for utility, and so on. It is unreasonable to think that such coincidences will happen automatically. Thus, imprisoning the innocent will only make people feel insecure if they understand what is going on. But if they never find out the truth, then they won't worry about anything. The level of happiness will not decrease. It turns out that imprisoning the innocent is justified from the point of view of "rule utilitarianism" (the truth will never come out).
In any case, “rule utilitarianism” is also not an option. Even if he gives correct answers, he arrives at them in a false way. According to the "utilitarianism of the rules", one cannot bear false witness against the innocent, because in a society where false witness is allowed, people's lives will become worse (everyone will feel insecure, fear of slander). It is impossible not to pay the person who did some work for you (if you promised him in advance that you would pay), because people will lose faith in promises.
But these arguments are absurd! It is impossible not to pay a person who is entitled to money because he deserves to be paid, whatever the consequences for society as a whole in the long run.
It is possible that incarcerating the innocent in the long run will not lead to an increase in happiness. But what does the fullness of happiness have to do with it? The innocent should not be imprisoned simply because they are innocent, whatever the consequences. Keeping promises and human rights is not a means to increase utility at all.
So, although the utilitarian justification for the duty to obey the law seems strong, utilitarianism itself turns out to be a highly dubious theory.
From the book Philosopher at the Edge of the Universe. SF Philosophy, or Hollywood to the Rescue: Philosophical Issues in Science Fiction Films author Rowlands Mark61. Utilitarianism The theory of morality, the most prominent representatives of which were the English philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Happiness is the inalienable good of all people, and therefore those actions that bring
From the book History of Philosophy author Skirbekk GunnarChapter 17. Liberalism and Utilitarianism
From the book Theory of Justice by John Rolls5. CLASSICAL UTILITARISM There are many forms of utilitarianism; This theory is still being developed today. I do not offer here a complete overview of these forms, much less the subtleties that can be found in contemporary discussions. My goal is to develop a theory
From the book Culture and Ethics author Schweitzer Albert30. CLASSICAL UTILITARISM, IMPARTIALITY AND BENEFICIENCY I want to compare classical utilitarianism with two principles of justice. As we have seen, the parties in the original position would have to reject the classical principle in favor of the principle
From the book Philosophy as spiritual doing (collection) author Ilyin Ivan AlexandrovichXIV. LATE UTILITARISM. BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ETHICS The philosophical thought of Europe has not been able to understand in all depth the fact that speculative philosophy is also unable to substantiate the optimistic-ethical worldview with the help of natural philosophy. When it comes
From the book Philosophical Dictionary author Comte Sponville André[Lecture 7], hours 13, 14 Good as an object of will. Aberration of the Will: Hedonism, Eudemonism, Utilitarianism Results of what has been gained1) Before we go any further, let's see what? that is what we have achieved so far. Good is neither a thing nor a meaning. Good is a state of mind and a value. It is the valuable spiritual
From the book Philosophy of Law [Lecture Course] author Moiseev Sergey VadimovichUtilitarianism (Utilitarisme) Any doctrine that bases its value judgments on the concept of utility. So utilitarianism is the same as selfishness? No, it doesn't. Most utilitarians (notably Bentham (235) and John Stuart Mill (236)) define utility as that which promotes
From the author's bookUtilitarianism The failure of the theory of the social contract to justify the legitimacy of the state and the duty to obey the laws forces one to turn to other theories of the justification of this duty, including the theory of utilitarianism. Jeremy became the founders of utilitarianism
