Utilitarianism Summary

...

Kymlicka considered the two main arguments for viewing maximization as the standard of moral rightness. The first argument for utilitarianism is for equal consideration of interest that says people matter, and matter equally; therefore each person’s interest should be given equal weight; therefore morally right acts will maximize utility. And the second argument is teleological utilitarianism, which maximizing the good is primary, not derivative, and we count individuals equally only because that is the way to maximize value. In this view, the primary concern is not with persons, but with states of affairs. Kymlicka asserts that this violates our core intuition that morality matters because human matter. The teleological theory does not imply the ideal of equal respect for persons. Kymlicka argued that an adequate account of equal consideration must distinguish different kinds of preferences, only some of which have legitimate moral weight.

Utilitarianism has an interesting history. With its most celebrated founders, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, but for all their creative minds, neither seemed to recognize or discuss the possible catastrophic effect. Not to defend the utilitarianism but id like to say that people held this who had good motives and just did not see its consequence. Nozick and Rawls both suggest that utilitarianism proceeds as if morality is some sort of a generalized prudence. However in reality, all that happens in one-person gains and the other loses in absence of moral compensation. Isn’t it supposed to be an individual accept losses for the sake of greater benefits? Consequently, utilitarianism has been out of favor in philosophy but public policy decision-making has still embraced it. Many areas of public policy are dominated by cost-benefit analysis, which could have overall benefits yet be extremely costly to some individuals. Just like in a gambling case, it has been legalize so long that you have satisfied the requirements of the government, however, nobody ever quantified the costs of the consequence that leads to child neglect, family break-up, suicide, etc. that has been seen lesser than the benefits to the economy as a whole. Whether or not this is a problem is arguable. Well economists would say that they would be happier to give it up, if only one would offer an alternative instead of just complaining. In the corporate world, many decisions, large and small, are informed by cost-benefit analysis in constrained conditions. To respond to these situations is not clear even. The task is to understand when to use it and when not to.

It is worth reflecting on Kymlicka’s diagnosis of the arguments with utilitarianism. The arguments laid are good reasons for limiting utilitarian’s scope as a decision procedure, but need not force its full rejection likewise.