Utilitarianism (Refutation of)

I really liked Dr. Pappas’ example of the organ donation in class, where the loner man’s life is taken because his organs could bring so much benefit to society. I have another one, very similar: should people be required by law to donate organs to those in need? One of my friends went to a bioethics forum in D.C. where this was the topic for debate. Arguably, this would produce the greatest good for the greatest number: most of us have two kidneys, some people need one, so those with two should be required to give up one in order to save those other lives or improve their quality. This would be the “greatest good” in utilitarianism if one of those lives belonged to say a head of state, or a renowned artist, or a famous researcher. However, this theory (and Dr. Pappas’ example) actually, in my thinking, produce the least good for the greatest amount of people by taking away their fundamental right to choose the course of their own life. Killing the loner in the example from class takes away his right to live (protected under the Declaration of Independence), and if it was all right to take his life, why not someone else’s, to save four more “important” people? This view of utilitarianism lends itself to elitism: you are basically saying some people are more worthy of life than others, based on their contributions to society, and that those who are less worthy can potentially be sacrificed to the “common good”. The Nazis tried this: the Jews are wealthy, so to kill the Jews gives wealth back to Aryans (who outnumber the Jews) so the greatest good for the greatest number is genocide. Granted, this is Act Utilitarianism, not Rule, so Mill would say that this is also wrong.

Rule Utilitarianism takes moral principles and says that they are derived from the greatest good (no murder), and should be applied to each individual situation. Isn’t this subjectivism (or at the least, relativism)? If the moral principle brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people, then the defining standard of good is the happiness of the majority. Thus, the majority can define what it thinks is good. In the early 1800’s, the majority in the American South was white and thought that slavery promoted the greatest good for the greatest number. So, the white majority defined the good—isn’t this relativism, where the majority or a society decides what standards to hold? Also, in RU you still have to find a moral principle to hold as important (such as the ten commandments) and then apply it to circumstances. Where do these moral principles come from? What about the society that holds human sacrifice as a high moral principle?

I have another objection to Mill. He says that we should hold “disinterested and benevolent” stances on subjects, in order to weigh them dispassionately. How often are we disinterested? In the name of utilitarianism, someone pushing for a hidden agenda can outwardly promote the greatest good for the greatest number. Take the war on drugs, which began in the 1930’s and 40’s with the criminalization of marijuana. Everyone thought, drugs are bad, so the greatest good for the greatest number is to outlaw them, ban them. Everyone ALSO thought that those who pushed for this movement were acting disinterestedly and benevolently. What about the paper industry, which used the government to push their own agenda? They wanted to monopolize the industrial hemp market, and one way to do this was to make marijuana growth illegal. So, they backed the anti-drug movement, appearing to be promoting the social good, when in reality they couldn’t have cared less about drugs, only about using the government to get what they wanted. This isn’t really a refutation of utilitarianism, per se, because people can misapply any theory and use it for hidden purposes; however, it does show how maybe the idea of acting ‘disinterestedly’ is not so common.

Another thing: who is the “greatest number”? Is it a simple majority? The NAACP would have your neck if you tried to pass a piece of legislation that would be beneficial to a numerical majority in this country, because the numerical majority happens to be white. Is it a “competent” majority? This elitist type of theory implies that (as I said earlier) certain people are more worthy of life or happiness than others, whether based on social class, or contributions to society as a whole, or the fact that they have experienced more of life’s pleasures, or the fact that their ranking of pleasures is more acceptable than someone else’s. The “competent judge” allows his own personal tastes to dictate what is a ruling, higher pleasure to the masses. What if he liked to eat Brussels sprouts and claimed that eating them is a higher pleasure than eating McDonald’s? That’s fine for him, but if I don’t like Brussels sprouts, then I am automatically guilty of preferring a lower pleasure. I still think utilitarianism and the “judge” confuse tastes with higher pleasures. Also, to me, utilitarianism (at least as I understand it so far, and as it was presented in class today) provides no respect for life itself, or for the autonomy of any living being. It is simply another form of collectivism, placing the group above the individual.

One last thought: what good is a theory that is impracticable? The whole point of a scientific theory is to explain what actually occurs in nature; the same would apply to a psychological theory, etc. If a scientific theory did not work, if it did not apply to reality, then it would be a bad theory and in need of revision. If Mill said his ‘competent judge’ theory was good on paper but bad in practice, I would ask him how valid his theory really is, then.

October 2001

Back to Essays
Home