What are some objections to utilitarianism?

Answer 1

Utilitarianism, according to one of its founders, Jeremy Bentham, is highly individual in its focus.

"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne." (Bentham, 1780).

Man acts, in fact can only act, in such a way as he perceives maximizes his happiness and minimizes his pain. All of his choices are determined by his calculations of pleasure and pain consequences, which determines "utility" for him as an individual. Altruism, asceticism, love, law, desire for freedom, are all useless notions since they all boil down to the pleasure-pain balance or "happiness." Only the end is important, not the means. Whatever brings the individual the most pleasure and/or the least pain is the path that the individual will always take. He is powerless to take another.

By extending pain-pleasure assessments to cover acts of altruism, self-denial, etc. he created a nebulous argument as his position is no longer refutable. Irrefutability, of course, is a philosophical standard for a useless concept.

If there is not altruism (beyond selfish pleasure-pain calculations) then how to we explain people who approach certain death knowingly in order to protect others. A mother protecting a child, a sane man throwing himself on a grenade to save his buddies, etc.

Bentham used his argument of utilitarian hedonism to extend to government. He did not like the government clinging to ancient British laws and lobbied for laws that maximized happiness for the most people. In the utilitarian sense, happiness (pleasure-pain balance) was all that mattered. Freedom, participation, obedience and faith were all secondary. Even Bentham's efforts to affect government to maximize the total happiness of the country was either a lie or it belied his true utilitarian efforts to maximize his personal happiness despite what might happen to others.

It was an intriguing idea, but it never caught on. People cling to freedom, political involvemnet etc. and do not trust others to bring them happiness. Perhaps in their pleasure-pain calculation, that determine that freedom is necessary to protect their future happiness. In any event, the theory is so broad as to be irrefutable that we simply must talk about human nature and poitics in more specific terms than mere hedonism or utilitarianism.

It's more involved and takes more historic turns after, Bentham, but that's off the top of my head. He was one of the more captivating minor philosphers that I studied back in my college days of yesteryear. Read for yourself.

The short answer to our question is utilitarianism is so nebulous as to be irrefutable and thus not subject to further philosphical or scientific investigation. You may accept or reject it by faith, but that's about it.

Answer 2

Utilitarianism believes in "The greatest happiness for the greatest numbers". Its a wonderful philosophy. Many Acts of British parliament are based on Bentham's suggestions.

Like all other theories it has its defects too. One of the objection against it being what will happen to the individuals who are not included in the "greatest numbers". But Utilitarianism believes in essential goodness of mankind and it always looks for consensus.

Another objection is that pleasure and pain are emotional states and one cannot define or distinguish emotions objectively. This is true for the time being. But as the science progresses into the realm of humanities, we may then be able to define pleasures and pains properly.

Psychology is the middle ground between Physical and Social sciences. If ever Psychology and Neurology fused together to form one science, we will then have a much better understanding of the working of human mind, and Utilitarianism may then reign supreme.

Answer 3

Utilitarianism: The belief that things are defined by their utility.

This is a practical way of thinking if you are Socialist. The only problem that I see is that it leaves out part of society. Stephen Hawking would be be a brilliant scientist in a utilitarian society

Answer 4

Well, we live in sort of a utilitarianistic world. Think about war. Should we send our troops into battle to save the rest of our nation?
Utilitarianism seeks to put happiness in a bottle. You can't do that. I mean figuratively, and literally of course.
It is also a view that tries to make an absolute right and absolute wrong. However, what is right to one person living in North America could be totally wrong to someone living in India.

Answer 5

a) It is frightfully open to abuse.
b) It ignores the aesthetic.
c) It denies the theological for its use for theology is blasphemous cf. Marx
d) It is manipulated to justify crime, moral outrages cf. infantcide.