A Student Refutation Of Utilitarianism: Case Study

Calculating Consequences: A Student Refutation of Utilitarianism

Erik Z. Hallworth
San Francisco State University

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory holding that moral actions are based on the maximization of overall happiness, defined as the Utility Principle. Mill and Bentham 's utilitarianism makes a plausible and convincing argument, though not everyone agrees with it. Bernard Williams writes Utilitarianism: For and Against the theory. In agreement with Williams, I have formed my own thought experiment to refute utilitarianism and will be taking an analytic approach to the utility principle. By these two, I will show that utilitarianism is an incoherent doctrine failing to consider
It forces us to examine each person and ask: is what I am doing morally right? Further, not allowing personal feelings or relationships in decision making shows the importance of impartiality in decision making. By doing that, you are forced to look at the objective facts or situation, whereas a personal bias could cause a skewed decision making which may not be the best decision in hindsight. Finally, by applying a quantitative method for making moral decisions, Utilitarianism revives the general attitude towards ethics. It is too often, that in philosophy and in other disciplines, ethics is simply casted out as being just one’s personal feelings. With using mathematical calculation in decision making, utilitarianism fosters rational decision making in that it is impossible for you to put your own bias forth and creates an objective account of
Imagine a man who can not experience happiness. His moods switch from pain to apathy, due to a neurological deficiency. Also, he is isolated on an uninhabited island. While the man is clearly unhappy, he does not want to die. His reason: he would rather be alive then dead. Is it morally right to kill him? In considering the utility principle, his life has no happiness. Further, he cannot create any happiness for himself and there are no other people around to benefit from him; he only has the possibility of pain. Therefore, killing him would result in less aggregate pain for him. From this, the utilitarian would have to say that this is the right course of action. This seems counterintuitive. What that utilitarian is failing to ignore is the right to the man’s life. Even if his life has no value or happiness, he has still expressed his desire to live. In making the decision to kill him anyway, the utilitarian is placing no value on the man’s life; the utilitarian is playing God in saying that the morally right thing to do would be put him out of his