# Utilitarianism



## natewood3 (Jun 18, 2008)

Anyone know of a good critique of utilitarianism? I have been speaking with some people concerning homosexuality, and one of the arguments they use is that it shouldn't matter to me as long as it is not hurting anyone else. If it is bringing people pleasure and happiness, and it does no harm to anyone else, then it is fine. 

I don't know of any good (preferably presuppositional) critiques of this kind of 'greatest good for the greatest number of people' type of argument. I can think of some critiques, but I have wanted to study this issue for a little while and don't know of many resources...


----------



## Montolio (Jun 18, 2008)

There are many, but in conversations like the one you described it would probably be best to simply provide counter-examples. 

-Josiah


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 18, 2008)

I have a Christian ethics book called, _Moral Choices_, which is written by Scott B. Rae who is a professor at Talbot School of Theology. 

Scott Rae says that utilitarianism can justify obvious injustices. He says on page 86, "For example, in the pre-Civil War South, slavery was clearly justifiable from a utilitarian point of view. It provided cheap labor that made the South very prosperous and clearly benefited more people that it harmed. But no one today would justify slavery on those grounds, let alone utilitarian ones. The good consequences that it produced appear not only irrelevant, but callous toward the suffering endured by so many slaves. The reason why slavery was immoral has little to do with the balance of consequences. Rather it has to do with a universal principle that directs us to safeguard the basic rights and dignity of people, ultimately because they are made in the image of God."

Here is another quote from that book which is found on pages 87-88:
"First, not only are the consequences of actions difficult to predict and measure, but the notions of benefit and harm are not value neutral. What may be a benefit or a harm to one person may not be to another. It is not entirely accurate to say that the utilitarian uses nonmoral criteria to evaluate the morality of an action. In many cases, one must appeal to principles to give substance to the idea of a benefit or to arbitrate competing claims about a benefit.

The utilitarian must appeal to principles to determine what constitutes a good or harmful consequence. What makes an outcome harmful or beneficial depends on a prior commitment to principles. One must appeal to principles to arbitrate competing claims about both benefits and harms.

Second, utilitarianism lacks criteria to direct the distribution of benefits in a group. It tends to be an aggregate theory in that what really counts is the overall amount of benefit, that is, the greatest good for the greatest number. The distribution of benefits is just as important, if not more so, as the overall amount of benefit accorded to the aggregate group.

Third, utilitarianism offers no place for the idea of individual merit. For example, an employer promotes a responsible employee rather than an irresponsible one not because it serves the general utility, but because the responsible employee earned it. Without being guilty of discrimination, we recognize merit as a reason for treating people in different ways, regardless of the consequences for treating people that way."


----------



## Craig (Jun 24, 2008)

natewood3 said:


> Anyone know of a good critique of utilitarianism? I have been speaking with some people concerning homosexuality, and one of the arguments they use is that it shouldn't matter to me as long as it is not hurting anyone else. If it is bringing people pleasure and happiness, and it does no harm to anyone else, then it is fine.
> 
> I don't know of any good (preferably presuppositional) critiques of this kind of 'greatest good for the greatest number of people' type of argument. I can think of some critiques, but I have wanted to study this issue for a little while and don't know of many resources...



First off...ditto to Curt.

Following what Curt said, simple questions are great: 
How do you determine utility?
What makes that *good*?

That will usually steer to conversation to the necessity of normative morality...because when we say something is "good", we don't always mean useful...so they need to grapple with what is good. The thing about Utilitarians is that they are almost always moral relativists...I had a discussion with a homosexual atheist a week or so ago that may be useful to you to follow up with a Utilitarian after he confesses he is a moral relativist (I go by "Antipelagian", he goes by "Vitaminbook").

Lastly, I like pointing out the obvious...for some reason, you tell people good, defined subjectively, makes anything good will scoff at you...until you point out that there is a flip side to the coin. Harm must be defined subjectively as well.

It would be helpful to ask these people how they know what is "harmful" for others? Is it the individual who decides? What of the NAMBLA-type pervs that feel they are liberating children by molesting them...in their minds, they are not harming children. Maybe it's the other party involved that defines what harm is...so what of the police officer that shoots someone that is holding hostages? I bet the criminal didn't want to be shot...was the officer wrong? They're not going to like this, but how can they say otherwise? They are appalled at the notion of child molestation being "good" because they really are presupposing objective moral standards.

I try to use questions and examples to bring up the fact even Utilitarians/moral relativists must deal with objective moral norms to make their positions even intelligible...this is a presuppositional approach...whether it's very good...well, I'll leave that up to you 

I would recommend Bahnsen's Always Ready. He dealt with every common objection in that book...it is invaluable.


----------

