Topics Ethics

Question Why is Utilitarianism rubbish? We are supposed to do an action which will create a net increase of welfare - how are we to judge if a particular action will increase welfare? If we are forced to make this decision, do we not have to rely on some 'internal moral' or integrities that we might hold, therefore making it quite impossible to judge correctly what will increase the general happiness? And doesn't utilitarianism require us to act as machines, not bothering about what we feel?

Accepted:
November 17, 2005

Comments

The the idea of caring about others' welfare is not rubbish, and reflecting on the consequences of our actions and thinking hard about ways that I can benefit connects to some of my deeply-held feelings about how I want to behave.

I think it is also too strong to say that utilitarianism is rubbish as an ethical theory: we can learn a lot by exploring and assessing theories that address crucual issues even in a flawed way. That said, utilitarianism is severely flawed. I think the most important problems include the difficulty of defining welfare, of measuring it, and of making accurate and specific predictions about the consequences of our behavior.

Other panelists can say much more, I'm sure, but in my opinion no satisfactory resolution to these problems is in sight.