In ethics there is an incredibly popular philosophy many people subscribe to, utilitarianism. Very very broadly, utilitarianism essentially looks to maximize pleasure and/or wellbeing. Actions that should lead to the maximization of pleasure and/or wellbeing are “good” and things you “ought to do”. Likewise you should minimize harm. Utilitarianism falls under the belief in consequentialism, which is the more broad belief that what is considered “good” depends on outcomes. Utilitarian’s are consequentialists, but consequentialists are not necessarily utilitarian’s. This “essay” is an attack on the practicality of utilitarianism and consequentialism, namely on the principle that some claim these systems to produce “objective” ethical claims.
An objective claim is one that is “correct” outside of one’s feelings about it. Objective claims would fall under what people colloquially call “facts”. Therefore succinctly I am arguing that you cannot make objective claims about maximizing wellbeing and harm. One important distinction to make is that people conflate objectivity with absolutism. Objectivity is not necessarily unchanging. If objectivity were unchanging then technically the only groups that could ever have objective beliefs are the religious because their principles are unchanging. Tradition and history is the justification for most religions, they are the only real unchanging ethical systems because they refuse to change.
Argument
What is pleasurable and/or increases wellbeing largely stems from underlying beliefs a person has. For example we may say “Murder is wrong because it reduces wellbeing”. This statement however has many underlying arguments that ground it’s conclusion. Some of these axioms that are taken for granted would be:
- Life is worth living, and is itself a good thing; Life itself is pleasurable and/or increases wellbeing
- Other people’s wellbeing matters; Ethics is not solipsistic
- All of the above are also subjected to the assumption that every person is equally deserving of “good”; egalitarianism
From a practical perspective these sorts of assumptions are universal… right? Well trivially, in many countries egalitarianism is not an underlying assumption (Apartheid, Jim Crowe, etc.), many people are psychopathic or sociopathic, and many people do not think life is worth living. Therefore it’s arguable that what constitutes “wellbeing/pleasure” is malleable. So, everything is just a matter of opinion, and there’s no such thing as ethical claims then?
I would argue it’s possible to make objective claims about ethics, however those objective claims are as to whether or not a particular action comports to an underlying belief. There’s a concept called basal beliefs, these are beliefs that permeate all other beliefs, and sit in the background of a system. These I would argue in all ethical system are developed subjectively. The claim that human beings intrinsically have value is subjective, but I would argue it’s still “correct” because I share that basal belief. Therefore, I could claim something to be objectively ethical within an underlying set of ethical presuppositions, if and only if they align with the underlying principals.
So then utilitarianism can help create objective measurements of if an action is in line with the goals produced based on these beliefs. I might for example hold that honesty is important. Therefore in a relationship I might argue that the “good” done by being honest about something would outweigh the potential harm. However it’s important to note that most of the time people do not just “create” their own ethics, often they follow the ethics of the broader society around them.
In most liberal/western democracies for example we believe in the sovereignty of individuals as an underlying belief, and as such murder would be considered wrong because it violates the autonomy of an individual, and therefore creates more “harm” than “wellbeing”. These underlying basal beliefs can be a cohesive force within a society, and can provide a good “framework” for individuals to follow.
So it’s all opinion?
Yes, yes, all of this is lovely, but if everything is subjective, then how do we then decide ethical dilemmas? Same way we currently do, but just more honestly. Ethical dilemmas reach into peoples core tenants in order to challenge them. Just deal with those dilemma’s, and understand that however you resolve them will have trade offs. Let’s take two examples, one interpersonal, and one societal.
The first is someone being annoyed their boyfriend has been talking to other women, and says it’s tantamount to cheating. For utilitarianism we would argue that the pleasure of cheating for the cheater does not offset the harm to the victim. However the problem comes in trying to justify that claim How would we go about justifying this normally? Well, first we need to agree cheating is bad, then we need to decide what it means to cheat. In this case we might say something like, cheating is any action that makes me feel like you’re choosing someone else over me. Great, now we know more specifically what to avoid “situations that make me feel like you’re choosing someone over me”. To abstract this we could say then that making someone feel like they’re less valuable than someone else causes harm, great, but how much? How do we actually quantify the harm and pleasure of either? We can intuit the answer, but that is practically the definition of something being subjective. Well, maybe let’s see if this works societally.
Thou shalt not murder. It’s a pretty simple one, and it’s something that basically everyone agrees on. As a society murdering people is something that could massively destabilize society, and individually cause massive harm. But again, how do we justify this? Let’s say we argue that killing someone violates their autonomy, and we care about allowing people the freedom to build the lives they want (we could pick other principles they would all fall under this critique). How do we justify that as a principle? At some point all of it get’s down to a subjective choice.
There is essentially no overall moral stance any person can make that is universal in it’s applicability, which is fine because we don’t live in societies of all possibilities at once. Whatever the underlying beliefs are of a society we have decided to live under them, and so long as they’re agreed upon that really is all we need. This pretense of objectivity just obfuscates the reality. Murder is wrong, what about self-defense in Canada? Many people consider violence in self-defense up to and including murder justified.
Conclusion
Systems like utilitarianism rely on subjective underlying principles. The definition of good and pleasure are fully subjective. This does not mean you shouldn’t want them. The want for something like “everyone deserves to prosper” is not universal, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t aim for it. Broadly speaking you can have an interpersonal ethic that you bind yourself to, and that reflects your beliefs of the world. A society can have a set of morals that are later codified roughly into laws, and are enforced both socially and judiciously.