The Flaws of Utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest #)

By Shew <ashmo28@hotmail.com>

Utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the greatest number, is a theory of morality and economics formulated by Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill. Although there are different types of Utilitarianism (Rule and Law), I'm going to be pointing out the general flaws of the system of Utility.

First: Utilitarianism would allow for slavery and other such evil practices. You see, if we are simply looking at what is best for the most people, 51% of the population could justify enslaving or using the other 49% is such a way. This not only violates the means-ends standard of the Categorical Imperative, but it allows for a total disrespect of human rights.

Second: Current theories of Utilitarianism provide no practical way to measure what is "good." Util asks for the greatest good, but when different people find different things to be good, the task of figuring out the greatest good is simply impossible.

Third: (this one is similar to #1) Utility disrespects dignity because it doesn't recoginze the individual. As John Rawls says in A THEORY OF JUSTICE, "the striking feature of the utilitarian view of justice is that it does not matter, except indirectly, how the sum of satisfaction is distributed among individuals." In other words, since the distribution of happiness does not matter, only the amount of happiness, grave human rights violations can be justified! As long as the happiness overall is great, some people can suffer!

Fourth: Utility isn't rational. According to Rawls, "A rational man would not accept a basic structure merely because it maximized the algebraic sum of advantages irrespective of its permanent effects on his own basic rights and interests." A reasonable, compentent individual would not approve of Util because Util isn't concerned in the least with the individual. (this kinda goes with #3)

Fifth: One cannot always see all the consequences of his actions, yet Util asks us to make decisions based on end results. (Another reason deontology is just better than teleology...)

Sixth: the Hedonistic Fallacy- Util tries to derive what ought to be from what is.

Seventh: Each person can define his own definition of happiness.

Utility is often disguised as "the common good," "societal welfare," or "societal happiness." Don't be fooled. Util is a flawed theory: recognize it. I encourage anyone reading this to add to my list of flaws. I've only named the biggies. I'm sure there are plenty more that I can't think of at the moment.

To submit a comment, click here.


Leah <coco_c_007@hotmail.com>

"As long as the happiness overall is great, some people can suffer!"

A good portion of the population of the US today thinks that they have achieved some sort of happiness. And yet we still have abusive homes, diseases of all types, and homelessness that make all manner of people suffer. So are we living in a Utilitarian society?


Nichole Sanders <snk79@hotmail.com>

Interesting, I know what you're trying to say, but I don't understand it completely. I read up on that topic.


Shew <>

Nichole: Do any of us completely understand anything? Sorry, I've been talking to some of my weirder philosophy buddies, but anyway. What is it that you don't understand? the theory of Utilitarianism or the flaws I tried to point out? I can attempt to clarify whichever you don't understand.


Brian Bearden <bbearden@student.lander.edu>

I agree if we were to believe in the greatest good for the greatest number, there would be so many violations to our constitutional rights and our freedom.


Anna C. Nance <eirendel@yahoo.com>

You have pointed out the flaws of util. Are there any cases wehre it would be justified?


Jamie Meadows <riojeepgrl>

You've writen a great paper that welcomes discussion, that welcoms observing flaws. Which seems to be the focus of your paper, general Flaws.


Nichole Sanders <snk79@hotmail.com>

For some reason I think I feel where you are coming from. I understand what you are saying.