While the form of ethical theoretical philosophy defined as Consequentialism adopts the idea that the consequences of an act determine its morality, Utilitarianism builds upon and enhances this theory by suggesting a goal for these consequences. Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher whose life spanned nearly half of both the 18th and 19th centuries and whose remains were mummified with an embalming recipe of his own creation and are still on public display in England, subscribed to Hedonism. Hedonism says that "only that which is pleasant or produces pleasant consequences is morally good." It would be left up to Bentham's student John Stuart Mill to develop the theory of Utilitarianism.
One contention of Bentham's that carries over into Mill is that happiness is the goal of human action; however, Mill qualifies the statement by acknowledging that the human intellect should be able to reason that pleasures of the mind are far more important than pleasures of the body. Therefore: happiness is best achieved in man by attaining a higher intellectual level; once one can reason this for oneself, one should abhor any lower standard.
In coming to grips with the responsibility that accompanies human existence, one should not expect to live a life in constant pursuit of individual happiness; there are other people beside oneself, and one must take into account their intrinsic worth as individuals, indeed, as intellectual beings. A guideline had to be drawn with which one could measure that which is morally good; hence, John Stuart Mill's theory.
The basic principle of Mill's argument can be summed up in one brief statement: An action is morally good according to the degree of which it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of persons. While, like most philosophical arguments, this may sound logical, truthful, and even praiseworthy, it does raise several more arguable concerns.
First and foremost, one must take into consideration the fact that the consequences of an action cannot always be predetermined; it would, therefore, follow that neither the ethical implications or effects could be judged in this way, as it would be difficult to even ascertain who might be affected by one's actions. On a comparative scale, the definition of quantitative cost to and benefit of "the greatest number of persons," would be very difficult to analyze.
Next, the amount of time and effort that might be required to produce some estimation of the morality of an act could prove to be magnanimous; say, for instance, if one were faced with the question of colliding the car one is driving with one of two others on the road in an unavoidable accident, one would not have the ability of the time to count the number of persons in each of the other two cars... In any case, when faced with such circumstances, an individual may not even possess the rational ability necessary to calculate the outcome of their actions upon others.
Faced with the awful reality of harm coming to a human person, or a group of human persons, another objection must be raised: it is possible, however unpleasant, that a greater good can come to a greater number at the expense of one or some. As Mr. Spock said after exposing himself to deadly radiation to allow his ship to escape the explosion of the Genesis Device in Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one..." This describes, in somewhat aggregate terms, that good can be achieved under such conditions by sacrificing oneself, and one's own happiness, for the sake of others. For the Christian, this is best exemplified by Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Finally, the theory fails to take into account any individual rights that may be violated in an attempt to produce "the greatest good for the greatest number." As an example, it was in the spirit of Utilitarianism that Queen Victoria of England commuted the death sentences of several sailors for the murder of one of their comrades so that they could eat of his flesh for survival while trapped in a longboat at sea. The young man in question was near unto death already and, fearing that his long, slow death may spoil his flesh or rob it of any nutritional value, his fellow sailors killed him outright to save themselves from his fate. While the courts rightfully upheld that an innocent life should not be taken so as to benefit others, the Queen obviously believed that the men had suffered enough in their ordeal and through their actions after they had been rescued as well as in the guilt that might have weighed upon their consciences for killing their starving shipmate. She ordered the men released.
While Mill himself stated "If it be true that God desires, above all things, the happiness of His creatures, and that this was His purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other;" theologians and philosophers alike have disputed him. The over-all apparent lack of association to a code of morality makes Mill unacceptable to most of the Judeo-Christian traditions. His contention, however, was that no definitive list of moral standards are indicative of the necessities of time and place, such as those sailors' position which was worsened by the fact that they were starving, dying of thirst, and unable to see right from wrong. In the end, though the one young man was killed and eaten, the rest survived and regained their sanity.
Some more reasonable defenses have been raised by the modification to the theory that have been put forth. Each individual act can be morally evaluated according to the utility principle; this is called: Act Utilitarianism. Another is Rule Utilitarianism which states that a universally followed rule, or set of rules, can aid in determining just what is "the greatest good for the greatest number." This would allow the establishment of "right," "just," and universal justification of rules governing both the greatest good and the prohibition of harm unto others. Utility, however, in its very definition would not allow for this modification, for no individual rights or rules could oppose it.
In the end, Utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations to take into account when faced with moral controversy, but fails to offer a viable way to predict the potential outcome of an act. This presents two problems: evaluating the welfare issues attached to an act, and very consequential issues that the theory would insist upon since it is, in and of itself, a form of Consequentialism. Utilitarianism would again attempt to solve this dilemma by appealing to experience; i.e., Queen Victoria thought the crime of the sailors in question forgivable due to the extremity of the circumstances. John Stuart Mill fails to reconcile an individual decision to any set of rules or experiences due to circumstances and no balance between the two is offered. This is where individualism comes in; the Queen, individually, took pity on the sailors who murdered their dying shipmate and commuted their sentences because she assumed that, once these men were rescued and provided with the proper nutrition and time to recover from their ordeal, they would and did regret their actions; and would suffer knowledge of them for the rest of their lives. "Utility" saved them from dying at sea, and "Consequence" made them suffer enough.
