Explain the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism

Introduction: Utilitarianism is a teleological and consequentialist ethical theory that defines right and wrong by the "principle of utility", that it its usefulness to cause more pleasure than pain. In its most simplistic form, Utilitarianism can be summarised by the statement "the greatest good for the greatest number ". The theory, originally attributed to Jeremy Bentham, is a hedonistic theory (based on happiness), and Bentham developed the Hedonic Calculus as a means of calculating whether an action is right or wrong.
John Stewart Mill developed Bentham's theory by distinguishing between qualities of pleasure, saying that "some kinds of pleasure are more desirable... than others". For example, pleasures that an animal enjoy such as eating and sleeping are lesser than intellectual pleasures such as reading. Mill's positive view of human nature led him to believe that everyone could and should aim for the happiness of everyone, thus "the greatest number is justified". The two types of Utilitarianism that have emerged from Mill and Bentham are act utilitarianism, which principles from working out which actions are moral, and rule Utilitarianism, which states that we should establish rules from general principles.

A problem with Utilitarianism is that, to some extent, it ignores justice. Demonstrated by McCloskey racism example. McCloskey presented the example of a sheriff who had to choose whether to prosecute a black man who he knew was not guilty, but the public thought he was. If he prosecuted, he would punish an innocent man but he would also prevent a very dangerous riot from occurring. Not only does Utilitarianism lead to morally wrong actions being performed for the sake of "maximum pleasure" but it also leads to a society where some human beings are treated better than others and law, to some extent, becomes irrelevant. As Michael Palmer put it, it may lead to "unequal distribution" of happiness. RESPONSE: Rule Utilitarianism ensures that rules can be created for the maximum utility of society, and following these rules (perhaps in the form of laws) would ensure that justice would be served. IE The rule utilitarian would argue that the rule of law (that demands the vindication of the law and the acquittal of the innocent man in the example above) should be followed. COUNTER RESPONSE: Could it be argued that an exposition of rule Utilitarianism that merely states that legal rules should be followed robs the utilitarian position of any meaningful content? How would you distinguish a pragmatic morality from a utilitarian morality? Another problem is that it fails to adequately take into account human nature and human desires. While it may be a hedonistic theory, it can be quite demanding for some in certain circumstances. Shelley Kagan argues that there is always an infinite number of strangers who could be helped in an infinite number of ways through self sacrifice, thus "a life spent promoting the good would be a severe one indeed". A related problem is the “problem of special responsibilities” (Michael Palmer): If a mother saw a famous scientist, just on the verge of curing a disease drowning, and she also saw her child drowning, it would be odd for morality to require her to save the scientist. RESPONSE: It is frequently the case that behaving ethically means a certain degree of self sacrifice is needed. Examples of some well known ethical people seem to suggest that a focus on others rather than yourself is needed to behave ethically (perhaps those who help out in Syria might be a good example). A strength of Mill's theory is that it distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures, and thus prioritizes certain things which makes ethical decisions easier. The "higher pleasures" of intellect should be sought more than "the lower pleasures", pleasures animals can enjoy. In this sense, it gives humans moral authority over animals. The hedonic calculus is also a fairly sophisticated way of calculating happiness, and can be applied to many situations. RESPONSE: Surely this just involves a value judgement about whether these sophisticated higher pleasures are “better” than lower pleasures? Another strength: Despite not having any religious connections as such, Mill thought that the theory related heavily to the fundamental principle in Christian ethics. According to Mill, "to do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality". Thus the apparently strong relationship between the two theories strengthens Utilitarianism as a theory, as it is in line with what people, historically, have intuitively considered to be good. A last strength: its fundamental relativist basis is a huge strength in some respect. Unlike other deontological ethical theories, it takes into account that fact that different circumstances can arise. Thus the problems previously encountered such as Kant's "axe murderer" problem (Benjamin Constant), are indeed no longer problems. Conclusion: Utilitarianism does have some flaws. The biggest is probably its inability to adequately account for human nature. But might be a useful theory to apply on a macro level rather than a micro level (ie for society to consider rather than an individual). This is epitomised, for example, by Mill when he famously proposed his theory of liberty, which was not “some abstract principle”, but stemmed, said Mill, directly from Utilitarianism. This demonstrates its practical benefit.