Against Utilitarianism

Unless a doctrine establishes a commonality of ends within an advancement of life, the values admired by it must certainly fade into the obscure realms of ambiguity. Utilitarianism, that most selfish of creeds which obligates every action towards awarding the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, is such a doctrine, in that if fails to clearly define what exactly this happiness would be. In his Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill states that this philosophy upholds any virtues as ends in themselves rather than means towards a specific idea of meaningful existence, and defends his position, suggesting that most opponents of the philosophy fail to clearly understand its meaning, or simply deny the capacity of humanity towards such a state of happiness. Yet, when dissecting the components of utilitarianism and reflecting upon its proliferations, we find that the core of this doctrine ultimately conflicts with sustainment of positive existence in accordance with natural harmony.

The most obviously destructive aspect of utilitarianism is found in its very founding principle: Greatest pleasure for the greatest number. Such a principle is concerned only with numeric factors in the application of practicality in existence, and forsakes independence of character. It may be well generally assumed what would make a person happy within a given society, and that this happiness would proliferate, leading to pleasurable life. But what should be considered if that "happiness" were in conflict with the natural harmony of existence? Because something awards happiness does not necessarily translate into something being good when applied in the context of life as a whole. Suppose that a certain activity grants pleasure to a population’s majority, and that this activity opposes essential factors of natural systems, perhaps something destructive to environmental stability. Now, should this happiness be allowed to flourish among such a great number of people, simply because it awards pleasure and eliminates pain? (The concept of pain is as vast as pleasure, and in this particular instance would mean the pain of boredom and denial of the pursuit of a pleasure.) We must remain aware that something that grants pleasure is not always, and in fact very rarely, something beneficial to human advancement, and its connection with natural elements that surround.

There is a great emphasis placed upon the progression of benefit in the social sense for the majority, as this is held to be a principle honoring the individual’s right to life simply from the fact that it exists. Utilitarianism, perhaps in its most widely embraced form when applied to this "right to life" application, here becomes a stubborn adversary of human advancement towards higher values. This deplorable philosophy of humanism finds much praise and celebration among the weak and unhealthy, since it champions their right to an existence that is nothing more than base sustenance, void of higher ambition towards greater life. By granting every "disadvantaged" person this uncontested right to life under the banner of something as anti-reality as utilitarianism, those of greater character, higher intellect, and resonant beauty, all qualities found among the minority, become silenced, and made to feel ashamed of their excellence, as it offends those who fall short of these aspects. Mediocrity reigns supreme in this greedy domain where corrupt ethical values lead to the descent of human achievement.

Mill makes reference to power as a thing desired for its own sake towards the attainment of happiness. It can be seen, without much strain of vision, that the people do indeed cry out for power. But what is it that this power ultimately delivers unto them? They win a claim of having some part to play in the political standings in a system that undermines power structure and sensible rank. Through this process, the most degenerate of a society have a say in the election of one who should be a leader rather than someone who is the victor in a popularity contest. Power for the people, so that they may continue their individualistic lives of selfish pleasure regardless of the harmful circumstances of their chosen lifestyle by electing those who appeal to what the majority desire. Rather than a means to an end of happiness, this resembles more a method towards the decline of all that is substantial in human existence.

Upholders of utilitarianism posit that all human action is motivated by an end of happiness. While individual virtues can be perceived as ends in themselves, it falls beyond the realm of reasonable possibility to suggest that all human desires are interchangeable. Happiness comes in many forms, according to particular wishes and sensational pleasures of specific individuals, and the same can be said of pain. In a world of so many people, how can terms/concepts such as happiness, pleasure, and pain be defined to adequately justify a universal end for the actions of all? Inevitably, what results is a form of individualism that eradicates consensus and seeks to satisfy the wants and needs of people as individuals rather than allowing holistic approaches towards a stronger, healthier society. The only common end for an individualistic society is "happiness" for each person in line with their chosen lifestyle, and a condescending demand for respect of that lifestyle no matter how much it conflicts with a movement towards higher advancement in civilization. It is this repugnant development of utilitarian thought that allows individuals to accumulate independent wealth out of proportion of what is required for sensible livelihood through deceptive, ignoble, and environmentally destructive methods. This kind of individualistic "happiness" is injurious to social fellowship and paves the way for each person to claim themselves as an entity separate from the natural order of holistic existence.

On the surface, it may seem ludicrous to any sane mind that something such as money can be valued as an end in itself, instead of simply what it is able to provide. But when observing the rhythm in which both economic and human population emergence move in association, it becomes apparent that the love of money is indistinguishable from love of self. The foundation humanity has laid out for itself requires a rapidly growing economy to support a rapidly growing population, and because the most horrifying idea for a person is the ending of human life, individually or on a mass level, an affection for such growth is natural. However, on the whole, we see this affection for self/required foundation reaching a lamentable limitation in the form of simple survival with no greater ambition to higher accomplishment. Anything heroic, noble, beautiful, superior in intellect/ability, and of high character slowly disappears due to diminishing means that can be devoted to such aspirations. Quantity triumphs over quality, and mediocrity is king, and life becomes less a journey towards great achievement and more an agreeably commonplace and ordinary experience, in which an illusion of equality averages the strong and weak to the lowest common denominator.

That happiness should be the only end desirable as the result of all activity proposes that there is either some universal conception of happiness, or that each individual has a right to pursue his/her own idea of happiness. The only firmly established commonality among humans is survival, and beyond this there are numerous individual desires and choices leading to different lifestyles that are often contradictory with the ideas of others. There is no utopia in which a single definition of happiness and pleasure exists, and pain is nonexistent. Struggle and suffering are essential to accomplishment. If there were no hardships to endure, no pain to suffer, how empty and dull human existence would be! Suffering is not something to be eliminated or even something to invest great effort to reduce. Without heavy burden and significant difficulty, life would be a hollow condition of miserable boredom. Concepts such as happiness, pleasure, and pain are purely situational, ever fluctuating in the flow of life, and define only a moment in time. There are many experiences of both pleasure and pain along the way, and both are essential to appreciating life in its entirety. In this way, to constantly be concerned with decreasing pain, or the possibility of it, is to strive for an incomplete life fueled by the futile hopes of some dreamland where everyone encountered remarks, without even the slightest hesitation, "Yes, I am a happy person". In other words, a land of make-believe where illusions shape the lives of all. And, indeed, how many appear be living that way even now!

Utilitarianism is selfishness. It denies the reality of natural process, and seeks only an ambiguous pleasure as the goal of all human endeavor. When applied practically to society, this philosophy results in the destruction of heroic nobility and high achievement as defining aspects of civilization. This doctrine hates the human evolution to a state of excellence, and breeds mediocrity in the form of mere survival. As our natural world suffers enormously from the individualistic lifestyle of an uncurbed population growth, our political systems increasingly cater to populism instead of providing firm and wise leadership, and independent cultures become replaced with functionalism in the endeavor of individual wealth accumulation, our social and environmental stability degenerate. At the root of each of these developments is utilitarianism, and for the sake of a healthier future for humanity, the application of this philosophy to civilization must be eliminated.

Allen Donaldson 10/25/06