Utilitarianism has its allure. An overly simplistic interpretation of it is that it is based on the idea of maximizing happiness for as many people as possible. Essentially, it’s a numbers game. But a less charitable way of describing it is that the end justifies the means. People being harmed or killed in self-driving car-related accidents, for example, may be justified if ultimately thousands more lives are saved in the future. I’ve even heard the argument that in the future people driving themselves in cars may be seen as unethical. However, there are flaws in this moral philosophy, which can be seen by comparing utilitarianism to Immanuel Kant’s moral absolutism, an ethical view that some actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context or consequence.
- As Kant argued, utilitarianism doesn’t respect people at the individual level because utilitarianism aggregates them as a function of its philosophy. I would agree, and I would go further by saying that the utilitarianism approach essentially “normalizes” people the same way data scientists normalize data, further dehumanizing them. As Kant may have argued, proper ethical action treats persons as ends unto themselves rather than mere instruments to further one’s desired outcomes.
- The value of utilitarianism is grounded in the notion of outcomes. Again, the end justifies the means. The philosophy self-acknowledges that there may be some immorality in the decision itself, which is “justified” for the outcome to be reached. That leads to the realization that there is a probabilistic scenario when the ‘end’ may never be realized, and the means used to reach the goal may be, at best, unethical and, at worst, abhorrent. In contrast, Kant argues that moral absolutism should be grounded in the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions (as determined by the categorical imperative), regardless of their consequences. The benefit of this approach is that even if a good outcome is never realized, the decisions that inspire the outcome are still grounded in ethics and sound moral theory.
- Utilitarianism ignores intent and motives. This may potentially encourage immoral behavior in service of good outcomes. Using the truth to incite violence isn’t morally justifiable. Inversely, ethical motives can employ flawed means. Bribing a presidential candidate not to run in an election to prevent dictatorship is also morally unjustifiable.
Note: The word “Absolutism” is misspelled on Kant’s chalkboard despite ChatGPT being told explicitly what to write.