THE CONSTRUCTIVIST FALLACY OF UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is generally understood to refer to a theory of rules of conduct that focuses on their utility in society. In a broader sense, it applies to any critical evaluation of rules or institutions based on their societal functions. Those who question established values and seek reasons for their acceptance can be termed utilitarians. However, since the late 18th century, the term has come to represent a more specific moral and legal theory. Originally, "utility" referred to the usefulness of means for specific situations, but it later evolved to describe a common characteristic of ends based on the pleasure or satisfaction they provide.
A crucial distinction in utilitarian thought is between the usefulness of means for known ends and their usefulness for various needs in probable situations. Strict utilitarianism, as put forth by Jeremy Bentham, judges actions based on a calculation of pleasure and pain but faces challenges as it assumes actors can know all consequences of their actions. This leads to "act" utilitarianism, which focuses on individual actions rather than established rules. Bentham tried to avoid this by suggesting actions should generally aim for maximum pleasure but his followers often interpreted the theory as requiring a full understanding of consequences.
Alternatively, "rule" utilitarianism shifts focus to the overall utility of certain types of actions over time, as expressed by thinkers like William Paley. A thorough examination of both "act" and "rule" utilitarianism reveals the inadequacies in each. While "act" utilitarianism assumes an unrealistic knowledge of all consequences, "rule" utilitarianism struggles to account for how rules are justified beyond their known utility.
The main flaw of utilitarianism is its failure to recognize our necessary ignorance regarding the particular outcomes of our actions. The existence of moral and legal rules relies on this ignorance, as we create these rules precisely because we cannot foresee every consequence. If individuals were omniscient and could predict outcomes, rules would be unnecessary, and strict act utilitarianism would undermine their relevance.
Rules of conduct are shaped not by explicit knowledge of specific consequences but by their effectiveness in addressing recurring problems. They serve society by facilitating the members' adaptability to various situations rather than being designed for specific ends. The development of these rules happens through a process of evolution, based on past experiences, rather than through rational deduction.
The importance of rules is based on the effects they produce and their frequency of occurrence. For example, it may be more critical for rules to prevent frequent minor disruptions than to address rare catastrophic events. The "utility" that shapes conduct rules is not an individual’s understanding but rather a broader notion of utility benefitting society as a whole. This highlights a tendency in utilitarian thought to anthropomorphize societal evolution as if it were consciously intended.
In essence, moral rules do not derive their significance from known ends, as agreement on specific objectives would eliminate the need for such rules. Instead, these rules categorize actions based on their likely effects, which need not be known to individuals. They are less about achieving defined goals and more about maintaining a systematic order that reduces conflicts in pursuing various aims.
Utilitarianism fails to account for the reality that rules are products of accumulated social experiences rather than deliberate designs. Like languages, rules evolve through an ongoing process rather than from a plan addressing every specific situation. Consequently, while rules serve various functions within a structured system, they do not have an explicit purpose aligned with known outcomes; their rationale is derived from an understanding of the system as a whole.
Ultimately, while it is possible to strive for the "greatest happiness for the greatest number," one cannot accurately measure or calculate this happiness, as it is not quantifiable. Instead, the role of rules is to enhance opportunities for individuals whose needs and circumstances remain unknown. The pursuit of general well-being should focus on facilitating conditions for growth and adaptability without the illusion of precise outcomes based on utilitarian calculations.
Utilitarianism is generally understood to refer to a theory of rules of conduct that focuses on their utility in society. In a broader sense, it applies to any critical evaluation of rules or institutions based on their societal functions. Those who question established values and seek reasons for their acceptance can be termed utilitarians. However, since the late 18th century, the term has come to represent a more specific moral and legal theory. Originally, "utility" referred to the usefulness of means for specific situations, but it later evolved to describe a common characteristic of ends based on the pleasure or satisfaction they provide.
A crucial distinction in utilitarian thought is between the usefulness of means for known ends and their usefulness for various needs in probable situations. Strict utilitarianism, as put forth by Jeremy Bentham, judges actions based on a calculation of pleasure and pain but faces challenges as it assumes actors can know all consequences of their actions. This leads to "act" utilitarianism, which focuses on individual actions rather than established rules. Bentham tried to avoid this by suggesting actions should generally aim for maximum pleasure but his followers often interpreted the theory as requiring a full understanding of consequences.
Alternatively, "rule" utilitarianism shifts focus to the overall utility of certain types of actions over time, as expressed by thinkers like William Paley. A thorough examination of both "act" and "rule" utilitarianism reveals the inadequacies in each. While "act" utilitarianism assumes an unrealistic knowledge of all consequences, "rule" utilitarianism struggles to account for how rules are justified beyond their known utility.
The main flaw of utilitarianism is its failure to recognize our necessary ignorance regarding the particular outcomes of our actions. The existence of moral and legal rules relies on this ignorance, as we create these rules precisely because we cannot foresee every consequence. If individuals were omniscient and could predict outcomes, rules would be unnecessary, and strict act utilitarianism would undermine their relevance.
Rules of conduct are shaped not by explicit knowledge of specific consequences but by their effectiveness in addressing recurring problems. They serve society by facilitating the members' adaptability to various situations rather than being designed for specific ends. The development of these rules happens through a process of evolution, based on past experiences, rather than through rational deduction.
The importance of rules is based on the effects they produce and their frequency of occurrence. For example, it may be more critical for rules to prevent frequent minor disruptions than to address rare catastrophic events. The "utility" that shapes conduct rules is not an individual’s understanding but rather a broader notion of utility benefitting society as a whole. This highlights a tendency in utilitarian thought to anthropomorphize societal evolution as if it were consciously intended.
In essence, moral rules do not derive their significance from known ends, as agreement on specific objectives would eliminate the need for such rules. Instead, these rules categorize actions based on their likely effects, which need not be known to individuals. They are less about achieving defined goals and more about maintaining a systematic order that reduces conflicts in pursuing various aims.
Utilitarianism fails to account for the reality that rules are products of accumulated social experiences rather than deliberate designs. Like languages, rules evolve through an ongoing process rather than from a plan addressing every specific situation. Consequently, while rules serve various functions within a structured system, they do not have an explicit purpose aligned with known outcomes; their rationale is derived from an understanding of the system as a whole.
Ultimately, while it is possible to strive for the "greatest happiness for the greatest number," one cannot accurately measure or calculate this happiness, as it is not quantifiable. Instead, the role of rules is to enhance opportunities for individuals whose needs and circumstances remain unknown. The pursuit of general well-being should focus on facilitating conditions for growth and adaptability without the illusion of precise outcomes based on utilitarian calculations.