There are three main methods to refute an ethical system. The first is to attack its internal logical consistency. The second test is to appeal to its lack of intrinsic beauty and goodness (this is obviously more subjective). As Bertrand Russell pointed out, Nietzsche’s ethics were logically consistent, but they were also reprehensible. Secular systems of ethics, such as utilitarianism, suffer from a third problem, which is providing a reason to follow that system of ethics rather than your own self-interest.
Utilitarianism fails all three of these tests.
Utilitarianism is not Objective
Is there an objectively binding moral duty to follow utiliarianism? If not, then utilitarianism collapses into relativism. It is no more valid than other systems of ethics (or none). But if there is an objectively binding moral duty, then where is the scientific proof for its existence? Where does this duty exist? In our bodies? On the moon? If utiliarians believe in this objective moral duty, then why don’t they also believe in Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? The fact is that utilitarianism requires that you accept certain first principles - principles that are accepted without proof, and which act as the foundation for other beliefs - such as universalisability. The logician and ethicist Harry Gensler examines these first principles in detail in his book Formal Ethics. This objection actually leads to the moral argument for the existence of God.
Since utilitarianism is not objective, it fails provide a defense of its existence beyond personal opinion and subjectivism. So it fails the third test.
Utilitarianism is Ugly and Horrifying
Utilitarianism is the theory of ethics that cheefully defends killing 9 people to save 10 lives. Killing one healthy man to give his organs to two people dying of illness. Utilitarianism is the form of ethics you would find a dystopic work of science fiction. Utilitarians recognize this problem and grapple with it, but no utilitarian defense is satisfactory. Rule utilitarianism is an incoherent ripoff of the doctrine of unalienable rights. Dignity utilitarianism concedes that maximizing happiness should not be the highest good. But most utilitarians focus on maximizing preferences (give as many people what they want as possible) so I’ll focus on that.
I submit that any ethical system that does not categorically prohibit slavery and genocide of minority groups should be immediately disqualified on the grounds that it fails the test for intrinsic beauty and goodness. Utilitarianism fails on these grounds because it can potentially support genocide and slavery.To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, utilitarianism is two wolves and a lamb voting about what to have for dinner. All that you need is for the two wolves gain more happiness than the lamb loses. Of course, there are built-in defenses that make genocide more difficult than simply holding a vote. Many forms of utilitarianism give strong preferences extra weight. Clearly the lamb has a stronger interest in the outcome of the vote! Second, the principle of declining marginal utility means that a preference to live counts for a heck of a lot more than the preferences to eat. But all this does is make genocide and slavery more difficult. If the preference to live counts 100 times as much as the preference to kill members of a minority group, then utiliarianism will sanction genocide when the minority group makes up less than 1% of the population.
You can mitigate this attack by amplifying the principle of declining marginal utility. Change the utilitarian equation so that a preference to live counts one million times as much as other preferences. This still does not prevent oppression. But it does mean that there are two different types of currency in play: human lives and other preferences. The majority group could force members of the minority group to have their blood and tissue types registered. Then whenever someone from the majority group has a terminal injury or illness, they can have a member of the minority group sacrificed and take their organs. Realize that utilitarianism only counts the final results. With utilitarianism, the ends always justify the means. There is no distinction between killing and letting die. Either way, someone dies. One life counts against the other life, and the other preferences act as a tie breaker. Realize that you can’t put a “color blind” or fairness clause in utilitarianism (this would be another objective ethical truth that utilitarians cannot defend), because all that matters is adding up how happy an action makes people. The reason why does not matter.
A more practical problem is that a utility funciton this strong leads to absurd consequences. It would be unethical to drive your car, because there is better than a one in a million chance of killing someone. Health care becomes massively expensive. There is no amount of money that should not be spent to save a life, since the value of that life outweighs all the other uses with that money. Safety regulations would be taken to such extremes that most products would be illegal. These are some reasons why most utilitarians would not take such a strong utility function. The leading utilitarian ethicist Peter Singer demonstrates as much when he says on page 94 of his book ‘Practical Ethics,’ that “if we are preference utilitarians we must allow that a desire to go on living can be outweighed by other desires.”
Thus utilitarianism fails the test for intrinsic beauty and goodness.
Utilitarianism is Irrational.
For a belief to be held rationally, it must be held with logical consistency. This is clearly true in science. If Theory A implies B, then a scientist cannot rationally believe A while denying B. This principle is equally valid in ethics (for further explanation, here is an accessible introduction to logic, which includes belief logic).Utilitarians cannot do this, because if they were a member of an oppressed minority group, they would not willingly submit to their own death by genocide or to be unfairly singled out for sacrifice. Thus utilitarians cannot accept all the logical consequences of their beliefs, and thus cannot support utilitarians in a rational manner.
Thus utilitarianism fails the test for logical consistency.
Other Objections
This is only a brief outline. There are many other objections ( separateness of persons, the experience machine, utility monsters, secrets, hedonism, etc…) You can have fun googling these terms. The fact is that utilitarianism is both ugly and horrifying, and impractical and unworkable.
Further Reading
- Here is another “Why I am not a utilitarian” list.
- If you recall from the beginning of the article, there are basically two tests for ethical systems: rational ethical beliefs must be able to be held consistently, and they must have a sense of beauty of goodness. The Golden Rule (treat others as you want to be treated) passes both of these tests easily. It consistency can be proven in formal logic. The logician Harry Gensler does this in his book An Introduction to Logic. Intuitively this makes sense because at its heart the Golden Rule is a consistency principle: treat others as you want to be treated. The fact the Golden Rule is found in nearly every religion in the world also testifies to its beauty and goodness. One final note: an overly literal formation of the Golden Rule - the letter rather than the spirit - leads to absurd results, such as masochists being allowed to hurt others. The proof of the Golden Rule mentioned above was of a sophisticated formulation that avoids these problems.
- If you are interested in a book that both defends natural rights ethics and attacks modern utilitarianism, then I highly recommend Moral Theory by David Oderberg.
