Philosophy

Utilitarianism: Superior to Virtue Ethics

When learning Philosophy, specifically ethics, two of the most influential ethical theories are Aristotles Virtue Ethics and John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism. Virtue Ethics came about in Ancient Greece while Utilitarianism flourished in England during the 18th and 19th century. Each theory deserves considerable respect in the realm of philosophy although both are constantly scrutinized. What Utilitarianism is, in Mills view The creed which accepts at its foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of Happiness (Mill, Utilitarianism). Like Utilitarianism Virtue ethics is Teleological. It differs in the fact that it is not consequentialist, they find the value of actions in how they relate to the achievement of goals, but those goals are not consequences (Pojman, 299). Utilitarianism is criticized for only looking at the results of actions, not at the desires or intentions which motivate them; virtue ethics received criticism due to outdated social standards and difficulty to decide how to act when conflicting interest arise. These theories are not concrete or perfect, but they are also not completely flawed. Comparing and contrasting the different fundamental practices and ideologies of both philosophies will further allow me to state that Utilitarianism is superior to Virtue Ethics.

Virtue ethics revolves around the concept of Eudemonia, good fate and good fortune throughout a life time, the greatest good (Devettere 45). It concerns the good for the self.

Aristotle believed in the simple idea in that humans would flourish through good character by having good virtues. Although these are noted as good virtues, moderation must be taken into consideration. This is necessary because in order to maintain the label of a good virtue, a virtuous act must balance between the vices, excessiveness and deficiency (Aristotle). A human being that had achieved eudemonia would have a general love for humanity and would prelude actions with a question, How does this affect my character?

While Aristotle believes that morally right acts are those that are positioned at the mean between extremes, it is usually very difficult to establish how to apply this notion in actual situations. Virtues are not simple characteristics that behave in constant and specific ways because rules and principles cannot always be called upon. In addition, certain virtuous actions involve skills of articulation, awareness, and relevant knowledge. These attributes are obtained when faced with moral situations and the ability to identify what is important in that event. The gain and application of these skills of practical reasoning and moral insight are always different and subjective. Due to that very aspect, these skills cannot easily be offered as aid to others as they experience moral dilemmas. Given the very nature of moral virtues, consequently there is an insufficient amount of advice on moral predicaments that one can reasonably expect in the Virtue Ethics approach. Also, even the best and most virtuous person can make the wrong choices. There are countless situations in which a virtuous person has the best possible information and good motives, but their best intentions and actions may go sour. Virtue ethics is thematically rooted in the idea of a perfectly good person, although it seems unable to correctly asses the occasional negative outcomes of human actions.

Another criticism against Virtue Ethics is that, given that there are inevitable negative human actions, there are certain actions of great proportion that could cripple the relationship between a community and at least temporarily make understanding what the true moral goods are impossible (Williams). In addition, virtue ethics emphasis on good and bad people in comparison to good and bad actions may lead to moral relapsing. Since this focus on character ethics is long-term, Aristotles followers may possibly overlook an act of selfishness or the occasional lie on the grounds that such actions are simply acts that are out of character, nothing more. After considering this notion, it becomes very difficult to figure out who is vicious and who is virtuous. This leads to moral uncertainty, which should raise doubt for Aristotles virtue ethics.

The main idea of utilitarianism is that one must attempt to do what is best for society in place of what is best for the self, though the self does need an amount of reserved attention. One would accomplish this feat by consistently calculating the amounts of pain and pleasure that would be derived from every action. A perfect utilitarian would live and act with a very rational method of thinking and would often ponder, What is the result of this action? Like virtue ethics, there are understandably many criticisms against utilitarianism as well. One must consider these criticisms when seeking to convey why utilitarianism is the more sound ethical theory. The following are some of the most common problems that are associated with Utilitarianism. Receiving criticism on something allows for changing your previous action or thought or defending it. I will be doing the latter to further my point on the superiority of Utilitarianism.

One of the early difficulties with utilitarianism stem from the comparing and valuing of the happiness between different people. Naturally, it has been argued that the conclusive

happiness of different people is immeasurable. Though this problem is faced by any individual that must choose between two different instances in which both cases were to inflict a negative result on the people involved. Given this, if happiness were immeasurable, the death of a hundred people would be no worse than the casualty of one. The sorting of medical victims to increase the number of survivors, is a perfect example of a situation where utilitarianism is successfully applied.

Critics also reject utilitarianism on the grounds that it seems to not promote human rights (Harwood). For instance, torture or slavery could theoretically be justified if it is helpful for the population as a whole. Utilitarian theory would therefore seem to neglect civil and basic human rights. However, justification of slavery and torture would mandate an incredible amount of positive benefits to compensate for the severe torment to the victims, of course excluding the indirect effect of social approval of inhumane policies. For example, general fear and anxiety may be increased in all of society if human rights are commonly ignored. In response, human rights can be regarded as an idea that is associated with utilitarianism.

One of the basic criticisms of utilitarianism is that it is not proven by logic or science to be the correct ethical system. However, this is of course common to all ethical theories and even of the system of logic itself, and will undoubtedly remain so for the time being. It could even be said that nearly all political arguments about our future society utilize a utilitarian principle; every institution claims that their projected solution increases societys happiness most. Some degree of utilitarianism may actually be in the genetics of human beings.

In following this idea, one can discover that sociobiology, the study of the evolution of human society, supports the utilitarian ethical point of view. Utilitarian philosopher Peter

Singers The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology claims that fundamental utilitarian ethical reasoning has existed from the time primitive bands had to compromise, cooperate, and make group decisions to survive (Singer). If we take an incident between reasoning group members, demanding a reason for an action can be considered a justification for it, which can be approved by all members of the group as a whole. Therefore, concern of others' interests has already established itself as an essential element of human experience. Much like the people of primitive times, reason initiates the aspect of equal consideration between all members in any given group.

Another point Singer argues is that given the situation that one man is a utilitarian, he is one person among many in society and his interests are of small importance compared to the whole. From the point of view of the whole of utilitarians, the individual interests of others within society do not have much superiority as well. Yet this society is just one among other societies, and since the interests of members of this individual society are not more important, than are the interests of singular members of other societies not more important as well? When taking these elements to its logical conclusion, then one must accept that humans should give equal value for all human beings. This conclusion, that everyone's interests should be deemed equal when making decisions, is a fundamental principle of utilitarianism.

Finally, there is the criticism regarding the fundamental aspect of Utilitarianism, maximizing happiness as the goal of human behavior. Of course objections will be raised And if one goes to ask, why do all people act out of a basic desire to achieve some ultimate good or happiness? Then there is no answer but to repeat Aristotles famous statement to the effect that all humans by nature seek happiness or what they believe to be the best possible life for humans

(Almeder 152). The fact that this statement was used to defend Utilitarianism should be an interesting and haunting realization to the followers of Aristotle and Virtue Ethics. In theory, someone could make the notion that Utilitarianism stemmed from that statement. As humans we look for ways to make us happy and seek what we perceive to be in our best interest. Since it is our natural instinct to do so, then happiness is at root, the only goal of all human behavior.

Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics, as two of the primary ethical schools of theory, both promote and contain very different customs and principles. Like most ethical theories, these two sustain a plethora of objections and criticism. For Utilitarianism, the problem for many people arises in the fact that it focuses solely on the outcome, and not motives for an action. On the other hand, Virtue Ethics is outdated and fails to provide a resolution to conflicting interests. Although virtue ethics were easily the prevailing system during the ancient and medieval periods, other theories like utilitarianism have been grown in prominence since they were introduced. The fundamental aspects which embrace these two ethical theories are what finally set them apart. This late prominence of Utilitarianism, when taken into consideration, concludes in the fact that it is superior to Virtue Ethics.

Work Cited

Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985.

Almeder, Robert. Human Happiness and Morality. New York: Prometheus Books, 2000.

Devettere, Raymond. Introduction to Virtue Ethics. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 2002.

Harwood, Sterling. Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing

Company, 2009.

Pojman, Louis P. Peter Tramel. Moral Philosophy: a reader fourth edition. Indianapolis: Hackett

Publishing Company, 2009.

Singer, Peter. The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. New York: Farrar Straus &

Giroux, 1981

Williams, Bernard. Utilitarianism: For and Against. New York: Cambridge University Press,

1973.