Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism

In Love and Responsibility Karol Wojtyla provides a detailed critique of John Stuart Mill's ethic of Utilitarianism. Wojtyla makes three main points in his critique. First, he states the principle of utility, or the great happiness principle, and then discusses why pleasure should not be the sole good for ones activity. Second, Wojtyla makes a reference to the moral imperative of Immanuel Kant. He compares the greatest happiness principle to this ethic and states that it is unavoidable for people to not use others to achieve the greatest happiness for themselves. Third, he discusses the presence of egoism in the greatest happiness principle and its inability to conform to the Christian ethic, which Mill stated that Utilitarianism was all about. In response to this, Mill makes his arguments supporting his ethic of Utilitarianism and why people should follow his principle of utility.

Wojtyla's first critique of Utilitarianism is in reference to Mill's greatest happiness principle. According to Utilitarianism, to live happily is to live pleasurably, and one must attain the maximization of pleasure with minimal pain. Utilitarians believe this to be their primary rule of human morality and that every individual in the society should follow this rule. Wojtyla agrees that at first glance this principle has many attractions, but he states that a much closer glance must be taken to encounter the weaknesses behind this principle. The real mistake, according to Wojtyla, is the "recognition of pleasure in itself as the sole or at any rate the greatest good, to which everything else in the activity of an individual or a society should be subordinated" (Wojtyla 36). One of his main points is that pleasure should not be the sole aim for a man nor the proper aim of a man's activity because pleasure is incidental - happening in association with something that is more important. He continues to say that one may or may not want to perform an action that is associated with pleasure, and pleasure should not be affecting one's decision to carry out an action. It is also inconceivable to predict what actions may or may not bring pleasure to a given situation. This is why Utilitarianism is difficult to understand, because pleasure is different for different people and achieving pleasure could be detrimental for someone else. Mill's principle of utility does not help society as a whole because of its many weaknesses. Thus, Wojtyla believes that Mill's principle of utility is not a sufficient ethic for people to abide by.

Mill replies to these criticisms and says that Wojtyla misunderstands Utilitarianism and his ethic of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Mill states that there is an existence of pleasure and an absence of pain that people desire and see as a foundation for morality. Mill does not say that it is moral for people to pursue and follow everything that makes them personally happy, but rather one should follow the greatest happiness principle which increases the total amount of happiness and utility in the world. "I must again repeat...that the happiness which forms the Utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent's own happiness but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, Utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator" (Mill 22). Mill also states that one carries a direct impulse to achieve a general good for themselves and for others. People will achieve this greatest good with happiness and the only way to achieve happiness is to make this your proper aim of your life. Mill believes that Utilitarianism is a sufficient ethic because people strive to achieve happiness in their lives.

Wojtyla's second critique works with Kant's moral imperative, which demands that a person should never treat others as a means to an end, but rather as an end in all activities. Wojtyla believes that Kant's moral imperative should be followed so that one is not used simply as a means to an end. He says that Utilitarianism lacks this from Kant's moral imperative and that this is one of the weakest points to Utilitarianism. If Utilitarianism was precisely followed by all, then everything one does and uses is looked at as a means to the end of pleasure. Therefore, every person must be looked at as a means to the final and only end of pleasure. "If I accept the Utilitarian premise I must see myself as a subject desirous of as many at the same time as an object which may be called upon to provide such experiences for others. I must then look at every person other than myself from the same point of view: as a possible means of obtaining the maximum pleasure" (Wojtyla 37). Therefore, to abide by this doctrine people would have to assume that they are being used as a means to an end when in a relationship with another person.

Utilitarianism lacks the premises of real love between a husband and a wife because each one of them is using the other person as merely a means to the end of happiness. There is a contradiction at the heart of the maximum pleasure principle. "Pleasure is, of its nature, a good for the moment and only for a particular subject, it is not a super-subjective or trans-subjective good. And so, as long as that good is recognized as the entire basis of the moral norm, there can be no possibility of my transcending the bounds of that which is good for me alone" (37-38). The Utilitarian principle states that if one person is not getting pleasure from another then they can leave them and seek pleasure elsewhere. Wojtyla sees Utilitarianism's lack of morality for the human good because the ethic of the greatest amount of pleasure does not bring the society together. It instead pushes one away from another by using that other as a means to the final good of ones own pleasure.

Mill responds to this critique and says that people do not use others as a means to an end, but rather, both people are trying to achieve the greatest amount of happiness so they will cooperate to achieve this together. This will happen in a society of equals because it is "the social feelings of mankind - the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures, which is already a powerful principle in human nature" (Mill 40). As long as individuals are cooperating together, "their ends are identified with those of others" (41) and thus they have the interests of all parties; they are not trying to use others to benefit themselves. Mill continues to say that it is not Christian to use people as a means to an end, as Wojtyla is describing. Mill believes that Utilitarianism fulfills the Christian ethic because God wants us to be happy and Utilitarianism completes God's wishes. "God desires, above

...