Utilitarianism is, at its core, a theory about morality. To elaborate, it looks for what is good or bad; in the case of the situation presented to us, these are decided based on the amount of happiness that each outcome leads to. We were given a situation where we had to choose between a loved one who is endangered, or a neurosurgeon in a similar life or death situation. The utilitarian ways backfire when it comes to deciding the overall happiness that includes us, or the total happiness of others— not necessarily including ourselves in this overall amount. Some ideas in this text will be aimed to showing how the hedonic calculus can backlash in our decisions over what the overall happiness will be; all the while, showing how utilitarians would decide in a situation.
The utilitarian view in a case where a loved one and a professional neurosurgeon are to be saved; and only one can be saved, is found conflicted. Will you save a loved one from a fire and increase happiness for yourself— which doesn’t necessarily mean that your happiness will be worth less than that of a group of two hundred or so of this surgeon’s patients—? On the other hand, will you save a neurosurgeon (who can save many lives, and cure many others he will meet in the future) that’s about to lose his life in collapsing rubble?
If we were to use the Hedonic Calculus to determine the one that’s worthy to save, what will our criteria be to decide the most worthy? For all we know this surgeon could be rude, and his patients never come back for a second checkup; leaving him a useless piece in our society. On the other hand we can say that what will bring the most happiness to all is the rescue of this innocent child that just went through a horrible disaster. A surgeon already has lived a life, this child is an image of hope, and an example of how our values to appreciate life are lost as we grow of age. Our own child will surely bring greater happiness to us, and others with his story of survival. This man on the other hand provides nothing to our lives yet. Even though these could be factors that influence our decision, the question still lays; who will bring the greatest amounts of happiness?
What is the difference between having a moment of happiness that only lasts for a week or two after an appointment with his surgeon, and the years of happiness that a family member brings to us? If we decide by how other’s will receive the news that a child died because a surgeon was to be saved, what happiness will be greatest? It all aims to saving the child, but it never devalues the surgeon to just another number in a death toll. Keeping these results in mind, a utilitarian would send you to rescue the child. This is so, because the child will bring the greatest amount of happiness to yourself, and also the greatest happiness of others. The greatest amount of happiness can be divided by your half and the general majority’s half.
To better contrast and help understand the problems with utilitarianism, Kantian ethics will be put to test with the problem. We give a Kantian the same problem and ask who he would attend to rescue, he answers that any of the two can be saved. He then aims to the surgeon (just to offer an example here), and says that the death of the other was inevitable. His duty as a chief firefighter was completed by simply ordering his crew to save at least one of both. He never used one as a means to save the other one; or the other to have a reason for the death of the first. Unlike utilitarian views, Kantian views offer a correct list of options every time. As long as our responsibilities are met at the end of the day, and we can validate that these worked as they should’ve, our job as Kantians will be fulfilled.
Consequentialism and utilitarianism cross paths often. One could say it inspired utilitarianism, because utilitarian views are aimed towards receiving anything that gives the most amount of happiness without taking in consideration the means of getting there. Obviously when using the Hedonic Calculus our decisions are “mostly validated”, but it’s never that far from consequentialist views. Our decisions are validated by the amount of happiness and therefore can’t be wrong if they reach the utilitarian view’s goals.
The number one problem with consequentialist theories is that they will find any validation to conclude with their own needs. We are left to debate what is moral and what is not. The thing is, there is no universal doctrine to what is right. We never have a true defined concept of the things considered wrong. The end never justifies the means, because others shouldn’t be affected in order to please a vast majority or to gain anything out of it. A happy medium of this could be if everybody works together for a similar goal. Never devaluing one or many because the ends will end up offering an overall attribute of joy. It might sound like my position has shifted to that of Kantian influences, but it’s a sentiment that emerges when justifications come over the need of good arguments that were clearly scoured through to prove the point that, in the prior case, letting a person lose their life to save another’s was right.
We can never really be true Utilitarians or Kantians because our feelings will always be involved in our decisions. Even if it’s just in choosing whether to eat a spicy place in a restaurant, or saving our child from a fire; the views that interpose considering others as a whole group that’s connected to us will always be, in a way, biased. To address a problem one has first to relate, or compare, it based on the feelings that it created in us.