Is Pleasing the Majority Ethically in Itself Ethically Unsound?

 by Daisy Sissons

Peter Singer

The main theory relating to this view is the general ethical theory Utilitarianism. It is mainly teleological (focused on result and outcome when carrying out actions or making decisions). Utilitarianism focuses on creating ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ a phrase coined by philosopher Francis Hutcheson who believed in creating acts that promote the general welfare of mankind. The three main approaches of Utilitarianism I will be using to evaluate the view that pleasing the majority ethically is itself ethically unsound are: Act, Rule and Preference. 

Jeremy Bentham’s Act utilitarianism was outlined firstly by deciding a definition for ‘goodness’. He stated that pleasure was the ‘highest good’ and he believed finding pleasure was what all people desired in life. This means that Act Utilitarianism is classed as Eudaimonistic and hedonistic because the theory’s aim is to find pleasure. Bentham created the hedonic calculus to provide a formulaic, quantitative way of achieving pleasure. When using the Hedonic Calculus there are 7 areas to take into account which are: Intensity of pleasure (the most intense is best), Duration (A longer lasting pleasure is desirable), Certainty (how likely is the pleasure to occur?), Propinquity (the proxemics of the pleasure, how close its effect will be to the user of the calculus), Fecundity (will the pleasure promote further pleasure?), Purity (will there be any pain involved?) and finally Extent (will this pleasure affect many other people?). Bentham claims that this can be used to make any moral decision, secondly he also believes that each person should get the same outcome because it is quantitative. Bentham’s ethical theory is attractive to many people because it is not deontological. It allows the user to feel in control of their decision making. Therefore this secular theory is much more flexible rather than other deontological theories such as the Divine Command Theory which suggest we should follow God’s commands without questioning. However some people might claim that there are some serious flaws within Act Utilitarianism. I would argue that it is not a consistent theory because pleasure can never be quantitative. It is impossible to measure using the Hedonic calculus as each person will have a different view on what is most pleasurable. In addition to this it does not account for ‘evil pleasures’. For example, Act utilitarianism would support Lynndie England and other sadistic guards who tortured the prisoners of Abu Ghraib in Iraq in 2004. As this action did create the greatest pleasure for the majority (the american soldiers). Act utilitarianism fails to protect the rights of the minority which I believe is denying them human rights. This leads me to believe that following Act Utilitarianism to please the majority is ethically unsound. 

When Utilitarianism started to fall under criticism, John Stuart Mill aimed to update the theory with his new ideas and aims. He called his new version Rule Utilitarianism. Mill’s version stresses a less hedonistic view focusing more on happiness than pleasure. Mill believed that pleasure is achieved through the fulfilment of ‘higher ideals’. In order to do this Mill modified Bentham’s quantitative approach to a more qualitative one. He believed that there were higher and lower pleasures, and that higher pleasures would lead to a moral happiness,  For example the pleasure of friendship is a greater and higher pleasure than getting drunk which would be seen as a lower pleasure. This raises the question ‘what qualifies a higher pleasure to be inherently more moral?’ and also ‘who decides which pleasures are higher or lower?’ Some people might argue that it is natural to distinguish between different pleasures, for example it is natural to enjoy spending time with a loved one more than spending the afternoon binge watching your favourite TV series. Ultimately the TV series will not give such a pure sense of happiness for a long lasting time. Mill came up with the idea of ‘competent judges’ which are people who have experianced many types of pleasure and are therefore able to provide a educated discrimination within the powers. Although this may seem like an answer, I personally think this could be seen as classicist because in the same way that pleasure cannot be quantified, how can one group of people decide which pleasures are ‘higher’ and more intellectual. 

Another part of Mill’s theory moves towards a deontological theory, in that he suggests a list of rules that a person ought to follow in certain situations relating to the greatest good for the greatest number. This has important implications when creating laws for example women’s rights. Although some men might argue that it does not favour the majority (men) to give women's rights it is difficult to suggest a sensible reason why this should not be allowed. In addition to this Mill’s reform of utilitarianism includes the ‘Principle of Universability’ which means that ‘each person’s happiness is a good to that person and the general is a good to the aggregate of all persons’ This means that the rights of the minority are protected thus avoiding evil pleasures such as sadism. I think this area of Rule utilitarianism has greatly improved it’s ethical soundness. 

The third main aspect of Utilitarianism I will be evaluating is preference Utilitarianism. This version aims to find the greatest amount of good for the greatest number by taking into account the importance to each individual and their preferences. A modern advocate to consider when discussing preference utilitarianism is Peter Singer. He claims that ‘Our own preferences cannot count any more than the preferences of others’. This suggests that we should not favour our own opinions or preferences when making moral decisions. For example when interviewing for a job we must not unfairly choose a person because we know them and it would suit us to work with them. Singer, and indeed any utilitarian, would argue that would need to consider the best person for the job who will provide the greatest good for the team instead. Preference utilitarianism moves away from Bentham’s hedonistic approach of finding pleasure, but rather focuses on finding happiness and ‘preference satisfaction’ (being pleased with the outcome of the actions). This is a strong theory because it respects people’s autonomy, this is increasingly popular as the world moves towards a more scientific and secular viewpoint. However some people might not agree with Singer’s views as they are utopian and could even be classed as naive. The altruistic nature of his theory is difficult for the general public to buy into because it places more weight on the future ‘goodness’ of a whole society rather than pleasing all individuals. 

I believe that Utilitarianism (majority pleasing) has a generally positive aim in creating a teleological secular ethical theory that fits with the democratic, majority pleasing way in which most western societies are structured. However I believe that Bentham’s Act utilitarianism is too hedonistic in order to be ethically sound. There is some improvement with the Rule and Preference approach however I would argue that a weakness that none of these theories can account for is the democratic fallacy. There are many examples such as the Rwandan genocide agaisnt the Tutsi tribe in 1994 that although the majority might be pleased this does not mean they are morally right or correct. In the final analysis I believe that pleasing the majority is in itself ethically unsound.