The Problem with Utilitarianism

In the tragedy of Jacintha Saldanha we find a living example of why utilitarian ethics can never work. It only really works as a moral theory when looking backwards: looking forwards it is too problematic.

The two DJs involved with this tragedy confess to being devastated by the unforeseen consequence of their prank in impersonating the Queen and Prince Charles and gaining access to confidential information about the Duchess of Cambridge.

Although attractive in its equality (everyone counts for one said Bentham) and simplicity (one intrinsic good, pleasure, one simple aim, maximise it for the maximum number) utilitarian ethics is fraught with difficulty.

To begin with, it implies we have perfect knowledge of the future. With this prank the two DJs must have thought they had a win-win situation. Everyone laughed out loud to begin with (at least I did) on hearing the funny voice impersonating the Queen. The information gained seemed quite trivial (the Duchess had a good night etc), the radio station received massive publicity, and other DJs doubtless thought “wish I’d thought of that”.

Until one nurse, massively humiliated and with her mistake blazoned across the world, apparently committed suicide…

Then the motive of sympathy, beloved of JS Mill, swung the other way. The truth is that anticipating consequences alone as a moral guide is very insecure and even unwise. We need, as Mill himself recognised, to add to this the virtue of wisdom in order to make sure that the experience of past ages is not completely ignored. Wisdom would maybe have told us that pranks have victims. Have you ever been suckered? Even being suckered in front of your mates is not a great feeling – being suckered in front of the world is an overwhelming, ego-destroying thing that few of us could handle.

So our first qualification is this – consequentialism is only useful when tempered by wisdom. Left to myself, it is unlikely I have the moral wisdom to anticipate the most likely consequences, and then factor in the possible, but not so likely consequences and judge whether they are a risk worth taking. We live in a world where risk assessment is poor. After all, huge numbers play the national lottery when the chance of winning is 16 million to one. Others so restrict their children’s movements because of phantom risks that one wonders whether the word “rational” has lost all meaning.

Secondly, and here is a massive defect. Utilitarian ethics doesn’t care about individual rights. There are no absolute rights in utilitarian ethics. Of course, Mill tries to get around this by arguing that general utility requires a concern for justice and rights – we wouldn’t want to live in a society where rights were ignored. But then he spoils his case a bit by arguing that if we urgently needed the services of a reluctant surgeon, we could quite justifiably kidnap him (or her).

Jacintha was used as a means to an end – the end here being a general laugh at her expense. Her feelings, hurt, pain were of no consideration or, in the weighing scales of utilitarian values, came in as of no importance. Here we have tragic reminder that a world dominated by utilitarian thinking isn’t a very nice world to live in.

Come and discuss these issues some more at the Roadshow in London on January 10th – covering AS ethical theories and applications.

Image: The stonepicker Newcastle Hayward Gallery © Peter Baron