Flaws of Utilitarianism

“On the Flaws of Utilitarianism”

In John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, Mill explains his moral philosophy that one should act in such a way that produces the most happiness for society as a whole. He defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain and argues that an individual is morally obligated to behave in a manner that produces the most pleasure or least pain for society as a whole.

However, his philosophy is flawed in some ways, as Judith Jarvis Thomson illustrates in The Monist. Thomson indicates the flaws of utilitarianism first by providing the anecdote of David, the transplant surgeon who can kill one person so he can use his organs to save five people. Using utilitarian morals, the surgeon would have a moral obligation to kill the healthy individual. According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, the pain experienced by the loved ones of five individuals who died would far exceed the pleasure gained by the single individual who lived. However, the pleasure experienced if five lives were spared at the expense of one would more than compensate for the pain caused by the loss of the healthy specimen. This indicates that David should violate conventional moral beliefs and kill the healthy specimen in order to produce a greater amount of pleasure. This example, of course, does not seem moral, as it entails the killing of an innocent human being. Despite the potential benefits of killing the healthy specimen, we consider it morally wrong to kill under any condition. Thus, it seems ludicrous for there to be a circumstance that requires a person to kill another to fulfill a moral obligation.

Although Thomson’s example seems somewhat unrealistic, it does provide a suitable counterexample that provokes criticism for utilitarian principles. It is unreasonable for there to be a moral law that requires a person to kill someone, regardless of the potential outcomes. Such a law would justify clearly impermissible acts such as genocide as...