M-Style utilitarianism

Today I had a very interesting discussion with a friend about the philosophy of utilitarianism.

My take on utilitarianism has always been this: while I consider it a very rational way of thinking, built on simple logic, I tend to disagree not with its premise but with where it can ultimately lead a thinker when applied to a whole population. I have always thought that, when taken to its logical extreme, utilitarianism breeds a certain kind of Machiavellian thinking: “the end justifies the means”.

At one point in my life I idealized this train of thought. Perhaps because of my inclination towards problem solving, I started to think of society as one big, complex problem to which, given enough time and resources, you could find an optimal solution, and utilitarianism was just too appealing.

I was challenged in that idea after reading Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, which serves as a direct critique of utilitarianism. Huxley describes a utilitarian utopia where the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people has been achieved. In the book, this takes the form of a sterile but functional society, where everything is in order and an individual’s life is decided for them before they are even born. Without getting into spoilers, since I believe it’s a must read, I will finish by sharing my favourite quote, from John, “the Savage”: “But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness, I want sin.”

Now, before I stray too far from my initial point: all of this was to say that I first approached utilitarianism through a very cold lens, and was then swayed by the counterarguments. But my view was challenged again today, and for that I thank my good friend M., who will remain anonymous.

Their variant of utilitarianism, which from now on I will call M-Style utilitarianism, is a philosophy centered not just on the naive maximization of some objective, like happiness or the minimization of pain, but always constrained by an evaluation of the means taken to reach that goal. To do this, both the goal and the means should always respect human rights. Let us say, for example, that to achieve great happiness for any number of people, however large, you must trample the human rights of even one other human being. Since all humans have the same rights, even if the “good” achieved for the first group was judged to be optimal, the result would not be justifiable, because human rights count not just as a simple cost but as a true limit.

I now believe that M-Style utilitarianism is a more realistic and approachable form of utilitarianism, one which can be applied both individually and to a society, because it addresses one of the pitfalls of utilitarianism that can be summarized as “No cost is too high if the goal is great enough”.

I do, however, remain a hopeless romantic, because like Huxley, I still don’t believe that any single goal, be it happiness or fulfillment, can ever be put on the pedestal that is maximization.

As always, I am grateful for the stimulating conversations, especially the ones that challenge my views. Per aspera ad astra.