I will consider the orthodox theory of Utilitarianism here and its corresponding calculus when used to resolve an ethical dilemma. `Orthodox` meaning we will consider the 7 attributes of Jeremy Bentham, and the concept of weighing happiness against harm and suffering in the grand sense. Utilitarianism if taken to its logical apotheosis can lead into places that are quite dark -- and in those situations exposes the deep weaknesses of the theory.
Pathological Utilitarianism and sacrifice
There is no better example of where utilitarianism requires some extra-theoretic justification than in the topic of medical experiments performed on human beings. Imagine that scientists want to irradiate a child's abdomen with radioactive neutron beams, and then carefully watch how cancer forms in their lungs. They may even need a group of children in order to get "good statistics" with a control group and what have you. What is learned about cancer from these horrendous experiments would , presumably, save many more lives in the future. Utilitarianism taken to a pathological degree, would find such acts to be entirely ethical. Hey! The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few! Do they not?
But any individual parent asked to sacrifice one of their children to medical experiment would find this completely repugnant.
Utilitarianism and fairness
Utilitarianism, on its face appears err on the side of "fairness" or even be generous in its calculus. Ironically, in many cases, the theory has no conception of fairness that lines up with anyone's common sense. Imagine a small town in Denmark has won a lottery. The town is small and has a population of 100 people.
The award can be given in two ways.
I. 5 people get 125 gold coins, and 95 people get zero gold coins.
II. Each person in the town gets 1 gold coin.
Utilitarianism is crystal clear. It says that 125 coins is more than 100 coins, more coins means more happiness, and therefore (I) is better.
But your common sense recoils from this. Something about this is naggingly wrong. It almost feels like 95 people were robbed of something they deserved. Utilitarianism alone cannot suffice here and needs some other consideration coming in from the outside.
Utilitarianism and High Art
Utilitarianism has a serious flaw in that it cannot differentiate Beethoven from Carly Rae Jepsen. More generally, utilitarianism can't seem to recognize high art -- or "influence" or "historical value" in anything.
You can perform this experiment yourself, at a party, in a classroom, or whereever else appropriate. Ask the group to choose one of the following activities, and tally a vote.
- Watch Shakespeare's Hamlet performed live in a theater.
- Watch a WWE wrestling match.
- Watch an episode of The Simpsons.
Depending on your group, generally The Simpsons will win, hands down in any group you ask. Utilitarianism is crystal clear. If most people want to watch the Simpsons it follows that the Simpsons brings the most happiness. Ergo the Simpsons is more valuable than Shakespeare. Perhaps more perplexing, the number of respondants wanting to watch WWE is greater than those who want to sleep through Hamlet. Utilitarianism says WWE brings more happiness, ergo -- WWE is more valuable and important than Shakespeare's work.
The influence of Shakespeare on theater, on the history of acting, on the English language itself is astounding. But Utilitarianism cannot recognize any of these attributes -- in its blind one-way obsession towards greatest happiness for the greatest number.