Why I'm A Utilitarian

Happiness is pretty awesome

I’m a utilitarian, which means that I believe that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number. Or, to be more precise, I believe that correct actions are those that produce the greatest overall welfare for everybody, where welfare is defined in terms of happiness and suffering.

In this post, I’m going to offer five reasons for why I’m a utilitarian.

Reason #1: Suffering is bad

This is probably, by far, the most compelling argument for utilitarianism.

Suffering is really bad.

When people spend years of their life with intense migraines, it’s bad.

When people live in war-torn countries and see their loved ones die, it’s bad.

When animals are confined to cages for the entirety of their lives, it’s bad.

Most moral theories are willing to acknowledge this, but very few are actually willing to tell you to do anything about it. This is what I like about utilitarianism. It notices that the world is full of suffering, and it freaks out. It says that everyone should be trying to do as much as they can to stop suffering because it sees suffering for what it really is - a horrible horrible thing.

Reason #2: Happiness is awesome

Almost everyone is willing to say that suffering is bad, but most people are hesitant to admit that happiness is awesome.

I think a large part of this has to do with the fact that our culture makes happiness a shameful thing. If someone feels well, we’re glad for them, but, if they’re extremely happy, it makes us uncomfortable. But, just because it makes us feel uncomfortable, that doesn’t mean that it’s not awesome.

The experiences of falling in love, of reading a new book, and of spending time with friends are all awesome. Similarly, the experiences of listening to a new album, of eating home-made salads, and of learning new cultural fun facts are all awesome.

It’s these experiences that make life worth living, and we should be willing to go to great lengths to secure them.

Which is another thing that I like about utilitarianism. It acknowledges that this is the case. It doesn’t merely argue that we should prevent suffering so we can create purgatory on Earth. No, it argues that we should actually promote happiness so that we can create the very best world possible.

We have the potential to create a world with tremendous joy, and utilitarianism is the philosophy that will help us to achieve it.

Reason #3: All other goods are only instrumentally important

A lot of people will be on board with me that suffering is bad and that happiness is good, but they’ll argue that there are goods other than these that are important such as beauty, justice, and the environment.

I’m sympathetic to this view. I used to hold it myself. But, now, I think that, when we reflect on why we think these things are good, it usually leads us to realizing that suffering and happiness are actually the things that we’re concerned about.

For instance, you may think that we should maximize the beauty in this world. But, if beauty didn’t bring people joy, you probably wouldn’t think that’s the case. As such, you’re probably actually concerned about happiness, but you’ve just mistakenly chosen beauty as the way to promote it.

You may also care about the environment. But, if you learned that all animals in nature

experience terrible lives, would you still want to preserve it?

If you ask yourself why you care about the things you do, and why you care about the things that make you care about those things, I think you’ll find that a shocking amount of them eventually lead to caring about happiness or suffering.

Reason #4: Everyone matters

Everyone can experience suffering, and everyone can experience joy. So, from the perspective of the universe, everyone matters.

People try to find ways around this.

For instance, some people think it’s good if people who have done bad things suffer.

I reject this view for two reasons.

For one, just because we’re naturally inclined to want these people to suffer, that doesn’t mean we should follow those feelings to their natural conclusion. If someone feels angry at someone, we don’t think that person should take their anger out on them.

For two, just logically, we know that that person’s suffering must be just as bad as our own even if we don’t like them.

The other way people try to get around this is by suggesting that we should only help people who are closer to us rather than far away.

I also don’t think this is a good idea.

For one, as I just said, the fact that we feel more inclined to help people who are closer doesn’t mean that we actually should follow through on those feelings.

For two, it would be very strange if there actually existed a magical moral ruler where we could measure one’s obligation to people based on one’s distance from them in geological space.

And, for three, it would be very strange if an alien were not obligated to press a button to prevent the Earth from being destroyed just because we’re extremely far away

As such, the idea that distance should determine moral worth just seems like a very arbitrary idea.

Instead, I think we should believe that everyone matters.

Reason #5: Deontology leads to utilitarianism

The most common alternative to utilitarianism is deontology, which argues that our actions should be judged based on whether or not they violate a list of objective rules.

The problem with deontology though is that the rules it offers are usually based on the assumption that suffering is bad and that happiness is good. And, if this assumption is true, then it makes much more sense to just judge actions directly based on how much suffering and happiness they produce rather than on whether or not they violate a list of rules.

For instance, a deontologist might believe in the rule that you should avoid harming people without reason. But, this raises the question, “Why should there exist a rule that we should avoid harming people?” I think there’s only really one good answer. It’s because harming people causes suffering, and suffering is bad. And, of course, if suffering is bad, then we should just focus on it directly.

For this reason, I think that a lot of our intuitions for supporting deontology lead us to actually support utilitarianism instead.