Utilitarianism: For and Against

Smart thinks of himself as a contemporary Sidgwick. This is a must read for those interested in utilitarianism. I assigned it as required reading in my class on Utilitarianism.

An absolute must for anyone who wishes to understand the basics of ethics

This book contains two well-written articals. Smart, a utilitarian, provides answers to some of hte arguments against his position while providing a definate middle ground for those who would ascribe themselves to this theory. Williams uses his anti-theorist credentials and targets utilitarianism and some of its flaws. Over all a good read for peole interested in the subject matter.

This is a scholarly, technical examination of Utilitarianism. While I read it and appreciated it as a graduate student, the freshmen to whom I assigned it found it impenetrable.

Intuitively, utilitarianism is the simplest of all philosophies. Its mantra, “the greatest good for the greatest number,” seems like an obvious way to make decisions both large and small.

But as is always true, nothing is as simple as it seems – and utilitarianism is no different. In “Utilitarianism For & Against,” Bernard Williams does a pretty good job of eviscerating the system most prominently advanced by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. J. J. C. Smart does the best he can in the “For” essay in this brief volume, but the odds are stacked against him. To see why, an analysis of the core phrase, “the greatest good for the greatest number,” will make it clear.

Let’s start with the first word, “the.” Seems simple enough, but “the” is a definite article, meaning there is a definite “greatest good.” But wouldn’t it make more sense to substitute “a” for “the”? After all, it’s become clearer and clearer in the 21st century that absolutes, especially in the complex world of human behavior, are hard to come by. Some might say a particular set of actions or values is “the greatest good,” but others might point to a different system and make just as strong a case.

How about “greatest”? Usually, this is interpreted in some kind of numerical value, but why should it be? The answer is that it’s easier, supposedly, to add things up than it is to assign value. For example, when we call Alexander “the Great,” we are measuring him against other drunken conquerors, and by a set of value calculations, come to the conclusion that he is somehow superior.

But “great” is a complex word. For example, Athens in the 5th century BC was considered one of the “great” eras in history. It was, of course, based on a society with 30% slaves and women tucked in back rooms and never allowed to speak. The wealth of the society was derived from silver mines, which were worked by slaves who died in great numbers in order to lay the foundation for the superb philosophy and drama that emerged from that time.

So was the product of the Athenian efflorescence “great”? Did it produce the “greatest good for the greatest number”? Some very practical and material folks would argue that there are plenty of plays, plenty of philosophers, and that the world wouldn’t be more or less “great” without those efforts. I would disagree, but consider this: Let’s say a similar state, with similar negative conditions for many of its citizens, produced medical advances that saved millions of lives.

So how do you measure “the greatest good”? Are the lives of those slaves who last a month in the silver mines, and their suffering, “worth” the lives saved down the road? Are the values espoused by a society of no concern in these kinds of calculations?

It might be easy to make this determination with medicine, which is in a way directly comparable to the suffering of the human beings who might have contributed to advances in that field, but it when it gets to squishy subjects such as philosophy or drama, the math, if it exists, becomes more complex.

And that leads us to the thorniest issue of all: the meaning of the word “good.” To bring up the Greeks again, it was believed by many in that society that “beauty” equaled “good.” We would not agree with that now, nor would we agree with sequestering women, nor would we agree with what the Greeks called “democracy.” Our ideas of good have changed, and we can anticipate that those ideas will change in the future as well.

And then there are questions about such things as clean water, healthy food, a thriving environment. These things have value, these things are “good,” but how do you measure them? How do you compare them?

And then even more confusing is the “calculation” of future value. We might all be able to agree that “the greatest good” could be measured in the impact on people living right now, but what about people 15 years from now? What about people 100 years from now? (This is much of the argument about global warming, as short-term thinking values economic production in the here and now more than some unknown climactic of effects in the future.) And what about people 1,000 years from now, or 10,000 years?

This leads us to the phrase “for the greatest number,” and naturally, this is somewhat confusing as well. Let’s return to classical Athens, where a few benefited greatly from the suffering of the many. One could argue that future results justify this particular system, as “the greatest number” lies far in the future. Presumably, Aristotle and Sophocles will still have value in the 22nd century, just as they did in the 2nd century, and so those slaves who suffered and died in the silver mines did so in the name of utilitarianism.

Or, does “the greatest number” mean that whatever is defined as “good” should be evenly distributed throughout an entire society, now and in the future? “Greatness,” then, would be subsumed to “the greatest number.”

But to get back to the book that triggered these thoughts, “Utilitarianism For & Against” holds up surprisingly well considering it was written in the 1970s, and both Smart and Williams managed to maintain readability while still dealing with the thorny issues of philosophy.

If nothing else, the book makes one think about utilitarianism, and it’s seemingly clear and simple message. Thinking is almost always a good thing, and thinking about how best an individual or society should make decisions is definitely a good thing.

Is it the “greatest good”? Sorry, I’m not going there.

The reviewer from Berkley could not be more right in recommending this book as an introduction to modern moral philosophy. Smart and Williams are two of the most brilliant and important philosophers of the last century and both are brilliantly clear and engaging communicators. The result is not just good introduction but a book that takes you right to the cutting edge of the subject. Smart contributes a splendidly bold and clear headed statement and defence of a form of act utilitarianism (`the view that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends only on the total goodness or badness of its consequences, i.e. on the effect of the action on the welfare of all human beings (or perhaps all sentient beings)'). Williams then provides a peerlessly brilliant and devastating critique of that same theory. The reader is left with a clear understanding both of why so many people as sensible and intelligent as Smart consider utilitarianism just obviously right and why so many people as humane and thoughtful as Williams think it is just crazy. If you are interested in philosophy, then, it's a wonderfully rewarding read. Indeed it's a great thing to read if you aren't sure whether you re interested in philosophy or not. If you find Williams on consequentialism, integrity and negative responsibility a dull read you will probably find pretty well any philosophy dull and you can safely conclude that the subject is not for you.

This terrific little book was my introduction to ethical philosophy in college. This is, in fact, the best way to introduce anyone to real philosophy: Present an important philosophical problem and let two very intelligent, articulate, and well-educated people of opposing views & good faith argue the merits, demerits, and difficulties inherent in a particular theory. In fairly clear and straightforward prose, Smart and Williams plunge right into the matter and hash it out with meticulous care. Smart offers a sophisticated version of Utilitarianism for our consideration. Williams draws out the implications of it and shows how Utilitarian ethics contains contradictions and potentially repellent outcomes. (Although Williams never makes it explicit in this book, he adheres to a sophisticated modern version of classical virtue ethics, a sort of refined Nicomachean ethics.)
This may not be the last word on Utilitarianism, but it is certainly one of the most intelligent and insightful. A perfect entree to ethical philosophy, that endlessly fascinating & vitally important dialogue about how we ought to live our lives.

Ive read a lot of books on Utilitarian Ethics, and this, with out a doubt the best! Smart is concice and cercumspect in his presentation of what has become the most plausible and appliable form of consequentialism, i.e. Utilitarianism.
Williams presents extreemly perseptive critiques of Utilitarianism in perticuler, and consequentialism in general. Unfortunately for Williams it seems to me after 16 years of Ethical study, that Utilitarianism, as tough a theory as it is, is the most viable that has yet been discoverd. R.A.M. 3-15-00