On Utilitarianism, Death, and The Morality of Truth

In philosophy, Utilitarianism is a group of beliefs within normative (behavioural) ethics that, very basically, attempts to maximize utility - often defined as well-being, or the abstract 'greater good.' To give an example, Jeremy Bentham - often regarded as the father of utilitarianism - described Utilitarianism as "that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness … to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered." Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which is another group of philosophical beliefs that argues the consequences of any action are the only means of describing morality - for this argument: right and wrong. 

                             Jezza B. himself.

Utilitarianism.net is a site run by utilitarians and furthers their argument that utilitarianism is the only morally correct ideology on the matter because 'suffering is bad, and happiness is good. What could be more obvious?' Whilst I would agree with that sentiment, Utilitarianism is an ideology that systemically discounts the importance and morality of truth, of lies, of safety, of trust, and of security. Let me ask a question: If a relative is terminally ill, and you are given the responsibility of notifying (or not notifying) said relative of this, what do you do, and why?

Utilitarians might argue that the relative should not be notified, as this would cause them sadness, and causing sadness is morally wrong. On the other hand, I would argue that the relative should be notified, so they can make the most out of the time they have left and come to terms with their own mortality. I like to think of myself as a person very comfortable with their own mortality - the fact that I will die, and that it could be soon. However, our death-negative society has dubbed mortality a thought for tomorrow, resulting in copious deaths without leaving any kind of advanced directive, will, or anything of that sort.

To argue from a Utilitarian point of view, let me expand on the aforementioned question: after not being notified of their terminal illness, and given the all-clear, your loved one returns to the monotony of their desk job - content that they will one day enjoy the money they earn in their job. One day in the near future, they fall into a coma due to their illness. Do you unplug them from life support, or are you sure that their suffering is minimal and that their recovery is sure?

To pose as a utilitarian, I might say 'the decision whether to end or sustain life is one too taxing to be made by any one person and reduces overall happiness. Therefore, life should be sustained.' I could argue also that the decision to potentially elongate the suffering of a relative is more taxing, and certainly reduces overall happiness. The best-case scenario would have been to notify, and then ask your loved one, reducing overall suffering and increasing overall happiness. Simply, that's not a question you'd have to ask if your relative had been notified. 

On the flip side, I could argue for utilitarianism in some scenarios. White lies, for example. Is it worth ruining a loved one's self-confidence due to the truth when you could lie? Sometimes, like here, considering the immediate overall net happiness can be useful. Whilst you might appreciate that your loved one might be generally thankful for your candour, it serves no real use to tell somebody you dislike their unchangeable appearance. So here, I could argue that utilitarianism was useful in helping me determine the right course of action.

Now let's talk about primitivism and psychology. We, as humans, and as animals have a reasonable instinct to act selfishly. Humans are amazing at self-serving deception and hiding motives for our own personal gain. In times like this, it can be especially useful to consider heuristics. A heuristic, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says, is a technique 'involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental means.' Essentially, it's a mental shortcut. In ethics, we can use heuristics to use moral thinking even when our instincts have convinced us otherwise.

One especially utilitarian heuristic is 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' This is especially utilitarian as it is a heuristic in which the essential principle considers the equal evaluation and valuation of interests. Whilst this might seem simple and a good rule in general, I dislike it with a passion. 

Whilst this heuristic, dubbed 'the golden rule' by some claims to be an easy cure for human selfishness, it is built upon the heavily flawed and selfish idea that everyone wants the same thing as you. The golden rule requires no empathy because you only have to think about what you want, without any due consideration for any other parties. The golden rule has set societies back because it requires the assumption that everyone wants the same thing as everyone else - a flawed and frankly bigoted assumption. Because today's society is a 'melting pot' (ew) of cultures, experiences, and thoughts, the assumption is that our wants; needs; perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate behaviours; and diverse perspectives on everything everyone does are unified one that takes only the perspective of the beholder before applying it to a billion different people from a billion different walks of life. Utilitarianism is yet another philosophical farce that advocates for the view of humans as collections of ideas instead of walking, talking, corrupt, and diverse psychological beings, our own morality and knowledge corrupted by the real person underneath. 

Oh, and Shana tova, I hope you all had an excellent Rosh Hashanah to those who celebrate!

07/10/2021

by Frankie E.J. Robinson