Deontological ethics clearly defines right from wrong. This ethical objectivism made it easy to answer moral questions in a uniform way. But as you can imagine a lot of people disagree with this approach.
It seems like occasionally there would be a moral justification for lying. Your duties shouldn't be so rigid that you end up doing things that seems cold or unjust.
That's why two philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, came up with a competing theory that they called utilitarianism.
Here instead of focusing on absolute duties, you look to see if the action’s harm exceeds its benefit. They called this the greatest happiness principle.
So instead of thinking in terms of strict duties you should instead ask yourself “to what extent your action increases or decreases the total happiness of everyone involved.”
Deontology and Utilitarianism often contradict one another. Do the ends justify the means, or should you do what’s right no matter the consequences?
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. That's because it focuses on the consequences of an action. Is it making people more or less happy?
Introduction to Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is more than just a moral theory—it's a way of thinking about what is right or wrong that affects how people make choices. But what exactly is utilitarianism, and why does it matter in your life and the lives of others?
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that suggests that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its consequences. Specifically, it holds that actions are right if they tend to look for happiness and wrong if they tend to produce the opposite of happiness. This philosophy prioritizes the balance of pleasure over pain.
It's an important approach because it challenges you to think about how your actions affect others, emphasizing the importance of considering the collective well-being. This approach can lead to more ethical and fair outcomes in society and every day life.
Modern Applications of Utilitarianism
Let's imagine that the Federal Bureau of Investigation or FBI is looking into someone who’s gone missing. After searching her apartment, the FBI finds her iPhone. They suspect that there’s a lot of useful data on her phone. But the person used a passcode.
So the FBI contacts Apple, the manufacturer of the phone. They know that the company can unlock the phone when a customer forgets their passcode.
Apple tells the FBI that they have a strict corporate policy, and that they won’t unlock iPhones without the customer's permission. The FBI explains that the phone might be the only way to rescue the woman.
They want Apple to look at the utility of unlocking the phone.
But here Apple decides to take a deontological approach. They argue that they have an absolute duty to protect the customer’s data. They defend their duty even if it inevitably leads to the customer’s harm. In their eyes, no one would ever use passcodes if the government could always unlock them.
On the other hand, the FBI argues for a more consequentialist approach. Certainly it would maximize everyone's happiness to just give them access to the iPhone. It’ll increase the chances that the woman will be found, the FBI will have an easier time doing their job and Apple won't be an impediment to finding their missing customer.
Certainly the ends justify the means?
If you work for Apple what approach would you take? Would you see it as your absolute duty to protect the privacy of your customer? Or do you think that you should look out for the overall best interest of your customer?
You should try to imagine what would bring the greatest happiness. Certainly that person's privacy is a secondary concern when her life might be at stake. But what if people stop using passcodes? Doesn’t the feature depend on some level of privacy?
So even though these are 18th-century ethics theories they can still guide organizations through many modern data ethics challenges.
Conclusion
To wrap up, utilitarianism is still a useful way to think about right and wrong.
It helps you and society make choices that try to make the most people happy. As you deal with tough decisions in life, thinking like a utilitarian can make things clearer. It helps you think about what will happen because of your actions and focus on what's best for everyone.
By looking at the results of what you do, you can help make the world fairer and kinder. Your choices can make life better for you and everyone around you.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Principle of Utility?
The Principle of Utility is a fundamental concept in utilitarian ethics that proposes actions are morally right if they work to increase happiness or pleasure, which are considered inherently good, and morally wrong if they increase unhappiness or pain.
What are the Common Criticisms of Utilitarianism?
Critics argue that utilitarianism can justify morally questionable actions if they result in a net increase in happiness. They also point out that measuring pleasure and pain is inherently subjective, which can lead to discrepancies in moral reasoning.
This is my weekly newsletter that I call The Deep End because I want to go deeper than results you’ll see from searches or LLMs. Each week I’ll go deep to explain a topic that’s relevant to people who work with technology. I’ll be posting about artificial intelligence, data science, and ethics.
This newsletter is 100% human written 💪 (* aside from a quick run through grammar and spell check).
References:
- https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
- https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/utilitarianism
- https://lawbirdie.com/criticisms-of-utilitarianism-coursework-examples/
- https://utilitarianism.net/utilitarian-thinkers/
- https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp
- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/