Utilitarianism and Altruism

     We revere selfless action. Jesus of Nazareth, Mother Teresa, and Francis of Assisi invoke awe precisely because they "died as to self" in the service of others. This awe reveals a core human value: altruism (other-centered action). Given this value, most people find forms of ethical life that reject altruism as unacceptable. This explains the common disdain of egoism as an ethical theory. This theory--in its strongest form--posits that one has a moral obligation to promote his own good, such that failing to do so is immoral.[1] If egoism were true, Mother Teresa lived a deeply immoral life, to the extent she lived altruistically.

      Like others, I find egoism to be problematic precisely because it fails to make room for true altruism. For the same reason, I find utilitarianism to be problematic. Utilitarianism treats an act as right or wrong depending on its consequences. Good consequences make an act right; bad ones make it wrong. Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, promoted a hedonic form of utilitarianism. According to Bentham, when an act brings about the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people, it is right. But when an act results in pain without a net gain in pleasure, it is wrong. Famously, Bentham recommended employing a hedonic calculus in assessing competing actions. This calculus asks an agent to consider the intensity of pleasure that will result, its duration, etc.

     Bentham hoped that utilitarianism would provide an ethic capable of improving the lot of the common person. Legislators, judges, and executives act ethically, under the theory, not when they conform to abstract rules, but when their actions yield the right consequences, in terms of pleasure or pain. Framed in this manner, utilitarianism seems altruistic. It takes the stand-point of others as primary and demands our actions to ensure the well-being of others.

     But in so doing, utilitarianism leads to a paternalistic altruism--an altruism unworthy of the name. This paternalism is evident upon careful reflection. Imagine a legislature contemplates making church attendance mandatory. In arriving at this decision, it consults psychological and sociological research that reveals the benefits of religious observance. From this consultation, the legislature justifiably concludes that mandatory church services will maximize pleasure throughout its jurisdiction.

     But before enacting this law, the legislature opens its proposal to public comment. Citizens throughout the jurisdiction object. Many claim to be agnostics or atheists, strongly believing that church attendance will not contribute to their overall well-being. Despite these objections, the legislature moves forward and enacts its proposed legislation. Some time later, the accuracy of the legislature's research is borne out as citizens throughout the jurisdiction experience greater pleasure, happiness, and well-being from the legislation, a gain not offset by those disliking the legislation.[2]

     Though the legislature acted for the benefit of its citizens, it did so paternalistically. The legislature, after all, imposed what was best on its citizens without due regard to their desires. And while, in the end, the legislature's course of conduct proved to maximize pleasure, it did so at the expense of the others it aimed to benefit. This strikes me as drastically anti-altruistic.

     Altruism, at a minimum, must involve a respect for the inner desires and hopes of others. When an agent contemplates some act, it acts altruistically precisely when it incorporates the other's perspective and fashions its conduct accordingly. This, of course, has limitations. When the other's perspective, for example, commends immoral conduct, one does not act altruistically by humoring the improper act. But utilitarianism utterly fails to heed the other's perspective at all. It determines what is in the best interest of another and pursues that thing, often despite the other person's wishes.

     A utilitarian will likely bite the bullet in response to this argument. He will note that while utilitarianism does not take the inner desires of others seriously in all instances, it does foster  altruistic action because it seeks what's best for others. Whether this is a legitimate form of altruism partly depends, in the final analysis, on if the person receiving this paternal-charity experiences as altruistic. For my part, I would be willing to bet that the citizens of our thought experiment would not experience the legislature's action as altruistic, but as a paternalistic assault on their autonomy. And as the ethical theory seemingly stands in tension with legitimate altruism, it is suspect, in my judgment.[3]


________________
[1] In a weaker form, ethical egoism merely provides acting for one's own benefit is moral. It does not take the next step and claim that failing to act for one's own benefit is immoral.
[2] This thought experiment reveals a related problem systemic to utilitarianism--it fails to take individual rights seriously.
[3] Not all forms of utilitarianism are amenable to this analysis. I also note that being inconsistent with altruism does not automatically render an ethical theory false. It does, however, make it implausible.