Lying and Utilitarianism
October 16, 2009
This is a very brief attempt to show some problems with utilitarianism.
Utilitarian, J.S. Mill, concedes that there are clear cases where lying, an otherwise immoral act one should avoid, is morally permissible.[i] It isn’t difficult to imagine an extreme scenario in which one would lie to avoid causing unnecessary suffering. However, in our everyday lives, these cases occur very infrequently. Instead, I will examine a more realistic case where lying is expedient to an agent and produces the desired results, and yet still appears not to be what we would normally[ii] consider morally permissible. By doing so, I hope to show that the Principle of Utility fails to yield consistently moral acts and beyond that, is highly impractical. First we must get clear on how the Principle functions.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethics, which means that the morality of an act is determined entirely by the consequences (or intended consequences) that result. So then, no act can be considered moral or immoral independent of its effects or consequences. Therefore, Utilitarianism is a subjective ethics[iii] that is highly contextual. Lying (or any act) may be appropriate in one instance but immoral in another, depending on its intended consequences. The Principle states that an act is morally permissible iff there is no available alternative after which the unweighted sum of everyone’s happiness[iv] would be greater. Moral acts should be those that promote the most goodness, which according to Mill, is maximal pleasure and minimal pain.
Perhaps an example will be the best way of understanding how one would weigh the moral significance of his actions. Let us imagine a case where Bob, an adolescent boy, is asked by his girlfriend, Jane, a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. Jane asks Bob if he loves her[v]. In actuality, Bob does not love Jane. However, before Bob answers the question, he considers whether or not it would be morally permissible to lie and tell Jane her loves her. Bob knows that in telling Jane he loves her, there will be two immediate consequences: one being that Jane will be very pleased and the other being that Jane will sleep with Bob, say. Both of these consequences are good, according to the Utilitarian, insofar as they produce maximal pleasure. Jane, after all, will be ecstatic to learn that her boyfriend loves her and both will be benefactors of pleasure in sleeping together.[vi]
Moreover, Bob does not intend manipulation of Jane to use her as a sexual object. He does not even consider such perverse consequences. Rather, Bob quite likes Jane and is interested in heightening the intimacy of their relationship. That is to say, Bob does not intend consequences that are selfish or in any way malicious. Let us also assume that Bob does indeed lie and tell Jane he loves her; and Jane does sleep with Bob. Both parties are very happy and there are no negative consequences. In fact, Bob later falls in love with Jane and two continue on and live a very happy life together.
However, it seems absurd to think that an ethical framework that allows for such manipulation to be the basis of our actions. The Utilitarian would have to say that Bob’s act is morally permissible; however, it seems extremely nonsensical to think that it is ever morally permissible to lie to someone about something as serious as love especially out of desire for sex. Our common sense notion or intuition is simply incompatible with the consequences of the Principle. Thus, we can conclude Utilitarianism yields immoral acts and fails as a system of ethics.
One could object and say that it is not the Principle that fails, but rather Bob in that he failed to consider possible alternatives had things turned out not so pleasant. What about the suffering his actions could have caused – feelings such as despair, isolation, loneliness, depression etc.? However, this attack is based on our common sense sympathies toward such deceitful activity and says nothing about Utilitarianism. According to the Principle, an acts morality depends on its believed or intended consequences. Insofar as Bob’s intentions were only good, his act too then is good, or else Utilitarianism is false. It is simply asking too much to have Bob consider not only if his intentions are good, but whether they would be good if he lived in such a world that the consequences would still result in suffering.[vii] This sort of reasoning is far too philosophically complex (especially for an adolescent like Bob) to be the basis of our morality. Therefore, Utilitarianism not only fails but is highly impractical.
[i] Although in general, not lying is a good ‘rule of thumb’, according to Mill.
[ii] By normally, I mean generally in accordance with our common sense.
[iii] Subjective in that each act depends on the subjects intentions/intended consequences, rather than being objectively moral or immoral in itself.
[iv] Everyone in this case is equal to everyone who is involved in the agent’s act, which may be only a few individuals.
[v] Some might object that this is not a simple yes or no question and that love is too complicated to evaluate in Utilitarianism. However, it is the business of ethics to tell us how to live. So if Utilitarianism is not sufficient to generate an appropriate response, what, then, is it good for at all?
[vi] Mill would say that these two pleasures are not equal of course, as there are different levels of pleasure. The intellectual or emotional pleasure Jane would receive from feeling loved would be much greater than the pleasure Bob receives from intercourse.
[vii] For example, a world in which Jane, instead of falling more deeply in love with Bob later finds Bob to be a jerk (on other grounds) and then is deeply upset about having sexual relations with him. One can imagine many other cases where suffering could be indirectly caused by Bob’s initial act of lying.
