Utilitarianism: For and Against

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.

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.

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.

Excellent presentation.

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

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.

I enjoyed the logic in this book. Reading the book carefully was far more useful than casually skimming it; on my first 5 minute skim I nearly incorrectly wrote the book off as not useful. Not surprisingly, I agree with the other commenters that the problems raised by the book are not solved yet (by the book, or otherwise, to my knowledge), but the basic issues are well-clarified.

First a note: I only read half this book before I concluded that it would be a poor use of my time to read the secondhalf (this despite it being a quick read) - this needs to be taken into account when reading my review.If you expect a structured academic analysis, then you will be sorely disappointed. This book is as subjective asit comes, and the argumentation is brief and selective. The author presents his viewpoint (a positive act utilitarian),while other variants of utilitarianism are either shallowly and informally argued against, or just dismissed as "I don'tagree with them".The book is not completely useless (which is why I gave it 2 stars and not 1):- I assume that for someone who are unfamiliar with utilitarianism, this might be a good way to peek into the mind and rationale of one positive act utilitarian, and thus gain a little insight- It does present a series of interesting questions and scenarios, so even though the treatment of those is shallow, at least they do provide food for thought...However, if you are familiar with utilitarianism, and you have thought it through, don't expect this book to give you any significant new insights.

A must read for anyone with any philosophical interest, pretty much an essential.

A fascinating and enjoyable read for everyone from the casual reader to the graduate students.