The Second Dumbest Thing Ever: Utilitarianism

Primarily formulated in the 18th and 19th centuries by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, this theory bases itself on the attempt to create a useful moral theory, one which could be effectively used not only to live an ethical life on the individual level, but to benefit the world surrounding one in general. Utilitarianism asserts that the rightness of an act is determined by the outcome, specifically on good consequences versus bad consequences or the creation of happiness. The goal of a utilitarian would be to act in a way that creates the most good consequences/happiness and the least bad consequences or unhappiness. There are two distinctions between utilitarians: act utilitarians and rule utilitarians. Act utilitarianism does not set any absolutes, believing that each individual should determine which act will result in the most good or happiness and least bad or unhappiness for those who will be affected in every specific scenario. There will never be anything that is always a non-right act, no matter what outstanding concepts of justice or morality might assert. Rule utilitarianism, which was established to solve many problems act utilitarians faced, asserts that people shouldn’t act to create the greatest good or happiness for everyone involved, but that everyone should create and follow rules that will bring about the greatest good or happiness for everyone involved. The primary difference between the two being that rule utilitarians believe there are enough inherent similarities in human beings to set certain rules that will always bring about the most good or happiness, as opposed to seeing each situation as so unique that it has to be analyzed and quantified fresh from the start.
Utilitarianism is flawed because it asserts that humanity can make these decisions functionally and that the course necessary to accomplish the greatest good or happiness is irrelevant.
First, the functionality of utilitarianism must be addressed. Utilitarianism asserts that human beings can make decisions based on logically analyzing the situation and determining the most trivial and minute consequences of an act. On its own, this destroys the foundation of a moral theory that is intended to be functionally useful. No human being can determine, through conjecture and experience-based analysis of the possible outcomes, the actual finite results of an action. While we might be able to accurately gauge some of the more broad consequences, we cannot truly apply such precise estimates when everything is boiled down to the most basic level: the individual human being.
The reason for this is that consequences have no real end, they are infinite. One action sparks reactions, which spark further reactions, and so on, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. If one chooses to take an action, having weighed the immediate consequences fairly accurately, they cannot determine what the eventual outcomes of the divergent reactions might lead to. Initially, their act might be right as defined by the moral theory; the final culmination of consequences from every reaction to that first action, however, might create consequences which would make the act wrong.
If, for instance, a man and his family are starving, it would be a right act to steal some bread from a powerful chain of grocery stores. He has acted in a way that will bring about the most good or happiness. But, as a result of his theft, an employee of the grocery store is fired. The former employee, now, can no longer support his family. Instead of turning to petty theft, he turns to robbery and winds up causing non-good or unhappiness to an extent that outweighs the initial good of the act. Now the act is no longer right, but these were not things the original agent could have foreseen in his analysis of the situation.
Another flaw in the functionality of the theory is that human beings are subjective, emotion-based creatures. Applying logical analysis to the consequences works as long as we are not in direct opposition to the actions of another. In this scenario, since both are utilitarians, they will both feel their analysis of the consequences of their actions are accurate, especially given that each will possess information that the other does not have. Here we see two people who both wish to act in a right manner in opposition to each other, and emotions will come into play. While only one of these two will actually act right according to the theory, both will choose to act based on their analysis of the situation.
Aside from the functional problems, we face logical problems with utilitarianism. In one, Mill asserts that the basic human nature is a certain way, almost without flaw or deviation, in relation to the choices we make and feelings we have. He further asserts that we should be this way. The reasoning that the very essence of human nature should be altered because it defies his theory, in that human beings would find it nearly impossible to counter their nature in order to act in a manner defined as right, proves to be an inherent logical problem. If humans no longer act according to human nature, then they could no longer be quantified as humans. If this is necessary to practice this theory, then is the theory really valid? The point of moral theories, especially utilitarianism, is to act in a manner that brings about the best consequences or most happiness for everyone involved, but human beings are happy or appreciate good consequences because of our inherent human nature. This assertion has been defined as “ought implies can,” another criticism of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism requires people to act in a manner they are incapable of, simply because that action has been defined as right according to the theory. For example, if a world-killing meteor were hurling at the planet, the right thing to do, according to utilitarianism, would be to fly into outer space, cool the meteor off, and redirect its path so that it doesn’t impact with the planet and destroy all life. While this is obviously the right act, it is not one that human beings are capable of doing, especially not on an individual level. By this example, every human on the planet who failed to take the steps above would be acting wrongly.
In utilitarianism, we also face the idea that the results of an act justify the process of accomplishing that act. This concept of the ends justifying the means condones acts that are morally and intuitively reprehensible if the result is the most good or happiness. There are far more people in India than in Pakistan, but it cannot be called right to stand by and watch as Pakistan as a nation was decimated. While this might bring about the most good or happiness, it cannot be called right. From a similar stance, how can the greatest good or happiness be determined when two groups have diametrically or violently opposing views? If two nations with identical populations and needs for a source of natural resources are in conflict over the resource, which would be in the right to take it? If one nation has a greater population but far less need, then how can the greatest good or happiness be determined? This requires the arbitrary assessment of good or happy consequences, which in itself is flawed because people are, generally, egoistic.
The very nature of human beings is contradictory to the moral theory of utilitarianism, and the dismissal of certain absolutes defies the validity of the theory. A moral theory that requires people to acquit themselves of their very nature and to act in manners that might be contrary to our most basic intuitions is not a sound moral theory, nor can the good/happiness and bad/unhappiness be precisely determined by the human animal in a timely manner that would allow one to act in a practical timeframe when issues do arise.