Examples Of Utilitarianism

In this paper, I will argue for the truth of utilitarianism. In my opinion, the most interesting version of utilitarianism is hedonistic utilitarianism. It is the most interesting because it defies logic and rationale in favor of impulsion decision making. Hedonistic utilitarianism is the most interesting version because it is tied more intrinsically into the wellbeing of an organism, specifically humans, than any other alternatives of utilitarianism. Other forms of utilitarianism are wide-ranging and in my opinion not applicable to everyday decision making processes for one’s actions, whereas embracing a hedonistic decision making process is simple by conforming to ones desires based on impulse and therefore more applicable to everyday scenarios
in the world.
To me, hedonism is defined as the maximization of one’s pleasures versus the pain one may receive. In the words of John Mill, “One should act as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number”. By this definition hedonistic utilitarianism represents the greatest good for oneself and only the greatest actions which one receives. By this understanding hedonistic utilitarianism correlates only to a sample size of one, or more accurately the individual.
For myself I find that balancing pleasure and pain aligns more with my own selfish preferences on a day-to-day basis rather than long-term decision making. From a day-to-day basis, an individual is only thinking about their wellbeing in that day and is specific to each day where no two days will result in the same amount of pleasure gained and pain suppressed. By this understanding hedonistic satisfaction affects all intuitions in in ones life at all times. This implies that way one should act should be to produce the best actions for that individual and that individual alone. The action one decides to commit should not reflect any social impact to act appropriately because taking into other considerations would not maximize the pleasure or happiness that an individual would receive.
Hedonistic utilitarianism is superior to act consequentialism because it requires less time to make a decision, which makes it more applicable to day-to-day affairs that govern an individual. Act consequentialism is specific to criteria of permissibility to any given action. This means to say that an action is only labeled as good if its consequences out weigh the alternatives in relation to pain and pleasure. This creates the assumption that an act is inheritably linked to the pain and pleasure produced, but the best action may interfere with an individuals maximization of pleasure. I disagree with act consequentialism on the grounds that in order to make a good action, based on the consequences, I will require a lot of time and information to make a decision. This hinders the decision making process in day-to-day matters by requiring an individual to be rational and logically which defeats my understanding on hedonistic utilitarianism.

Rule 1: Consider a universe in which there are no sentient beings capable of experiencing pleasure or pain.
The only thing that exists in this universe is space and planets without life. Based on this universe, there are no beings around the care about anything and therefore any ethical disputes are made void because there is no one to care about anything.
Example 1: Now consider a universe in which there is only one human in existence, I shall name him Leo. In Leo’s mind the only thing that governs his ethics is the creation of sand castles. To Leo, making sand castles maximizes his pleasure at the minimization of his pain. Because building sand castles is the only action that governs his moral obligations he does this on his day-to-day affairs.
Example 2: Now consider a universe in which there are only two humans. One of these organisms is Leo, and the other Gemma. In Gemma’s mind the only thing that governs her ethics is the prevention of sand castles. To Gemma, preventing sand castles maximizes her pleasure at the minimization of her pain. Because preventing sand castles is the only action that governs her moral obligations she does this on her day-to-day
affairs.
Based on example 1, Leo building sandcastles fulfills my definition of hedonistic utilitarianism: sample size of one, or more accurately the individual. Leo’s pleasure is maximized and his pain minimized when he is the only being in existence in the universe. However, with the introduction of two beings into a universe my definition of hedonistic utilitarianism is made false because there is now a sample size of two. I shall argue why this is a false assumption to make.
Based on example 2, with the introduction of two humans into the universe ethical problems will arise both Leo and Gemma have different understands of their own pleasure and pain. Whatever action is preformed, whether that be the creation of a sand castle or the prevention of a sand castle, either Leo or Gemma shall be in pain. Leo and Gemma can only act in what they each consider ethically right by challenging the ethical beliefs of the other. Therefore in this sense the sample size of one is still applicable to the individual.
Consider for a moment that regardless of the action, Leo or Gemma will be in pain.
Suppose we could assume that for the sake of this argument that if Leo or Gemma is in pain they do not conceive that they are in pain, but rather that they cannot maximize their pleasure to the fullest. By this logic either of them would not want to receive enduring negative sensations and would try to fulfill positive enduring sensations. In order to achieve positive sensations they must contradict each other’s moral obligations. If Gemma stops Leo from building a sandcastle she maximizes her own pleasurable sensations without care for the pain this causes for Leo. Therefore my definition of hedonistic utilitarianism stands true, in that Gemma is her own sample size so her actions are only going to positively reinforce herself. The same logic applies to Leo if he builds a sandcastle. Clearly either Leo or Gemma’s pain matters even if either of them cannot comprehend their pain from not achieving their preferable
actions.
A strong counter argument to my definition hedonistic utilitarianism would be that maximizing one’s pleasure does not take into account moral considerations nor does it take into account the implications of those actions in the future. My definition does not take into account the course of actions that provide the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account. Someone may argue that simply fulfilling the definition of hedonistic utilitarianism is merely an impulsive and selfish act without considerations of the broader repercussions of an action.
Imagine a devote worshiper of any major religion. This believer embraces a moral code that starkly challenges hedonism and its pursuit of pleasure. Lets call this individual Dallas. Dallas is more in favor of self-control and applying logical decision making to ones actions. Going back to my previous example, Dallas would see both Leo and Gemma’s pursuit of pleasure a negative effect for the long run. Instead Dallas would align himself with the moral assessment of ones actions before preforming them. Dallas would view actions as only good if and only if the total individuals well-being was included in the decision making process. Therefore by applying logic to any decision would have to involve the overall well-being of the group. Dallas would also argue that maximizing ones pleasure impulsively does not take into account the future consequences of a an action.