Pros And Cons Of Utilitarianism

One of the core assertions of John Stuart Mill’s book, Utilitarianism, is that Utilitarianism can and should provide the basic moral framework for an individual’s decisions. He argues, often convincingly, that if all of society followed a system of morals dedicated to the maximizing public well-being, or utility, everyone would benefit. This perspective places the burden of decision making overwhelmingly on the individual who is not necessarily capable or properly equipped to make decisions which maximize the utility of the population. While Utilitarianism may have limited value as a layman’s moral framework, it has considerably more value as a moral framework for persons in a leadership role where more information is available to make a rational decision. A core critique of Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy rests on the idea
that most individuals are poorly equipped to make decisions which will maximize utility for all of society. Most people don’t possess the time, resources, or even the expertise to analyze every possible decision for its long ranging effects on society. In this way, individual decision making becomes inherently predicated on and limited to individual perspective, a problem which becomes compounded when the individual is faced with decisions involving public goods.
Public goods are resources which all of society benefits from, but only if everyone coordinates to protect them from abuse.
From an individual’s limited perspective, abuse of the resource may have little to no negative effect on him or people around him, but can be of great personal benefit. The rationality intrinsically present in abusing a public resource is known as The Free Rider Problem, and is one of the most challenging issues faced in preserving public goods. Due to the limited damage done to the public good by the free rider, as well as the benefits the individual gains from said abuse, the decision to abuse a resource may be seen as maximizing utility. Thus, from a limited perspective, the decision to abuse the resource is not only the rational decision, but, in a utilitarian framework, abuse becomes the moral decision. The problem inherent in this line of reasoning is that if enough people make this decision, the resource is destroyed in what is known as The Tragedy of the Commons. The challenge posed by the free rider problem is therefore a significant hurdle for utilitarianism as an individual moral framework to
overcome.
On the other hand, Utilitarianism proves to be much more useful as a moral framework for people making policy decisions in leadership roles. In an age where policymakers have vast resources and immense datasets available to aid in decision making, a person in a leadership role can reasonably be expected to justify their decision in terms of the utility it provides to the overwhelming majority of society. In addition to being better informed, policymakers typically possess the proper tools to combat the free rider problem, often in the form of monetary incentives or deterrents which can encourage individuals to buy into the protection of the public good. In this manner, Utilitarianism avoids the objections of the free rider problem, and can thusly be justified as the philosophy which ought to be used in making societal policy decisions.
John Mill’s vision of Utilitarianism falls into the purview of act utilitarianism, in which individual actions are morally judged on how well they maximize utility. While intriguing, act utilitarianism is limited in effectiveness by the limited perspective of individuals and the free rider problem. On the other hand, a form of rule utilitarianism, where rules, laws, and policies are designed by policy makers to maximize utility, is capable of avoiding this problem when the rule in question is designed intelligently. Hence, a rule-based utilitarianism where the rules is more practical in nature than strictly act based utilitarianism for individuals.