Utilitarianism Versus Virtue Ethics

12/12/21

HR: Course Materials, Bibliography, Writing Center; Ryan O’Connor 12/12/21

WC: 1145

It is without doubt that utilitarianism is a stronger moral philosophy than virtue ethics because it relies on circumstance and relatability rather than predetermined right and wrong. When making decisions, it is important to fully grasp the scenario in order to make the correct judgement. Therefore, in terms of benefits to the individual and in total logical sense, utilitarianism becomes the obvious choice for an all-encompassing practice and theory because of its wide-based approach and aim for working towards the common good. I will compare the two philosophies and then test their stamina in the ethical dilemma of suicide to prove my point.

In a previous paper, utilitarianism was suggested to urge people to do whatever brings them the most happiness in all situations. This version of a utilitarian might do things for the betterment of themselves and their safety. Everything they do is for their own satisfaction and pleasure. Furthermore, a person who practices utilitarianism this way might use people as means to an end (a largely looked down upon ethical practice) and directly goes against virtue ethics.[1] However, this is not truly what utilitarianism is. Upon further research, Utilitarianism is an extremely broad and diverse spectrum of moral doctrine based on the simple prerogative of the equality between all humans and the unwavering search for bringing the most good into the world. In the previous paper, Mill was found to provide the most accurate depiction of utilitarianism: one that relies on “higher pleasures” and decision-making based on choosing what is most pleasurable.[2] Ultimately the heart of the philosophy is doing things for the greater good of society and occasionally yourself.[3] The choice that results in the most good as an outcome will be chosen all of the time. Further inspection causes us to realize that utilitarianism is not really about the individual at all, it surrounds humanity as a whole.

Virtue ethics as a moral philosophy is much like utilitarianism in the fact that things are done for the sake of what is ‘good’ and ‘virtuous.’ True virtuosity is what all people should strive for and this philosophy requires that moral character is practiced to the greatest extent. Things such as lying, stealing, or speaking rudely should never cross the mind of a truly virtuous person, however it is normal to have these thoughts but never act upon them. Virtue ethics seemingly disregards this notion, and for this reason, the entire philosophy becomes somewhat unrealistic and can cause decision-making to be one-sided or follow an endless straight path without real reason or consideration for something more. In sum, virtue ethics is a practical philosophy for the simple-minded person that lacks creativity or never has the need to make difficult decisions. When it comes to truly complex questions and situations, virtue ethics falls behind because of its black-and-white stature. Virtue ethics are commonly instilled in religious people exposed to the idea of right and wrong and are taught to always do the “right” thing between the faith’s determined parameters. [4]

For the sake of proving my point, consider the ethical debate over the act of suicide. At first glance, it is inherently wrong because it disregards humanity and from a religious standpoint, cuts the person off from God and His intentions for your life. A typical virtue ethics supporter would leave the conclusion at this and refuse to accept any instance of suicide as permissible. However, what if the person’s death can bring happiness, security, or peace to society? Consider in this argument, that Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler died through suicide (Hitler did, in fact, kill himself with a handgun). The world would be much better off without their evil, and a utilitarian would recognize this fact. Many philosophers and theologians have discussed suicide and unfortunately all of them conflict with each other. David Hume, for example, believes that if suicide was against God, the Bible would expressly forbid it, nor would God give humans the ability to do it.[5] Further, Hume is of the opinion that suicide does not harm society as you simply are not there anymore, suicide might actually help society (particularly in the case of Stalin and Hitler), and that suicide is basically only harming your own interest because you don’t know what was truly right for that person.[6] This directly contradicts philosophers such as Aristotle, who believed that suicide hurts society because society loses the benefit of having the person around to aid its development, or Thomas Aquinas who writes that suicide is a crime against God, nature, yourself, and humanity.[7] Where then, must the line be drawn?

From the standpoint of a utilitarian, everything regarding suicide relies on the circumstances. If the person who dies causes a lot of unhappiness in their family and society, then suicide is bad. Take the suicide of Robin Williams as proof. He was beloved by many for his kind personality and wonderful acting and comedic ability. The world felt great loss at his passing and therefore a utilitarian would not approve of his suicide because of this. It would have been better for Robin to stay alive and spread more love to the world than for him to kill himself. On the other hand, the death of Stalin would bring joy and happiness to the world. Society would once again be able to progress under peaceful conditions, and the total outcome would be good. Utilitarians prefer to look less at the action itself and more at the outcome of the action, which opens an entirely new realm to what can be considered good, and therefore opens freewill to humanity. I say this because as I previously stated, virtue ethics are very black and white between what is right and wrong. Suicide in all conventions is wrong and there are absolutely zero redeeming qualities about it. When considering such a complex action such as suicide, virtue ethics simply do not fit.

Regardless of if suicide is right or wrong, seeing as that is not the purpose of this essay, utilitarianism still comes out on top of virtue ethics as being more extensive and applicable to complex situations requiring more in-depth thought and consideration of outcomes. Blindly following predetermined virtues considered to be “good” by a group causes a streamlined way of thinking that is detrimental to the development of personal values and opinions. Through looking at the entire realm of possibilities offered from the outcome of an action, as a utilitarian would suggest, and choosing that which brings the most good, humanity can be more greatly benefitted. Moreover, from an ethical perspective allowing yourself to see the good in specific divergence can be beneficial to individual progression because it urges the person to consider more than the basic black-and-white virtues followed by everyone of moral character.

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae, 2A 2AE, Q. 64, A. Translated by Thomas C. O’Brien. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2019.

Hume, David. On Suicide. London: Penguin, 2005.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Edited by Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2022.

Savulescu, Julian. “Why I Am Not a Utilitarian.” Practical Ethics. University of Oxford, November 15, 2014. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/11/why-i-am-not-a-utilitarian/.

[1] Julian Savulescu, “Why I Am Not a Utilitarian,” Practical Ethics (University of Oxford, November 15, 2014), http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/11/why-i-am-not-a-utilitarian/.

[2] John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ed. Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2022).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2019).

[5] David Hume, On Suicide (London: Penguin, 2005).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2A 2AE, Q. 64, A, trans. Thomas C. O’Brien (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).