3.1 Utility

The Declaration of Independence claims that “all Men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” It’s difficult to think of a better list of American values than these three. This unit will examine each of these, but in reverse order.

Some people think the right to pursue happiness means the right to do whatever makes you feel good. But few historians think that this is what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote the Declaration. According to Carli Conklin,^[1] Jefferson’s source for this right was the great English legal commentator William Blackstone, who meant it as synonymous with “the Greek concept of eudaimonia; it evokes a sense of well being or a state of flourishing that is the result of living a fit or virtuous life.” Conklin concludes that Jefferson agreed with Blackstone that this was a “God-given” right to purse a life that “was in harmony with the law of nature as it applies to man.”^[2]

The right to pursue happiness accorded with the recognition that human freedom was also a God-given right, and that each person was entitled to determine what made his life meaningful and fulfilling. This was not just a right to pursue personal pleasure, but rather the right to choose actions directed towards pursuit of one’s self-chosen goals. Jefferson’s right to pursue happiness essentially meant that people should have the freedom to choose their life plans. Today, we call this value utility, which the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines as “fitness for some purpose or worth to some end.”^[3] We assess possible actions in terms of their usefulness to the achievement of our goals, and this applies whether we are thinking of ourselves, our family, or the community in which we live. Americans prize utility as a value, and use it to make decisions about public policy.

Bentham: We are All Utilitarians (and We Should Be!)

Let’s begin by exploring utility in the writings of one of its greatest champions, Jeremy Bentham. In 1789, British philosopher Jeremy Bentham challenged moral systems based on the pursuit of virtue or holiness. He claimed that when people claimed to be acting morally they were really pursuing happiness, even if they claimed to be seeking salvation. According to Bentham: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. They alone point out what we ought to do and determine what we shall do; the standard of right and wrong, and the chain of causes and effects, are both fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, all we say, all we think. . . The principle of utility recognizes this subjection, and makes it the basis of a system that aims to have the edifice of happiness built by the hands of reason and of law.”^[4] Bentham argued that relying on individuals’ judgment about what they found most useful to their life goals was the best way to make collective decisions. For Bentham, the sum of individual utilities was by definition the public interest.

Bentham claimed that his theory of utility accurately reflected what almost everyone considered to be justice: “[O]n most occasions of their lives men in general embrace this principle, without thinking of it; if not for the ordering of their own actions, yet for the trying of their own actions, as well as of those of other men.”^[5] How did this square with people’s perceptions that they were doing what was moral instead of what was useful? Bentham claimed that ascetic principles are founded on the assumption that pleasure must be measured in the long-run (such as elevation to heaven at the end of one’s life) as opposed to at each moment of life. He characterized other values as based on the principle of “sympathy and antipathy,” which he claimed were really aimed at maximizing long-run utility.

Bentham’s value of utility—or happiness–is essentially the claim that people choose their actions based on what they believe will benefit them the most–and that this is the best value to guide their actions. Since in his version of utilitarianism people maximize utility action by action, this has come to be known as act utilitarianism. However, Bentham’s theory leaves unanswered the time horizon over which this judgment is to take place. At one extreme, the time horizon could be today: “If I sneak out of the restaurant without paying, I’ll be happier than if I pay the inflated prices.” At the other extreme, the time horizon could be infinite: “After I die, stealing a meal will be held against me at the Last Judgment.” Nevertheless, there is no denying the intuitive appeal of the value of utility.

Utility is usually the first value debaters consider in preparing for a LD debate. Convincing an audience that it should support the alternative that will yield the greatest utility for all is not a heavy lift. After all, Bentham claimed that this is what we do, whether we recognize it or not. Furthermore, there is often empirical evidence available about the level of public support for the resolution. So if practically everyone is a utilitarian, can it be wrong to choose utility as your value? To answer this question, we need to examine some of the problems that arise from choosing utility as your value.

Utilitarianism Does Not Value Individuals

Since all that matters in utilitarian calculations is total happiness, the strong desires of some to harm others could outweigh the utility lost by those who suffer harm. In extreme cases, the utility gained by causing death may outweigh the utility lost by those killed.

Your first reaction may be that this makes no sense. Why wouldn’t death cause a person to lose an infinite amount of utility? Think of it this way: if the lost of life actually meant a loss of infinite utility, then any action that did not cause death would be preferable under a utilitarian calculus. Only if all options led to death could an option involving death be considered, and then the option that led to the fewest deaths would always be preferred.

This would wreak havoc on modern society since many everyday activities involve some risk of death: driving to work, taking the subway, or even walking to the corner bodega. Even staying at home could be lethal in case of a gas explosion, falling plane or drive-by shooting. Since there is no realistic way of insulating ourselves from some risk of death, we assume some risk if we want to do anything in our lives.

Sometimes, people willingly risk death because their utility increases when they confront such a risk and remain alive. Climbing the world’s highest mountain, swimming the English Channel or even running a marathon significantly elevates one’s risk of death, and yet people do it. Some even choose occupations with high risks of death, such as police officer, hurricane chaser, or soldier of fortune. The additional pay they receive provides greater utility over a safer job, even taking into account the loss in utility represented by the higher possibility of death.

While the loss of life may end all utility, people don’t act as if their primary consideration is the avoidance of any possibility of death. Indeed, they willingly assume more risks to fit more activities into their lives, like speeding on the highway or flying instead of taking the train. So ruling out all options due to the possibility of death doesn’t accurately reflect reality.

This means that actions with the highest total aggregate utility are preferred above all, since the negative utility experienced from death is taken into account. Consider a proposal to increase the maximum speed for highway driving, legalize private use of fireworks, or reduce the minimum age for a gun license. All can be expected to increase the risks of death, so the question is whether the gain in utility from the change justifies the loss from the increased deaths.

Utility calculations can also justify far more harmful actions. Consider the lynchings of blacks in small communities that became common after the Civil War. These were treated as celebrations by the people of the town, often involving parades. Postcards were printed, vendors sold food, and victims’ body parts were given out as souvenirs.^[6] Today we recoil in horror at the thought of lynchings, but they may well have been justified by utilitarian calculations. The failure of utilitarianism to take into account people’s right to life–as well as other rights–is troubling.

Calculating Expected Utilities is Difficult

In many situations, it is relatively easy to determine what choice maximizes utility. Every purchase increases value, or else it wouldn’t be made. An auction is the best way to allocate limited or unique goods because the person who wins is the person who will gain the most utility (measured in dollars). But most policy issues are not this simple.

For example, when vaccines for COVID-19 were developed, the government had to decide how to allocate them. So why not auction them off, so those who most valued immediate vaccination could pay to go first. Nevertheless, this method was never considered, because everyone needed the shots. Allocating them to the highest bidders would have favor the wealthiest but exclude many whose services were needed to get the country through the pandemic–like the medical personnel who administered the vaccines. Instead, market solutions were rejected in favor of a non-market prioritization scheme. And while the reason might have been fairness, it is likely that first vaccinating medical personnel (who could do more vaccinating) was also utility-maximizing.

Most policy choices do not involve developing responses to national emergencies. Consider a municipality’s choice about how to handle its sewage when existing facilities are at capacity. Suppose the choice is among three possibilities: build the plant near a residential area, build the plant near an industrial area that would involve higher transportation costs, and transport the extra waste to an out-of-town plant that would charge a high rate for disposal. Determining the expected utility to town residents for each of these alternatives through a survey would not work since people would have an incentive to overrepresent their expected utilities in order to bias the choice for their alternative. Economists could estimate the costs to the city of each alternative, but cost estimates would not accurately reflect utility outcomes since people had different amounts of wealth. A loss of $100,000 in property value might not trouble a wealthy millionaire but would severely trouble someone who had a minimal income. Furthermore, the details of utilization would also matter, and many of these cannot be known in advance. If one alternative required noisy waste collection in the middle of the night, its expected utility would certainly change.

One suggestion might be to have the residents vote. But voting doesn’t reflect intensity of preferences, and a vocal minority could be outvoted by a relatively indifferent majority. Ranked choice voting would better reflect intensities of preferences in many cases, for example by excluding alternatives favored by a plurality but hated by everyone else.^[7] However, no type of voting accurately reflects intensities, a measure that is essential to an accurate utilitarian calculation.

Bentham recognized that there were great differences between people in their capacity for pain and pleasure, which he called their sensibility. Some people were strongly affected by others’ actions, feeling either intense pleasure or pain depending on the alternative chosen. Others were insensitive to the difference between alternatives, so the choice would have no effect on their utility. Most likely fell in between. However, there is no limit on the intensity of pleasures and pains, which means a strict utilitarian calculus could generate outcomes unacceptable to all but a few people.

At the extreme is the individual is so sensitive to the choice of alternatives that total social utility will be maximized whenever his or her preferred alternative is chosen. Robert Nozick termed such a being a utility monster.^[8] We actually have a utility monster in my house, a cat who complains so loudly whenever he doesn’t get what he wants that overall household utility is always maximized when his wishes are complied with. (He has thus earned the affectionate name of “Monster.”)

Household monsters aside, it makes little sense to reject utilitarianism because of this extreme possibility. But the uneven distribution of sensibilities across populations poses two important problems for the use of utility as a criterion for social choice. First, polls cannot accurately predict which alternative will maximize total utility. If a minority strongly favors one choice while a relatively indifferent majority favors another, then a poll (or vote) is likely to generate a decision that does not maximize utility. Recent polling about congestion pricing in lower Manhattan is an example of this phenomenon. While a majority favors this policy, it does not appear that this majority has strong preferences. (After all, how many strongly favor higher taxes?) A vocal minority strongly dislikes having to pay a toll each day when they enter Manhattan, but polling and voting treats this minority’s preferences as identical to the preferences of those who are relatively indifferent. It is certainly possible that the policy favored by a minority would increase overall utility.

In practice, strongly-held views from vocal minorities can defeat more tepidly-held majority preferences, although this does not usually occur through elections. In October 2017, Amazon announced a nationwide competition for sites for a new campus, claiming it was willing to spend up to $5 billion and provide 50,000 jobs. New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill DiBlasio spearheaded the City’s proposal, eagerly offering incentives worth up to $1.7 billion. Most New Yorkers were pleased when in November 2018 Amazon selected Long Island City as one of two chosen sites, and in February 2019 a Siena University poll showed 58% of New York City residents in favor and only 35% opposed. However, several city and state politicians used the likely increase in housing prices and transportation congestion as reasons to oppose the deal, and several groups demonstrated against Amazon’s project. This vocal minority of opponents killed the deal, and Amazon cancelled its plans in the face of vociferous–but minority–opposition.^[9]

Was utility really maximized when the Amazon plan was cancelled? There is no sure way to tell. The fact that the majority did not get its way does not prove that utility was not maximized. Nor does the fact that a loud minority got its way mean that utility was maximized. The outcome suggests that on some issues intensity of preferences matters more than majority support. But there is no sure way to know, as there is no sure way to measure the utility gained or lost.

John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Reconceived

Jeremy Bentham did not attempt to rank or evaluate individual pleasures. He did not view a person reading Shakespeare or practicing a musical instrument as superior to a person who spent his life playing games; both were pursuing happiness on their own terms. John Stuart Mill strongly disagreed with Bentham’s assumption that all pleasures were equivalent, claiming: “It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.”^[10] For him, utility means “utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.”^[11] Mill thus reconceived utilitarianism by ranking pleasures based on their consequences for human development.

Because Mill believed that activities that contributed to society should be rewarded, he believed that government should encourage those pursuits that were directed toward “the general cultivation of nobleness of character.”^[12] Government was therefore justified in using tax receipts to promote this cultivation, including public education as well as subsidies to drama, music, literature and painting. However, he did not support the passage of laws barring “vices” such as gambling and prostitution, as long as they did not result in harm to others. He preferred that people have the freedom to decide what actions to pursue rather than being subjected to government mandates: “The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference are exercised only in making a choice. . . . the mental and moral, like the muscular powers, are improved only by being used.”^[13]

Mill believed that utilitarianism would not create a society of selfish individuals indifferent to how their actions affected their fellow citizens. His reformulation of utilitarianism required consideration be given to the interests of everyone affected by each person’s decisions: “As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”^[14] Mill therefore required that a two-step process be followed in calculating utilities: first, determine what principles could govern a policy choice; second, determine which principle will generate the most utility. His reliance on principled decision-making later came to be known as rule utilitarianism–although Mill did not use this term.

To see how Bentham’s act utilitarianism differed from Mill’s rule utilitarianism, consider how both theorists would evaluate a proposed law prohibiting speech that disparaged racial or ethnic groups. Bentham would likely allow restrictions on speech that would cause distress to a large group of people, but if the targeted groups was small he might reason that their disutility did not outweigh the utility gain to their slanderers. As a result, his act utilitarianism would require the government to make a utility assessment each time a specific complaint arose. Mill would eschew such individualized assessments of speech in favor of a general rule about whether disparagement on such grounds should be banned. His analysis in On Liberty suggests that he would allow this speech since in the long run free speech better promotes human development than ad hoc censorship. Note that Mill’s principles were valued on consequentialist grounds–the value of free speech derives from the utility it creates, not because it is valuable as an abstract principle.

In Utilitarianism, Mill listed some of the moral principles that he believed government should promote. He believed that it would be wrong to deprive people of the liberty and property they were entitled to, take things they had a moral right to possess, break faith with people that were justly relying on your word, and fail to treat people impartially or equally if you were a government official. He recognized that in certain circumstances, following these principles might not always lead to increased utility, but he believed that long-run utility would be maximized by the consistent application of the moral principles he identified. Nevertheless, he was willing to make some exceptions: “[Particular cases may occur in which some other social duty is so important, as to overrule any one of the general maxims of justice. Thus, to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or medicine. . . “^[15]

Mill did not develop a precise rule for when exceptions to his principles were justified. Nevertheless, his rule utilitarianism is far less likely to lead to the harmful consequences that could result from slavish devotion to act utilitarianism. Mill was a pragmatic thinker, and his pragmatism is what differentiates him from the idealism of his predecessor Jeremy Bentham.

Utility as a Value in LD Debate

Utility is the most commonly-chosen value for the LD debates I have seen. Its widespread acceptance as well as the ease of its application to many policy choices make it the default value for many debaters. However, there are many varieties of utilitarianism, so proving the resolution (and winning the debate) requires a careful choice between forms of utilitarianism.

For some topics, it does not seem to matter what type of utilitarianism is chosen. Justifying the death penalty on utilitarian grounds does not require that the value be specified as either act or rule utilitarianism. For other topics, it does matter. Advocating universal health care as maximizing total utility runs into trouble when the issue of cost arises. Since care must be limited due to inevitable budget constraints, how would that care be rationed? Act utilitarians would evaluate the gains in utility from treatment, which might mean turning away people based on a cost/benefit analysis of their projected recovery. Rule utilitarians could claim that rules for who gets scarce treatment would eliminate this objectionable consequence, but what would be fair rules to allocate scarce forms of treatment?

Before you adopt utility as your value, think through the possible ways of formulating your utility standard before you choose one. Also think about how the negative might attack your case and whether you could better refute the attacks by choosing another value.

Bibliography

Jeremy Bentham. 1789 [2017]. Principles of Morals and Legislation. bentham1780_1.pdf.

Carli N. Conklin. 2010. “The Origins of the Pursuit of Happiness.” Washington University Jurisprudence Review. 7(2): 195-262. Conklin | The Origins of the Pursuit of Happiness | Washington University Jurisprudence Review.

John Stuart Mill. 1859. On Liberty. The Project Gutenberg eBook of On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill.

John Stuart Mill. 1879 [2009]. Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism.

Robert Nozick. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.