Can it ever be morally permissible, or even required not to maximize happiness?

There is no straightforward answer to this question so I am going to analyse a possible

answer from three different perspectives. The first one it has to do with rules and common
sense morality, and having a quick look at rule consequentialism. Secondly I shall talk about
happiness and value in general. How do we understand this concept and why we human
beings should seek to bring happiness in our lives? The last part of my answer will focus on
the understanding of the basic concepts behind the question using the article by
Smart(2007:475) about extreme and restricted utilitarianism. How correct is it to say that
the right action is the most rational to do?

Utilitarianists, at least the extreme ones believe that rules of common sense morality are
nothing more than rules of thumb. They argue that there are multiple cases where rule
utilitarianism simply would collapse into standard utilitarianism. But Hooker(2007:482)
proposes a simple way of rejecting this objection to rule consequentialism. Maximising good
is not the defining feature of rule consequentialism. There are other values to be considered
such as justice, fairness, equality, etc. I shall discus more about this latter in the essay.

People are not always required to maximise happiness even if by doing so they might create
more value than by acting according to utilitarianism. There are several cases to be
discussed. First utilitarianism might require you not to maximise happiness in certain
situations, when if you act according to utilitarianism (calculating and measuring which is
the best action to do) you might in fact fail to produce the highest amount of happiness,
which is against the very principle of the theory.

Moreover you are not required to maximise happiness simply because you would be acting
according to utilitarianism which is a false theory. Why is utilitarianism a false theory: first
because it considers consequences to be the defining characteristics of what makes
something right or wrong, secondly it puts happiness ahead of everything else and thirdly it
puts too much confidence into the individual.

How can someone know what is exactly going to happen when usually there many factors
interfering with our plans. But utilitarianisms say that the theory only considers expected
value and the expectation is the only criterion of judgement if an action is right or wrong.

1
Furthermore such a theory is not very suitable for us human beings. If we ought to judge
someone by what they thought at a specific moment to be the best expected value, then
what should happen with criminals, who think that by killing someone they will create more
happiness than restraining from doing so? We would not have a right to judge, because we
can never be sure of what that person had in mind when acting as they did.

As a moral theory utilitarianism is supposed to offer guidance on how to act in certain

situation on a day to day basis, but in fact utilitarianists themselves say that one should live
their daily life according to common sense morality, using utilitarianism only for long term
decisions. Fair enough, but if your daily response to specific situation is based on moral
intuition, your mind will learn to act accordingly, thus jeopardizing your gaol to act in a
utilitarian manner. The theory is quite self contradictory and the utilitarian answer to
objections reaches a bottom line and is a bit farfetched. It has long been my belief that we
ought to put in practice our beliefs. Do we argue in defence of our beliefs just for the sake of
it, just to sharpen our intellect? If thats the case then our beliefs are genuinely false,
containing arguments driven from an alien purpose. It is terribly important, in morality
especially, to put in practice our beliefs. It is unreasonable to say that we think utilitarianism
is true, but we also believe that it is in the utilitarian interest to act according to rules of
common sense morality.

If your primary purpose was to achieve the maximum amount of happiness from every
action you take, then you overall you might fail to do so. Sometimes when you are trying
really hard, your very action drives you away from what you want.

One is not required to maximize happiness, if by doing so the agent breaks rules of common
sense morality. Why are rules of common sense morality important? Although some people
say that in order to maximize happiness one might be required to break a rule, and because
this could happen quite often, rule utilitarianism collapses into standard utilitarianism.
Without making any direct connection to religion because some people might think it
irrelevant, rules of common sense morality are of major importance. Theyve been
developed over thousands of years and they are based on human behaviour, having been
contributed at by the whole society throughout history. Sometimes rules become outdated
and their consequences are negative, but all there is to do is amend or scrap those rules.

2
Some might say that simply following rules it is completely irrational. That is a false
proposition and I will try to explain why. We as human being need rules both to regulate
individual behaviour and to make other individuals actions more predictable. Hooker(2007,
482) here gives as example the road rules. We need driving rules because otherwise it
would be impossible to use a car. But here I am not arguing in support of rule utilitarianism
or rule consequentialism, but simply try to show that we cannot maximise value if this
implies breaking the rules of common sense morality.

Act consequentialists themselves come to the conclusion that in our daily lives it is more
sensible to follow the rules of common sense morality. This statement is self contradictory
as utilitarianism is supposed to be an agent guiding theory (Shaw:2007, 463) which implies
offering direction on a day to day basis.

Utilitarianism says that we are free to act as we please as long as we do not violate other
peoples freedom (Mill: 1859). I believe that one is required not to maximise happiness if by
doing so he or she violates another individuals rights. Utilitarianists say that each persons
well-being is equally valuable and carries the weight of any other person (Shaw, 2007:463).
It is a bit contradictory to say that well-being is additive and that equality does not count as
long as there is more value in one state of affairs than in another.

Human rights are very important and any violation is simply wrong. Considering the terrorist
case where it is necessary to torture one person in order to save more people or even
millions, I believe it is wrong. No one has the right to induce pain on another individual in
other to save other individuals. The major flawed of consequentialism or utilitarianism in
this case is that it puts the individual at the centre of things. It presumes that we humans
are so mighty and capable that we get can predict things accordingly. It is true that we have
an idea of how things might turn up, but to put this predicting capability of us at the centre
of a moral theory is false. We do not know what is going to happen. Suppose we decide to
torture a terrorist in order to save lives, but what if the information we get is useless, in the
sense that there is nothing we can do to stop an attack. We have tortured a person and the
other people are still going to die. The type of examples that we find in the books, where
everything is set, it excludes a huge number of factors that the thinker either ignores for the

3
sake of the experiment, or he or she genuinely does not have any information about. There
should be put more consideration in the way we think philosophical experiments.

Moving on to happiness: what do we understand by happiness and how do we understand

happiness? The concept somehow dilutes or it changes its meaning according to different
cases. Utilitarianists speak about happiness or well-being as the only valuable good in itself
(Shaw:2007). They define well-being as the difference between the pleasure and the pain a
person experiences in their life. Happiness is a very important concept in our lives, but it is
not the only value that is good for its own sake. Just like Hooker(2007:482) argues in his
article about rule consequentialism there are many other intrinsically good values. Although
utilitarianists say that all the other goods lead to happiness, there many other values
independently good in themselves.

But how can we quantify happiness? It is not like we have some machines which can
measure the level of happiness. It is impossible to do that otherwise than empirically or
through some kind of complex scientific experiment. Well some might say that in the future
humanity will be able to build such a machine that measures happiness, but by seeking
happiness is that overall going to crate the maximum amount of happiness? It manu times
happens that when you want something very badly, your forcing action to reach that
something will make you fail from doing so.

There are more goods intrinsically valuable, but justice and fairness are the most popular.
Justice, according to Plato, is rendering to each his due (Hooker:2007). Justice is important
in our society because people have rights as individuals or fellow members of the
community and these rights should be respected. We ought to have justice even if in certain
cases it does not directly lead to more happiness. Another value good in itself is fairness.
Two points of happiness given to someone who has none is a more valuable thing to do
than to give those two pints to someone who has ten or twenty points of happiness.
Fairness contributes greatly to the overall well-being in the society, so consequentilists
should pay more attention to the concept. Equally, fairness might not in certain situation
directly increase well-being, but it makes a substantial contribution to the good of the
society.

4
Why do we want everything to be rational and systematic? Reasons are based on feelings.
How come? If we analyse the way people argue, we can see a bottom line and we can see
that they argue about something because they believe in it. They have a certain feeling of
comfort and attachment to that belief. What is the purpose of argue then. Is it the game
and the pleasure from it, or is it to come at a consensus and a more profound understanding
about a topic?

Rationality

The best action is the most rational to do (Smart:2007). How come? It is not just rationality
that we need to have in mind when making a moral judgement. Our intellect is limited and
this is proven on a daily basis. We fail to understand many things about the world that
surrounds us, but we have an opinion about almost everything. It has many times happened
that the first opinions we have about something they change, quite dramatically in some
cases. Why? Because we understand more and discover more about the world as we study
it. Our intellect requires time and effort to be of any reliance in forming opinions. And even
after we spend a lot of time in trying to understand something, we end up with more
questions than answers. Psychologists have come to a conclusion that our affect has a more
important role than we might have thought previously (Railton:2010). There are many cases
when we respond to something without even thinking, so I believe that it is hard to say that
ethics is the study of how it would be most rational to act (Smart). There are a lot more
components when we make or ought to make a moral judgement. Consequently when we
are supposed to calculate the most happiness maximising expected action we are required
to use our intellect. But as when we reason it is humanly understandable that our prediction
is in some sense doomed to failure because circumstances change all the time.

The best action is the most rational to do? It is quite a vague statement as well.

How can we simple human beings know which action is going to have the best outcome?

What does it mean to maximise a moral value?

Moral theories are supposed to offer us a compass to help us live our lives in the right way.

5
The main fault of consequentialism is that it values expected value, thus it lives to the agent
the right to decide if something is right or wrong; and it is not a theory for orientation, but
more a judgemental theory. It offers basis for judgement after the action is finished and
lives the agent with no guidance, but his own instincts.

References:

HOOKER B. (1999) Rule Consequentialism. In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed.2007. Ethical Theory: An

Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 482

MILL J.S. (1859) Utilitarianism. In: Shafer-Landau R, ed.2007. Ethical Theory: An Anthology.
Oxford: Blackwell, p. 457.

MILL J.S. (1859) On Liberty. Cambridge

Railton P (2010), Peter Railton.

SHAW W. (2005) The Consequentialist Perspective. In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed.2007. Ethical

Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 463.

SMART J.J.C. (1956) Extreme and Restricted. In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed.2007. Ethical Theory:
An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 475.

Bibliography:

BRAMBROUGH R ( 1979) Proof. In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed.2007. Ethical Theory: An Anthology.

Oxford: Blackwell, p. 103.

DANIELS, Norman, "Reflective Equilibrium", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring

2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/reflective-equilibrium/>.

HOOKER, Brad, "Rule Consequentialism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring

2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/consequentialism-rule/>.

KAGAN K (2001) Thinking About Cases. In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed.2007. Ethical Theory: An
Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 82.

6
RAILTON P (1984) Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality. Philosophy
and Public Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 134-171

SHAFER-LANDAU R (2007) Introduction to Part II. In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed.2007. Ethical

Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 79

SHAFER-LANDAU R (2007) Introduction to Part VIII. In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed.2007. Ethical

Theory: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 451