Utilitarianism is Egalitarian
An oft-cited strength of utilitarianism is that it is egalitarian, that it treats everyone equally irrespective of their class or status.
Utilitarianism is concerned only with the amount of happiness that is in the world: it holds that we ought to maximise pleasure minus pain; it doesn’t care who it is that is happy. This means that utilitarianism doesn’t treat some people (celebrities, the rich, etc.) as any more valuable than everyone else. How rich or famous you are makes no difference on utilitarianism; all that matters when we are deciding what we ought to do is the amount of happiness that we can bring into the world.
There are, however, several problems with this as a consideration counting in favour of utilitarianism.
First, it is questionable whether utilitarianism is egalitarian. Although utilitarianism doesn’t favour individuals just because they are rich or famous, it does favour people on other grounds. If I have a greater capacity for pleasure or pain that you do (I get very emotional, you’re quite stoical) then utilitarianism will say that my interests are more important than yours. That isn’t egalitarian; it’s prejudice towards me.
This problem stems from the fact that on utilitarianism people aren’t intrinsically valuable. On utilitarianism, only happiness is intrinsically valuable; people are valuable only insofar as they are receptacles for happiness.
Second, it can be argued that utilitarianism is too egalitarian. Some people (e.g. generous, compassionate, law-abiding citizens) do deserve to be treated better than others (e.g. violent criminals, lay-abouts). When we have to choose who it is that we will make happy, we are right to favour the former over the latter. Utilitarianism cannot account for this; it says that we should treat all people equally.
|
