Act Utilitarianism and Criticisms

One objection to Mill’s Act Utilitarianism Theory is the criticism that the theory is Impractical

and impossible to utilize due to the limitations of human prediction. I will summarize the objections as

well as provide a response to each from the viewpoint of a utilitarian.

The first objection is based upon the idea that John Stuart Mill’s Act Utilitarianism Theory is

impractical and impossible to utilize, due to the fact of its nature as judgment based upon a set of moral

scales. The interpretation of the ethical implications of an action is based upon the results of a general

formula – a hedonic calculus – in which the potential happiness resulting from an action is calculated

against the potential harm or suffering it causes. For an action to be ethical, the happiness must

outweigh the suffering. The reason why this theory is impractical is that to use this hedonic calculus,

one would have to make detailed and thorough predictions of the outcomes of the actions being

considered and compared. This is problematic in two ways:-

I. It is impossible to predict every single variable that can result from an action, as there

can be extraneous variables that do influence the outcome of the ethical equation but

cannot be realistically foreseen due to a lack of information. It is impossible to cover all

the bases. There could be hidden secondary consequences (killing a terrorist might

endanger the lives of his wife and child should he fail his mission) that was not

accounted for due to a lack of knowledge.

II. The theory is reliant on the future. We cannot know the exact nature of the

consequences until the action has been seen through from the start to the finish. We

can never truly accurately predict the consequences of an action, whether they will

appear, or if the consequence was ever a potential outcome at all. This makes it

impractical because the hedonic calculus requires us to factor in all consequences, but

our failure to constantly and consistently accurately predict the outcome of an action

defies that requirement.

A response to this criticism would be to explore the success of Act Utilitarianism to perform as a

theory. A theory’s purpose is to define the parameters and instruct users of what can be considered an

ethically permissible action. Regardless of the practicality of the theory, it is still an effective one

because it provides a sound and valid manner to guide ethical thinking. The limitations of the human

ability to predict the outcome of and carry out a theory do not necessarily make it false. In example,

until recently, humans were unable to prove or disprove the existence of the Higgs Boson; yet this

inability to do so for the 49 years between the creation of the theory and its proof did not render it false

during that time. In the same way, the limitations on the ability of human beings cannot define whether

a theory is true or false.

I’m not positive on this response to the criticism of impracticality, as if a moral theory is indeed

meant to instruct us of the ethics of the actions in our day-to-day lives, it should be practical and

applicable within the human limitations as the theory itself is meant to instruct humans. An analogy of a

hammer that weighs a hundred tonnes might be applicable – the tool itself does operate within its

defined intention (the 100 tonne hammer can still hammer a nail), but it is impractical and thus useless

as no human could lift and use the tool.