What is utilitarianism, and why do critics object to it?

Utilitarianism is a theory about how to evaluate choices. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it can be applied to actions, laws, policies, character traits and moral codes. It is a form of consequentialism: what makes something right or wrong is its results, and we should choose the option that maximizes utility, meaning the largest amount of good. The main objections say that it approves of acts widely seen as wrong, asks too much of people, undermines trust, and treats individuals as resources. Defenders have replies to each, and the sources below describe the objections and some responses. [1] [2]

The theory counts everyone's well-being equally and looks at overall results. One textbook chapter summarizes it as the view that the best action is the one that maximizes the overall sum of utilities. The encyclopedia entry distinguishes act utilitarianism, which applies this test to individual acts, from rule utilitarianism, which applies it to rules. Much of the criticism discussed here targets the act version. [3] [1]

The most common objection is that act utilitarianism gives wrong answers. Critics cite a judge who could prevent deadly riots only by punishing an innocent person, a doctor who could save five patients by killing one healthy person for organs, and a promise that should be broken if doing so creates slightly more well-being. In each case, the critics say, the theory conflicts with deeply held moral beliefs, so it must be false. [1]

A related objection concerns trust. If people broke rules whenever it seemed to produce good results, critics argue, nobody could rely on judges, doctors or promise-makers, and the predictability that sustains social stability would be lost. Utilitarianism.net lists a similar worry, the abusability objection: mistaken appeals to the greater good might lead to terrible harm, so the theory could recommend against its own acceptance. [1] [2]

The demandingness objection says that impartiality requires people to weigh strangers' needs equally with their own and those of loved ones. If money could do more good for impoverished strangers, the theory would require giving it to them. Critics reply that this ignores special duties to people close to us and asks more than can reasonably be expected. The encyclopedia notes that Peter Singer has defended a view of this kind about luxury spending in affluent countries. [1]

Other objections say the theory uses people as a resource. One textbook example imagines a perfectly utilitarian robot that harms Alice because Bob's enjoyment raises the total. Robert Nozick's utility monster, a being who gains so much from others' suffering that the sum favors sacrificing them, makes a similar point. Utilitarianism.net also lists the mere means, separateness of persons, and equality objections, the last holding that justice cares about how well-being is distributed, not only its total. [3] [2]

Anti-aggregationists reject the idea that many small benefits can outweigh one grave harm, such as curing a terminal illness versus relieving many one-day headaches. A defender's reply is a chain of individually plausible steps, from headaches to flu to more serious conditions, which together commit us by transitivity to aggregation. The anti-aggregationist must then say which step to deny. [3]

An Oxford University Press book chapter groups the criticisms into six: an inadequate account of value, abhorrent actions, excessive demands, neglect of the separateness of persons, ignoring the distinctiveness of political issues, and one further objection the excerpt does not complete. The Routledge Encyclopedia notes that some have argued that constantly trying to maximize utility is self-defeating, and that decision procedures based on common-sense morality may do better. The search results do not settle which side is correct. [4] [5]