An Argument Against Utilitarianism You've Never Heard Before

You’ve probably heard the usual gripes against utilitarianism: Oh, it’s too cold!” or “It sacrifices the few for the many!” Yawn, right? Well, forget that noise. Today, we’re looking at an argument that’ll make you question Jeremy Bentham’s greatest happiness principle and go, “Wait, what?!” Picture this: what if chasing the most good for the most people doesn’t just miss the mark; it’s empirically unfounded. Intrigued? You should be. Let’s explain why utilitarianism may not be the ethical theory you want to adhere to.

Table of Contents

• The Track Record Argument Against Utilitarianism

  • Introduction

    • Definitions:

    • Core Premise: If a Moral Theory Consistently Fails …

      • Empirical Failures of Utilitarian Reasoning

• Meta-Ethical Implications:

• Conclusion

The Track Record Argument Against Utilitarianism

Introduction

The Track Record Argument is an empirical critique of utilitarianism that questions its practical reliability. It claims that utilitarianism has led to disastrous or undesirable moral consequences. This critique doesn't challenge utilitarianism purely on theoretical grounds; instead, it examines its real-world track record, arguing that its consistent failure in practice undermines its validity as a moral framework when applied historically.

Definitions:

Core Premise: If a Moral Theory Consistently Fails, It’s Likely Flawed

The argument draws from a pragmatic epistemology of ethics: If a moral theory repeatedly leads to severe errors when applied, it is likely an unreliable guide for ethical decision-making. In the same way, that we reject economic or scientific theories that repeatedly fail in predictive power, we should be skeptical of moral theories with a poor historical track record. So let’s take a look at the track record of utilitarianism

Empirical Failures of Utilitarian Reasoning

1. Totalitarian Justifications

   • Utilitarianism has historically been invoked to justify policies that sacrifice individuals for the "greater good."

   • e.g.

     • Communist regimes' justification of mass purges, labor camps, and planned famines under the pretense of maximizing long-term social welfare (the Soviet Union, Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, etc.)

     • Eugenics programs in the early 20th century were framed to "improve overall happiness." (Buck v. Bell case (1927), etc.)

   • These applications point to a fundamental problem: utilitarian reasoning is susceptible to rationalizing extreme injustices when decision-makers miscalculate long-term consequences.

2. Failed Large-Scale Experiments

   • Governments and institutions have sometimes tried to implement utilitarian policies at a mass scale, only to fail:

     • Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) was justified in utilitarian terms—maximizing productivity and food supply for millions. The result? A famine that killed an estimated 30-45 million people.

     • The U.S. invasion of Iraq (2003) was justified partially on consequentialist grounds (liberating Iraqis, spreading democracy, preventing greater future harm). The unintended consequences—regional destabilization, the rise of ISIS, and civilian casualties—suggest that attempting large-scale utility calculations often backfires.

3. Moral Unpredictability and Consequence Blindness

   • A central problem with utilitarianism is that humans are notoriously bad at predicting long-term consequences.

   • With the Track Record Argument, moral theories should factor in human cognitive limitations. Since utilitarianism requires precise calculations of long-term utility, and historical evidence shows such predictions are often catastrophically wrong, the theory is impractical at best and dangerous at worst.

Meta-Ethical Implications:

The Track Record Argument positions utilitarianism as an unreliable moral instrument. A theory that works well in hypothetical scenarios but collapses under real-world events. In fact, it has a track record of doing so. Even if it is theoretically sound, its application leads to systematic moral failure. If morality is meant to guide action reliably, then utilitarianism’s historical failures cast doubt on its usefulness as a guiding principle.

Conclusion

So, there you have it. Utilitarianism might sound like the ultimate do-gooder philosophy, but what if its historical failures are evidence of its inherent shortcomings? Instead of delivering happiness on a silver platter, it could be smashing our guiding principles. Next time someone touts the “greatest good,” ask yourself: What’s getting buried under that shiny promise? Maybe it’s time we ditch the calculator and fight for a morality that doesn’t treat us like numbers. Because in the end, a world obsessed with maxing out the happiness meter might just leave us all flatlined—perfectly optimized and perfectly miserable.