The Principle of Utility

I thank InVinoVeritas for accepting. I will first raise a number of my own objections to the principle of utility which I think prove it invalid, but as pro has the BoP, my main task is to refute his arguments. The problem of 'consequence verses motive' Kant outlined this objection here. I think it to be one of the most major flaws in the principle of utility. Suppose you give some food to a starving man. Most people would think of it as a good act, and very few people would view it as immoral. However, what if it somehow lead to a decrease of net-happiness? You gave him the food with the moral motive of contributing to happiness, but the consequences were different. The principle of utility is based solely on consequence. Motive is irrelevant. Thus, by utilitarianism, giving food to the starving man was an immoral act. Any act would be based solely on what the outcome of the act was regardless of what outcome you were seeking or whether you had any possible way of knowing the outcome would be contrary to your motive. Is this at all plausible? Consequences of actions are very often entirely out of our control or foresight. That is why motive is more important in ethics than consequence. As Kant writes, "Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualifications, except a good will." What if you are 100% justified in not knowing that the act you committed by moral motives, lead to negative consequences? It could not be deemed moral, for as already stated, it was justified! Massive problems present themselves when the principles of an ethical theory entail that justified actions can very often be immoral. The problem of non-responsibility Suppose you're at the beach with your friend. Your friend buys and ice-cream cone, and you suggest they walk down to the rocks. On their way there, your friend stumbles over a small hole that he didn't see and drops his ice-cream. He proceeds to blame you, his reasons being that if you hadn't suggested they go to the rocks, he would have never stepped in the hole and thus would have never dropped his ice-cream cone. It is inarguable that your actions lead to him dropping the ice-cream, but are his complaints rightly directed at you? Are you really to blame? I'm guessing that anyone put into the situation would be indignant that your friend would actually be blaming you for something that happened entirely unforeseeable and out of your control. However, taken the principle of utility, you would be committing an immoral act by suggesting they go to the rocks. Taking this principle, responsibility of actions are entirely out of the equation, only the latter consequences. This is clearly fallacious thinking. Am I not not only morally accountable for an action if I am responsible? As Kant argues, a person who keeps promises by accident is not acting morally. In the same way, a person who accidentally causes happiness should not be considered a moral person. He is only acting morally if he understands that he should keep his promise. Moral acts, if they exist, should be based upon whether the individual understands the nature of the act. By the principle of utility, people would have no understanding what-so-ever. Even killing a homeless man for his blanket, could turn out to be a morally good act, and stopping the murder could be a morally bad one. The problem of moral duty The principle of utility posits right and wrong moral actions, which likewise posit duty. If you you commit a morally wrong act, you are acting contrary to duty, while if you commit a morally good act, you are acting in accordance with or beyond duty. There are problems with establishing the fact that moral duty exists. If someone comes upon the chance to contribute to happiness, is he obligated to commit to that course of action? Our human senses might tell us that we have moral duties, but that does not account for any objective basis for proving the proposition. We need to logically adress that statement. It is mainly my opponents burden to prove moral duties but I am just highlighting the very relevant factor in advance. The problem of infinite consequences and impossible calculations The principle of utility posits that any actions is good or bad depending on its effect on happiness. This would entail that actions are sometimes good, then latter in time, bad. One act of kindness might eventually, perhaps even one hundred years latter, lead to more net-negative effects, causing the action to then be a morally bad action. This presents a number of problems. Firstly, it outlines the extreme impracticability of utilitarianism. It becomes essentially impossible to even know you are acting morally or not, or to make any reasonable calculation upon whether your action is moral or not. This leads to theoretical problems. If we can't assess all the effects of an action and also can not, within any reasonable possibility predict, what will happen, we are no longer morally free. We could never knowingly commit a purposeful action and know whether it was moral or not because there could be an infinite amount of subsequent effects which are impossible to calculate or foresee. The principle of utility can be deemed implausible for the fact that it could only work if beings were morally free in their action, but they would clearly not be. The problem of the subjectivity of values Perhaps the most appealing aspect of utilitarianism is that happiness is so valued by so many people. Many people view happiness as the ultimate goal. They place a superior value on happiness. Now that's all fine and dandy to place your personal view on happiness as ultimately superior by an entirely subjective stand point, but the moment you start saying that it is objectively superior, then you are starting to tread some rather unfounded grounds. What if I'm a Stoic and place my value on being indifferent to the external influences of the world? Am I objectively wrong in doing so, instead of placing my value in happiness? Many people strive for goals contrary to happiness, such as those whose goal is isolation from the world and it's pleasurable things. People such as those, often want to attain righteousness by such actions. Should these people be considered as acting in contrary to morality? According to the principle of utility they would be, however all they are doing is placing their values differently than others. There are hundreds of different labeled ethical theories and even more variations. Most of those theories do not see happiness as the ultimate goal. Goals are not in the least bit objective but rather subjective, therefore utilitarianism is flawed. Utilitarianism could only work if everyone agreed upon the value of happiness, and even then, questions could still be raised.