Happiness and well-being
In utilitarianism, the assumed goal of ethics and morality is the greatest amount of happiness and well-being for the greatest number of people.
Roots in Evolutionary Psychology
How do we know that this is the goal? Evolutionary psychology.
Our brains are a neural network based machine learning device designed for survival and reproduction. In machine learning, there are two mechanisms for producing a learning effect. Reinforcement, which effectively strengthens connections between neurons, and punishment which effectively weakens them.
Our brain's reward system causes actions that result in pro-survival outcomes to be reinforced, strengthening the connections between neurons that fired to create this action and increasing the likelihood that the action will happen again. Those that result in anti-survival outcomes are weakened so the negative action will be less likely. Humans experience these effects subjectively as pleasure and pain.
It follows logically that our brains are wired to maximize behaviors that result in pleasure and minimize painful ones.
Though the evolutionary goal of this wiring is survival and reproduction, the brain itself only responds to the internal reflexive pleasure and pain reactions regardless of their actual survival benefit. Hence our goal is not to maximize our lifespans and population, it is to maximize our experience of pleasure and pain.
When we live a life that gives us robust and varied sources of pleasure, while minimizing pain and hardship, we experience this as a general sense of well-being and happiness. Therefore, the utilitarian goal of maximizing happiness and well-being for the greatest number of people can be derived logically from the observation of our brain's neural network.
What if Hurting This Guy Makes 2 People Happy?
This is the most common hypothetical counterexample that entirely too many people see as disproving utilitarianism. However, like many moral hypotheticals, it posits a situation that is fundamentally impossible given the way our brains have evolved.
Humans are empathetic, social creatures. There is no way for us to harm another human without emotional repercussions on ourselves. Only a psychopath can blithely torture or kill another human and not feel their pain. And, being a psychopath, they're probably not feeling very happy either. So that's no way to go.
Then you must also consider the ramifications of implementing this hypothetical within the legal framework of a society. Let's say you think that killing and taking the organs from one drifter in order to save 5 parents of young children and prevent them from being orphaned yields a net positive in happiness. The drifter has no family or friends and won't be missed by anyone, while the parents who were saved will go on to have fulfilling lives, and their kids won't end up in foster care. Within this superficial closed system, it appears that utilitarianism would support this choice.
However, if it is right for one person to kill a drifter for their organs if it saves a few lives, then it has to be right for everyone to do it. And what does a society look like where it is legal to harvest the organs of the unhoused? Not like one that anyone would actually want to live in. Because it wouldn't actually make us happy, it would be morbid, fearful, and lawless.
Whose Happiness Counts?
"Forward thinking" crypto-bros think that they can cleverly circumvent the need to care about the living by contributing to the theoretical happiness of future people. This is an ethical cop-out used to justify selfish behavior, such as using Effective Altruism as an excuse to steal billions of dollars in a cryto pyramid scheme. Someday you plan to use it for charity, so the more money you get now the more good you can do later!
When calculating the utilitarian benefit of any action, the tangible effects on the living should be prioritized significantly above the needs of any theoretical humans. While we can't ignore our impact on future generations, we cannot prioritize their needs over our own either. Part of our happiness depends on knowing we are leaving a better world for our children, but a better world is always one that helps the living.
There is also no justification for harming the living in order to benefit the theoretical. To do so only creates a world in which such harm is acceptable, and that will always be a drag on happiness. The living may choose to make sacrifices for their children or future generations they may never know, but they must do so freely and without coercion.
Prioritizing the needs of the living over the theoretical is also what makes abortion an ethical choice whenever it is desired. Quality of Life is the most important pursuit.
Can a TV Show Explain It?
For those that prefer a metaphor from pop culture, it's basically the point system from The Good Place. The show is actually an introductory course in ethics and is truly a good place to start learning about this subject if the idea of utilitarianism is new to you.
