You say you're happy?...

Hello,

UTILITARIANISM! It sounds like a word which should be written in capital letters,  which, to be honest isn't the most accurate definition. It's the flagship theory of  Jeremy Bentham (he's the one who's stuffed in University College London).

One branch of Utilitarianism is  'Act Utilitarianism'.  Essentially what's best for the individual is best for the society. The actual philosophical term is: the moral worth (goodness) of something is only based on its utility which it creates overall. Utility meaning happiness or pleasure. 

If we were living in a hard core utilitarianist society all aspects of our lives would be examined and the item or activity which gives the greatest utility is allowed, this creates one of the biggest problem: quality or quantity. For example which is better? A football match giving a little joy to thousands of people or an Opera giving huge amounts of joy to only a few people? They level out as the same 'utility points' the question is which 'score' will we be looking at?

The other key branches of Utilitarianism are, total and average. Total Utilitarianism means things are done if everyone likes them and Average Utilitarianism is if the majority likes it - this seems okay but it could lead to the death penalty as long as it was the majority. 

So the major problem so far is how can we define pleasure? The solution is strongly linked to economics, being: Money, Money, Money! (how much pleasure ABBA brings is debatable). We have all heard the phrase; "cheap and cheerful" - but look what happened to Woolworths, the more expensive something is the happier it makes you ipods, TV's, cars etc.

This is why Utilitarianism uses 'freemarkets', these markets are way to find out what's popular and consequently the most pleasurable to consumers as they are free from economic or 

government interference - it's just what people like to spend money on.  As a result shops look at these markets to help them decide what they want to sell.

Another problem with the theory is how it relies on the society being just a collection of individuals (parish magazines and school councils don't really fit in.) I might want water skies, you may be indifferent - I would be happy, but you wouldn't care either way if the government gave some or not - not exactly the boom in happiness the government would want. 

I think that a branch of utilitarianism called preference utilitarianism is effective. It can be demonstrated like this: for sake of  argument you are on a basket-ball team. Your team is suffering as you have a bit of rubbish player. Some how you make the final you are all really pleased. Coach plays it safe and doesn't let the rubbish player on court. This player's utility points are way lower - but the rest of the team's utilty points are through the roof! (you win, of course). So making one person upset is better for the team. Moral worth of something is only based on its utility which it creates overall.  

So in conclusion the utilitarianism theory is linked with economics. Money equals happiness but we all know the saying: "Money can't buy you love"