Essay on Criticisms of Utilitarianism by Williams and Sartre

This essay critically analyzes the theory of utilitarianism, a prominent ethical framework, by examining the viewpoints of Bernard Williams and Jean-Paul Sartre. It begins by introducing the core tenets of utilitarianism, emphasizing its focus on maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. The essay then delves into Williams's critique, which challenges the theory's abstraction and its potential to disregard individual integrity and ethical considerations. Following this, it explores Sartre's criticisms, highlighting his objections to utilitarianism's systematic representation of ethics and its failure to capture the essence of human freedom and responsibility. The essay further considers Bentham's theory of Utilitarianism. The essay concludes by assessing the validity of these criticisms, acknowledging the contributions of utilitarianism while recognizing its limitations. The essay argues that both Williams and Sartre's critiques provide valuable insights into the complexities of ethical decision-making and the importance of considering individual values and moral dilemmas. By examining the criticisms of utilitarianism, the essay aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the theory's strengths and weaknesses.

Running head: CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
Criticism of the Utilitarian Theory
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
Introduction
Many theories with respect to human behavior have merged within the field of political
science and sociology. The understanding of such human behavior is necessary in order to
determine how the world functions (Mill, 2016). In this regard, the theory of utilitarianism
emerged as one of the many philosophies which tried to make sense of the way such people
behave. The purpose of this essay is to understand the views of William and Satre and how they
argued against the main principles of utilitarianism. To this extent, the essay tries to determine
the validity of their criticisms. The essay concludes with the significant contributions made by
the theory of utilitarianism and the need to understand this theory.
Theory of Utilitarianism
The theory of utilitarianism emerged in the latter half of the eighteenth century where it
was propounded by the scholars John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham (Riley, 2016). According
to their opinion, the action which is considered to be morally and ethically right if it promotes the
aspect of happiness among the individuals of the society (Riley, 2016). On the other hand, if the
action leads to the rise in resentment and unhappiness of the individuals of the community, then
it is known as an undesirable or morally wrong action. However, it needs to be noted that the
theory of utilitarianism is different from the theory of ethics since the wrongness or rightness of
the action is dependent on the aspect of how much sadness or happiness it gives to the
individuals. Thus, it is dependent on the motive of the person rather than on the ethics attached
with the execution of the action.

2CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
Bernard William’s criticism of utilitarianism
William was a twentieth century philosopher who actively rejected the idea that ethics
can be codified in to moral theories and concepts. To this extent, he emerged as one of the
pertinent critics of the philosophy of Kantianism and especially that of the theory of
utilitarianism (Qizilbash, 2016). He believed that the entire field of ethics is too abstract to find
proper representation within the narrow aspect of a methodical moral theory. It is this attempt by
the theory of utilitarianism, to constrict the ideas of ethics within a theory, which made Williams
criticize against it. He opined that theories imbibe within itself the idea that there exists many
different ethical concepts, many of which turn out to be prejudices (Diamond, 2018).
Another point of concern for Williams was that the theory of utilitarianism tells to the
people the way they should react or feel about a particular incident. To this extent, the theory had
the same problem attached to it which is the understanding of the authority behind the theory that
gave it the right to determine the moral sentiments of the people.
Another point of conflict that was observed by Williams within the theory of
utilitarianism was the denial of ethical considerations that was attached to this theory (Motilal,
2015). For instance, this theory and every other related theory stated that a moral conflict exists
within the theory with respect to rationalization of the cause and effect. Such theories insists on
the persistence of generality where morality is made s8bjective in nature and therefore, differs
from one situation to the other.
Sartre’s criticism of the theory of utilitarianism
Jean Paul Sartre was a twentieth century philosopher. He was of the idea that the ethical
theories such as the theories of utilitarianism, deontological, natural law and that of the contract

3CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
theory, all were abstract in nature with regard to the very idea of the ethical reality (Cazeaux,
2017). In other words, Sartre was of the opinion that the theory of utilitarianism was unable to
capture the main spirit of the ethical standards that persisted in the society.
However, he was also of the idea that precision in the field of ethics could be dangerous.
The subjective idea of ethics was upheld by Sartre to a specific extent. As a consequence of this,
he was unable to accept the systematic representation of the ethical ideas that were advocated by
the theory of utilitarianism (Thody, 2016).
Sartre was of the idea that human beings were essentially condemned to be free in their
character. He did not believe in the idea of a creator and coined the phrase “existence precedes
essence” (Schalk, 2015). He stated that since the human beings were unable to explain their
actions as a result of a particular phenomenon, hence, they were made responsible for their own
actions (Schalk, 2015). This was missing from the theory of utilitarianism where it stated that the
individuals have the freedom to choose their own course of action depending upon their primary
agent. Thus, it can be seen that Sartre tried to advocate against the spirit of utilitarianism stating
that it did not capture the main idea of human nature.
Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism
In eighteenth century England, Bentham first received attention as a critic for being a
prominent figure in legal theory. His most well received campaign that demanded for social
reforms and political reforms in every segment, mostly in criminal law, had its roots in his theory
of utilitarianism that has been explained in “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation” (Slote, 1985). Although it was written in 170, it did not get published till the year of
1789. Bentham’s theory of utility propagates that utility is approving an action as along as the

4CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
action surmounts to promote the feeling of ultimate happiness. Happiness is defined as pleasure
without any experience of pain. In order to make his theory clear in action, he had taken the help
of a sketched “happiness making” calculus. It takes into consideration the intensity of happiness,
its time period or duration, extent of happiness, likelihood of the happiness to be experienced,
and the extent of pleasure along with pain (Mulgan, 2104). According to Bentham’s theory of
Utilitarianism, any action that is conforming to the principle of utility is taken to be right or no
fully wrong; it must be executed, or at least it is not a case where the execution cannot be carried
out. Bentham evades the use of the word “duty” in this particular formulation. According to him,
rights as well as duties are considered to be legal connotations, that have been connected with the
notion denoting command along with the sanction of it. Moral duties and rights in this context
act as something that is in need of a legislator that is moral in nature (intervention of a divine
being to be presumed) (Read, 2004). However, the theological connotations lie beyond the scope
of this theory. To initiate a conversation involving natural rights along with duties is suggestive
of it being a law without including any legislator is similar to talking about the son who is
without a parent. Along with the theoretical implications and considerations, Bentham has also
criticized the belief of natural rights as according to his, these rights led to inspiring violence, as
well as bloodshed as had been witnessed by the French Revolution.
His belief initially was rooted in the fact that enlightenment and spirit of the public
statesmen who would have been instrumental in the act of overcoming the conservative stupidity
and institutions of progressive reforms that are responsible for promoting public happiness
(Ebenstein, 2018). His disillusionment followed the propagation of an extended version of
franchise and development of a greater sympathy that included a feeling of greater sympathy.
His belief was that the improvement would come in the form of betterment of education system

5CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
in the society. He had faith on people, as he believed that with the help of education, they would
be able to decide their own benefit in the long term. He had faith on individual decision-making
process to be rational and hence it would lead to a greater promotion of happiness in general
(Kelly, 1990).
Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism did not receive any criticism or discussion till the
latter half of the nineteenth century. Part of his writing were published by some of his dedicated
disciples.
Validity of the criticisms
The recent treatment that has been meted out to any kind of moral dilemma has kept its
focus on a particular version of the notion that is de-epistemologized in nature. From the
particular viewpoint, the recent involvement in discussions regarding the existence of any kind of
uncertainty that is deeply moral in nature has proved to be insufficient to prove the existence of a
particular dilemma (Motilal, 2015). The existence of a dilemma is valid only when the individual
is not at a fault because of his own acts, but still has been thrown in the face of a tragedy that is
moral in nature where any action on his part would be considered to be wrong. A number of
philosophers in the recent times have argued regarding the authenticity of the moral dilemma,
but most of them have not been able to convince themselves. The argument stands at the point
where the question is raise in terms of the existence of moral dilemmas from the vantage point of
common sense of morality, and hence the possibility of utilitarian dilemma that is again moral in
nature. Formulations have been done on utilitarianism as well as on consequentialism and
certainly they do not have any room for the existence of dilemma (Qizilbash, 2016). It the
criteria is the fact that the result produced something that is overall good in nature as any other
alternative that might be applicable in the given situation. However, why should the conclusion

6CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
be drawn upon the fact that any act is quantifiably right only if it is proven to be better than any
other available alternative. On an amalgamation of the two acts, none of them can qualify as
something that can be counted as morally right. To answer this, it obvious to state that there is a
certain amount of perversity in characterization of an act’s eventual result would be of good
consequences. It is not possible to deduce that fact that any other act would not have a positive
and right outcome (Diamond, 2016). To be more specific, it could be that latter mentioned act
might bring better consequences than any other act that has been performed in the particular
situation.
Another form of criticism of Utilitarianism is available in terms of the critique provided
by Bernard Williams and Jean Paul Sartre that has been found to be flawed. The theory of
utilitarianism is a philosophical theory which has tried to explain the human nature of the
individuals. Like every other ethical theories, this theory also imbibes within it the ethical
standards and morality (Qizilbash, 2016). It has sought to make itself value neutral in character.
However, both Williams and Sartre are of the idea that utilitarianism has been unable to describe
the abstract field of ethics within its boundaries. This criticism is flawed since the main aspect of
a theory is to define an existing situation in a methodological manner.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be observed that criticism of the theory of utilitarianism is needed to
be understood so as to grasp the main contributions made by this theory. Utilitarianism believes
in the moral obligation of the people to undertake only those activities which makes them happy.
However, it has an adverse underlying connotation where the individuals might undertake certain
socially undesirable activities. In this regard, its criticisms needs to be taken in consideration
while examining the theory.

7CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY

8CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
References:
Cazeaux, C. (2017). Jean-Paul Sartre WHAT IS WRITING?. In The Continental Aesthetics
Reader (pp. 141-156). Routledge.
Diamond, C. (2018). Bernard Williams on the Human Prejudice. Philosophical
Investigations, 41(4), 379-398.
Ebenstein, L. O. (2018). Routledge Revivals: The Greatest Happiness Principle (1986): An
Examination of Utilitarianism. Routledge.
Kelly, P. J. (1990). Utilitarianism and distributive justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Motilal, S. (2015). Is Ethical Theory Opposed to Moral Practice?. Journal of Indian Council of
Philosophical Research, 32(3), 289-299.
Mulgan, T. (2014). Understanding utilitarianism. Routledge.
Qizilbash, M. A. K. (2016). Utilitarianism and Some of Its Critics: On Some
Alternative'Incomplete'Theories of, and Approaches to Justice.
Read, D. (2004). Utility theory from jeremy bentham to daniel kahneman.
Riley, J. (2016). Utilitarianism and economic theory. The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics, 1-15.
Schalk, D. L. (2015). The Spectrum of Political Engagement: Mounier, Benda, Nizan,
Brasillach, Sartre. Princeton University Press.

9CRITICISM OF THE UTILITARIAN THEORY
Slote, M. (1985). Utilitarianism, Moral Dilemmas, and Moral Cost. American Philosophical
Quarterly, 22(2), 161-168. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/20014092
Thody, P. (2016). Jean-Paul Sartre. Macmillan International Higher Education.