"One death, and a thousand lives in exchange--it's simple arithmetic."
-Raskolnikov
Raskolnikov's mathematical evaluation of the moral dilemma presented to him in
Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment exemplifies the empirical view of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism attempts to distinguish between right and wrong by measuring a decision
based on its calculated worth. Raskolnikov appears to employ the fundamentals of
utilitarianism by pitting the negative consequences of murdering his old landlady against
the positive benefits that her money would bestow onto society. However, a true follower
of utilitarianism would be outraged at Raskolnikov's claim that murdering the old woman
can be considered morally right. Raskolnikov arbitrarily leaves out some necessary
considerations in his moral "equation" that do not adhere to utilitarianism. A
utilitarian would argue that Raskolnikov has not reached an acceptable solution because
he has not accurately solved the problem. On the other hand, a non-utilitarian would
reject even the notion of deliberating about the act of murder in such a mathematical
manner. He might contend that Raskolnikov's reasoning, and the entire theory of
utilitarianism, cannot be used to judge morality because it rejects individual rights and
contains no moral absolutes.
A utilitarian bases his belief upon two principles: the theory of right actions and the
theory of value. These two principles work together and serve as criteria for whether or
not a utilitarian can deem an action morally right. First, the theory of right action
argues that the morally right decision is the one whose consequences are at least as good
as any other available option . For example, upon receiving the assignment for this
paper, I could have chosen to ignore the assignment and spend my time on something more
enjoyable, or I could have worked diligently on my paper, actually turning it in.
Employing the utilitarian principle, I would have to weigh each option and then decide
which one has consequences at least as good as or better than any of the other options
possible. But, what standard do I use to gauge the consequences in order to choose the
best alternative?
The theory of right action does not stand alone as the only condition for ethical
evaluations. To measure the given alternatives, I would have to apply the theory of
value. The theory of value bases itself on the premise that pleasure is the only thing
valuable in itself and as an end. Mill clearly states, "that all desirable things are
desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as means to the promotion of
pleasure and the prevention of pain ." In my moral dilemma, I had to take each
alternative and calculate the total amount of pleasure that each would produce, minus the
total amount of pain each alternative would induce. So while not doing the paper might
give me the most amount of immediate pleasure, the pain that I would incur upon receiving
an F in my class would greatly reduce the amount of net pleasure. On the other hand, I
might experience some pain (due to boredom, frustration, etc.) from writing the paper.
However, this amount of pain would be outweighed by the pleasure of receiving an A on it,
thus in turn raising my GPA, making my parents happy, graduating with honors, securing a
six-figure salary job, marrying the perfect man, and having 2.5 kids.
Therefore, utilitarianism not concerned with just the short-term consequences of the
decision nor with the sole effects on the agent himself. A utilitarian must consider the
long-term effects and the amount of pleasure or pain that others will experience as a
result of his decision. The agent cannot just consider his personal level of pleasure or
pain. In fact, there may be cases where the utilitarian's right decision may cause the
agent only pain. However, in accordance to the greatest good for the greatest number
philosophy of utilitarianism, the decision that is morally right produces the greatest
amount of net pleasure for everyone involved.
Raskolnikov seems to be employing utilitarianism when he justifies the murder of his
landlady. According to Raskolnikov, he has two available options: murdering the old
woman and giving away her money to benefit society or letting her live and watching the
money waste away in a monastery when she dies of natural causes. Apparently, Raskolnikov
has formulated an equation in which the old woman's death has a greater positive
differential between the pleasure and pain than not murdering her. He states that the
pleasure the old woman's money would bring to the poor would outweigh the pain inflicted
upon her.
Although Raskolnikov's reasoning seems to be a clear example of the utilitarian
principle, in reality it simplifies utilitarianism to the point of distortion. A
utilitarian would argue that Raskolnikov has not shown the murder to be morally
justifiable because Raskolnikov abstracts the situation, does not develop key variables
of utilitarianism, and thus has not accurately solved the problem.
First, Raskolnikov does not fulfill the requirements for the theory of right action.
Whereas the theory of right action deems an act morally right if it is the best choice
out of all available options, Raskolnikov simplifies the situation and ignores other
available options. Murdering the woman is not the only possibility for Raskolnikov if he
truly wants to better society. He could, for example, steal the money which would inflict
less pain on the old woman. He could find alternative ways to raise money (fundraising,
donations, etc.) which would cancel out any factor of pain. Both alternatives would
produce a greater amount of net pleasure than the single, drastic option Raskolnikov has
considered.
Raskolnikov has also not applied the theory of value because he has not weighed all the
consequences accurately. In measuring the level of pleasure and pain associated with each
outcome, a utilitarian must base his evaluation on the probabilities of all likely
consequences. However, Raskolnikov, in his subjectivity of the situation, has not
considered the likeliness of several possibilities. Raskolnikov might be caught in the
act. He might prove to be ineffective in helping society. Mill clearly warns against
using the utilitarian thought in trying to fix something as large and general as society
. Therefore, Raskolnikov may cause a high degree of pain with no resulting pleasure to
show for it. It is easy to see why Raskolnikov thinks that the old woman's life is
expendable. However, his reasoning is not applicable towards a utilitarian definition of
"morally right". Only in an abstracted situation as the one Raskolnikov portrays, can his
simplified conclusion be considered. In reality, his reasoning leaves out several
elements such as numerous alternatives and unforseeable consequences, which true
utilitarian arguments do not take for granted.
The difference between utilitarian arguments, which Raskolnikov's reasoning does reflect
to some extent, and non-utilitarian arguments, is that non-utilitarian moral theories do
not cancel out an individual's pain as easily. Even if Raskolnikov could prove to the old
woman that her death is the morally right decision according to utilitarianism, I doubt
that she would go along with the plan. She would not be so hasty to overlook her
personal pain, although it is outweighed by the positive consequences of her murder. A
non-utilitarian would argue that one cannot simply dismiss the factor of pain, even if
overshadowed by a greater amount of pleasure.
In Raskolnikov's reasoning the pain of the old woman could never compete with the
pleasure gained by society; therefore her suffering is tossed aside. This is because the
theory of value cannot measure the value of an intangible quality such as life. However,
a non-utilitarian would contend that the human life of an individual should be valued
more than any other consideration, especially one as superficial as money, because once
it is taken away, it is irrevocable. They would also assert that because utilitarianism
values only those things which promote pleasure, it does not value human life. Life,
like pleasure, is valuable in itself. A non-utilitarian would not look at moral dilemmas
with the calculated objectivity that one uses when looking at a mathematical equation.
To a non-utilitarian a human life holds a tremendous amount of value, a value that cannot
be quantified into simplistic factors and then dismissed.
Another problem that a non-utilitarian might have with Raskolnikov's use of
utilitarianism is that his reasoning is not held to any moral absolutes. If Raskolnikov
could prove that an act of murder was morally acceptable through a utilitarian equation,
then anyone could calculate such heinous actions. We would have mobs of people murdering
their rich, old landladies because they would feel that they are justified, if only they
donate some of the money to charity. Anarchy and a disregard for human life would ensue
if everyone subscribed to Raskolnikov's thinking. A non-utilitarian would argue that
moral absolutes provide a standard by which people can gauge the morality of their
decisions. However, in utilitarianism, there are no moral absolutes. So, who provides
the standards to make sure that people do not feel justified in committing murder?
Unfortunately, Mill does not make allowances for competent judges, so any practitioner of
utilitarianism must come up with his own scale to measure pleasure and pain (and in turn
morality). As we see in the Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov is not a competent judge.
Therefore, he commits an immoral act, while feeling justified because he the utilitarian
theory protects him.
In conclusion, utilitarianism is the most democratic of moral theories. The greatest
good for the greatest number mentality secures justice for the majority but fails to
provide the rights due to the individual. However, unlike our democratic government,
which employs a system of checks and balances to regulate itself, utilitarianism has no
set standards to deem certain acts wrong. Raskolnikov demonstrates the mathematical
objectivity of utilitarianism, although he miscalculates somewhat in his justification of
murder. In such a calculated manner, personal pain and suffering are dismissed in lieu
of the emphasis placed on monetary value. So while utilitarian would describe his
formula as "the greatest good for the greatest number", a non-utilitarian would
characterize it as "the happiness of many overshadowing the happiness of the individual".
|