I feel like putting this in print in the event that I one day need to refer to it in discussion – so here’s my bitch-slap to the “social utility” theory of justice. Fresh out of an Ethics exam, what better time than now…

Advanced by Jeremy Bentham and his Radicals, it is a theory of justice that suggests an action is good if it brings about the “greatest amount of good for the greatest number.” And one or two hundred years later, much is still talked about in terms of social utility. I find the Utilitarian theory of justice to be deeply problematic on several grounds.

First, and most obviously, although attempts were made, there is no device that can objectively and accurately determine utility. Without a metric of some sort, the theory is not merely a three-legged chair, wobbly at best, it’s a no-legged chair. Pretty much useless. But even assuming that we one day develop just such a fantastic machine as a Utilmeter – would I then jump on the Bentham-Bandwagon? Not unless we can overcome the theory’s other misgiving.

The other flaw inherent to such a doctrine is this: Decisions which predicate choice (hence action) are invariably made based on ex ante information – though the same actions once passed are put to an ex post facto evaluation in determining justice. For such a doctrine to work, requires that all individuals have perfect foresight as to the ramifications of their actions, how such will affect others, and that the tastes and preferences of all men are unwavering amidst a perpetually changing environment.

Scathing, eh?