When humans are reduced to irrational decision-making, they often depend on the basic dopamine attraction that the brain recognizes to maximize their survival. That is because, for thousands of years, our minds have evolved to reliably choose what best prepares our bodies and our “tribes” for the upcoming harsh climate, seasonal change, and wilderness. Sugar is so addictive because it provides bodily fat that animals need to sustain themselves during periods of starvation, and compassion is necessary for the long-term success of groups. However, as society continued to evolve and become more interconnected, these decision making processes became more rational. People changed; they no longer chose options for the sake of living but rather for a set of moral values they believed in, often influenced by the simulacra. One common philosophy, often referred to as hedonic utilitarianism, came to light as a basic ethical framework used to, generally, maximize utility. According to Michael Shermer, the executive director of the Skeptics Society and American historian, utilitarianism is, in short, doing the “greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people”. However, questions and concerns arose from its basis leading many people to question its usability. With this, it is crucial to ask the question: Is hedonic utilitarianism a proper decision making method to absolutely maximize societal welfare in the status quo? The answer is no, as utilitarianism’s primary focus is happiness, which is impossible to measure, it justifies atrocities, and it is a purely consequentialist framework that doesn’t address the root causes and malicious intents of humankind. 

If two people both experience a rush of happiness, are the amounts of dopamine they produce identical? Are the happiness they feel of the same worth? The answer is certainly confused under this philosophy: there are no guidelines to determine what “happiness” is for each person. Utilitarianism treats every person as an ideal machine for happiness, with certain actions producing expected well-being and not actual joy. According to American mathematician and scientist, Roger Montague, this means that even if a person experiences a pleasant scenario, “he may be unhappy because he has recurrent poor health,” a factor not considered often in every single scenario. In the calculations, repetitive or seemingly minor issues play a factor in everything, so even if a person faces a good scenario in present time, past factors play an important role, meaning a person’s first judgement on maximizing utility would always be false. This exposes a logical fallacy within the steps of this philosophy, meaning that the real world application would not actually work. Additionally, Veenhoven, a Dutch sociologist and pioneer on the scientific study of joy, affirms Montague’s exposing of the issues as “happiness is seen as both futile and evasive” as it relies on subjective comparison. Person A may be required to feel more joy, but doesn’t hold as much joy as Person B who is innately more happy. This idea of happiness that we have in today’s society simply can not be measured. “Standards follow perception of reality” and put simply, everyone perceives reality to be different, meaning the bar to reach eternal happiness is different for each and every individual. Say that there is a person who feels a higher capacity of pleasure than everyone else but is cannibalistic. Philosophers like Mills justify sacrificing people to feed the pleasure of said person, because happiness is subjective. However, American historian and professor at Dartmouth College, McMahon, takes these faults a step farther by pointing out that the concept of happiness is “an indeterminate one” as individuals can “never say definitely and consistently what it is that he really wishes and wills.” Even if happiness were a real concept and not just envy amplified to an emotion, people themselves can not be trusted to make good judgement on how to receive this luxurious emotion. An English philosopher and founding father of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mills, affirms that the “ingredients of happiness are very various,” drawing from multiple sources and not a clear outline. Even the author of the philosophy acknowledges its flaws, pointing out a serious issue at hand. With all this put together, it is clear that while utilitarianism has good intentions, the actual mechanisms needed to be able to calculate the maximum happiness and good is an impossible task, making this philosophy inherently flawed. 

However, hedonic utilitarianism has another inherent flaw that makes it a poor framework: it was used, historically, to justify atrocities, and enables people to continue to do so. Consistent utilitarians believe in achieving the maximum amount of good, no matter the methodology to achieve said result. Dr. Saad Malik, a professor at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Punjabi at Lahore, points at that this means “utilitarians ought to break promises, tell lies, and kill innocent people,” as long as the motive is to “bring about the best possible consequences.” This philosophy does not prove inherent morality, like Kantianism, but rather it proves for the highest dopamine production. This methodology allows for suicide (because in the moment, dying is a happier option than living), mass murder (because the pain of killing people don’t outweigh the joy of killing in certain circumstances” and even humiliation as it “may bring about more utility than any alternative action,” as Dr. Malik states. A common misconception is that hedonistic utilitarianism makes all people generally happier, but the truth is far darker. This is further extended by philosophy TV show host, Andrew Heard, as even human rights are debated as the “utilitarian critique raises the question whether human rights are either absolute or inalienable.” Additionally Heard continues that, “resources are scarce in any society,” which “inevitably leads to utilitarian calculations,” meaning that in any scenario, the forced sacrifice of select individuals will always happen for the survival of many. Prejudice is also a major issue; the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Douglas Abrams write in “Have You Renounced Happiness” that “empathy does not extend to those who are outside our ‘group’,” meaning that people intake pleasure from isolation, creating barriers within society. White settler colonialists derived intense pleasure from the enslavement and extinction of indigenous tribes and African Americans, and some could argue their pleasure outweighed the cries for help. Because of the inherent hate that human hearts derive from, these horrid actions are inevitable and justified with utilitarianism. However, the biggest problem with utilitarianism is how individuals like “Hitler, Stalin, and Mao demonstrate the danger of imposing a totalizing ideology,” through the death of millions. Richard Yetter Chappell, Meissner, and MacAskill articulate that these atrocities, while not committed by utilitarians, utilize the ideology of utility of increasing the most happiness for these dictators and their minions. Overall, with careful inspections on the methodology and historical analysis behind utilitarianism, it is clear that this philosophy is poor as it justifies horrendous actions.

Finally, there is another glaring problem in utilitarianism: it is purely consequentialist and does not prevent malicious intents and calculations. Utilitarianism boils everything down to pleasure and enjoyment, but not the relative “goodness” of an action. Devin Kalish, MA in English and bioethics, articulates that this model “doesn’t care that it will give us insincere reasons for what we believe.” A society of people with no beliefs means that everything goes crazy, people doing horrid actions for the sake of increasing pleasure, murder being feasible, and no distinction between good and bad actions. Furthermore, because of consequentialism, people are forced to predict the future. However, British philosopher and professor of philosophy at the University of Sheffield, James Lenman, states that “it is impossible to know the future. This means that you will never be absolutely certain as to what all the consequences” will be. He exposes a glaring issue of impact calculations becoming unrealistic options. Furthermore, “consequentialism will be unusable as a moral guide to action” as “all the evidence available at the time of acting may have pointed to the conclusion that a given act was” good and yet “it may still turn out that what you did had horrible results.” The pure decision-making process fails in the eyes of unpredictability, meaning the only reliable option is intent at the time, the opposite of what utilitarianism represents. If person A saves a baby but that baby turns out to be Hitler, then they are in the wrong. Similarly, if person B kills a baby but that baby is Hitler, then they have done something right despite their initial malicious intentions. Another problem arises when Michael Lacewing, author and philosopher, notices that “if someone tries to do something evil but accidentally increases happiness,” then their action is justified, which has multiple flaws. A thief would be let loose, a murderer celebrated, and individuals like Mao worshipped. Going back to a previous example, person B is justified, as Lacewing points out. In conclusion, because of the consequentialist ground work that was laid down, utilitarianism fails. 

If consequentialist and hedonic philosophies are so problematic, many begin to wonder what framework is the best for actual real-world use. This is where people choose to follow deontology, a popular ethic created and used by many famous names such as Kant and Korsgaard. David Misselbrook, a senior ethics advisor in the United Kingdom and the Emeritus Dean of the Royal Society of Medicine, states that “all humans have universal rational duties to one another, centering on their duty to respect the other’s humanity.”  Instead of relying on self guessing, Kantianism provides a clear path towards good intentions and respecting others, creating a clear method for rational decision making. Furthermore, unlike utilitarianism, it justifies human rights as “all humans must be seen as inherently worthy of respect and dignity.” That means that no individual’s shame, fear, or death can be exploited under this ideology. Every person is treated as an equal, rather than the imperialism associated with utility, meaning structures of domination are torn apart. In practical use, this philosophy is essential towards maintaining a peaceful society. The implications are that many people begin to see the world in a rational rather than calculated method, they begin to actually care for others rather than see them as a variable. To foster human growth, kantianism is necessary. 

However, Kantianism has limitations. Ram Neta, the professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, endorses rational thinking but states that it “requires not merely cognitive effort, but also the cooperation of the world.” With global politics scrambled in the status quo, it is clear that to purely achieve deontological thinking for the entire world is almost unattainable. Every benefit of this philosophy is of an ideal world that may never exist, thus limiting our view to the actual reality of human society. A counterargument many utilitarians offer against deontology stems from the Criterion of Proportionality, which essentially states that the entire basis of kantianism is dependent on the differentiation between good and bad. To know whether an intent is “good,” people resort to basic calculational rational thinking. An action is only good if it aims to help people, which just resorts back to utilitarianism. However, this claim has a fatal flaw as the definitions of the words “good” and “bad” have no definite definition by deontologists, meaning that this entire argument falls apart. Volition can only be measured using utility by utilitarians and no one else because good and bad are subjective towards different morality measures that are provided by different philosophers. Kantianism is still different because it aims to help everyone, not maximize the help given, meaning it is still a preferred framework. Overall, deontology is the solution towards the issues that utility decision-making creates.