From class discussions and reading various blog posts I have deducted that most of the class finds at least some flaw or problem with utilitarianism. I find it interesting then, that when voting for which charity we wanted to give the money to, Evidence Action – which is, from what I can tell, the most cost effective charity that will help the most people in need of all the nominated charities – won by a landslide. This is the charity, of the ones that were nominated, that a Utilitarian would most likely pick. This tells me that the problem most of us, including myself, have with utilitarianism isn’t that it aims to help the most people, but that it could potentially harm people. One person could be sacrificed for the benefit of many in the eyes of a strict utilitarian. Perhaps a better moral theory is a less extreme utilitarianism, a utilitarianism where the aim is to help the most people possible, only if no one is seriously harmed in the process. Of course, “seriously harmed” is extremely ambiguous, but I think the point gets across. The Giving Game was a great example of this; our class chose to go the utilitarian route. I don’t think we would utilitarians though, if someone had to be seriously harmed to help those in need. This act of utilitarianism did not require anything from us, which is another reason we chose it. Utilitarianism asks a lot of people, so perhaps a less extreme version wouldn’t require that the benefit of others must be maximized, but only increased in some degree.
The problem you stated about utilitarianism potentially harming people because certain causes would be ignored is definitely a valid point. However, I think that utilitarianism is only theoretically problematic. In the real world, it’s impossible for everyone to decide upon the most effective charity; people’s sentiments and bias sway them towards certain charities and away from others. Even if everyone tried to pick the most effective charity, there would still be numerous different causes being helped. Not being chosen would indicate that a charity has glaring problems with efficiency, in which they could simply change their methods to increase efficiency and gain funding.
I think the same things can be said about socialism. It sounds great that everybody will have access to the same resources, but its not “fair” for a doctor, who has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their education, to be taxed at a much higher rate than someone who works at McDonalds. I think the issue of fairness is the same in utilitarianism. Its not fair for the one person to be killed to save 5 people, even though it is for the “greater good.”