The best known moral theory which develops consequentialism is Utilitarianism. This phi- losophy was developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), one of the most original and extraordinary thinkers of his day. Bentham believed in, among other things, suffrage (votes) for women. He was also a prison reformer and advocated a legal system based on his theory.
Utilitarianism looks at the consequences of actions balancing the relative advantages and disadvantages of a particular course of action from the standpoint of creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians hold that it is not the capacity for rational thought which enables human beings to decide on the right course of action, it is a person’s basic drives of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. This is known as ‘the princi- ple of utility’. For Utilitarians the assessment of how much happiness can be drawn from a particular action as against how much pain, is central; if more happiness is gained for more people then that is the right course of action. Each person’s happiness in this under- standing is the same as anyone else’s; in other words, let each person’s happiness count as one. This principle was developed further by Bentham’s disciple, J. S. Mill, who argued that actions should be judged on the greatest good for the greatest number, which leads us to two principles informing Utilitarianism:
G a principle of justice – let everyone count as one and no one’s happiness count as more than that;
G a principle of utility – to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. For social work there is a constant tension between these two principles.
54
A family resource centre has been given an increase in its funding (£50,000) for the next year. After much consultation with the local community two proposals have emerged: G Proposal 1. To renovate the children’s play area (which has been closed on health and
safety grounds) so that all the children in the community can play safely at the centre. G Proposal 2. To renovate part of the play area for all the children but use the rest of the
money for an outreach worker to work with the local Somali community to encourage greater use of the centre for all children in the area.
Comment
Is the point of social work to create the greatest amount of happiness in the situations we are faced with, or are other criteria more important, for example creating as much equality as possible, ensuring social justice and fairness for service users? In the case above it would seem that Proposal 1 does open up the resource to all the children in the commu- nity (the justice principle). However, Proposal 2 questions how effective this is if some groups in the community do not feel their families can use the centre (the utility principle).
Comment
Traditionally, Utilitarianism has considered that any decision should account for the bal- ance of pleasure over pain. In looking at the actions of the care staff, we assess in what ways those actions contribute to a balance of pleasure over pain experienced by Mrs Davies and all those involved with her in the home. This can be defined as act utilitarian- ism. We are evaluating the action or actions of the individual or group of individuals and quantifying the balance of pleasure (benefits) over pain (costs).
Alternatively, we might suggest to the owner that she develop some guidelines/procedures which could increase the balance of pleasure over pain. In this respect, guidelines about the treatment of service users with senile dementia could be developed and then assessed as to how they minimise harm to all concerned. This is known as rule utilitarianism. We are assessing a principle, based here upon guidelines, to see what the relative benefits and costs are when it is enacted.
However, there are a number of problems with the utilitarian approach. Measuring the bal- ance of pleasure over pain tells us nothing about whose pleasure or pain we are accounting for. If we are measuring the total amount of pleasure promoted, whose pleasure do we take into account, for example Mrs Davies, the care staff, the matron, the other residents, Mrs Davies’s relatives? To measure the total happiness produced from one course of action, then, we need to measure all those whose happiness is affected by lying to Mrs Davies. This is a purely mathematical procedure but is happiness easily quantified? How do we measure the relative happiness of, say, Mrs Davies who expects her husband to be coming soon
55
Let us now apply the Utilitarian principle to Mrs Davies’s situation as outlined previously. In considering this situation two of the questions a Utilitarian is likely to consider are: G What would be the consequences of lying to Mrs Davies?
G What might be the options to achieve the least harmful or most advantageous out- come overall for all involved with Mrs Davies?
A C T I V I T Y
3 . 7
If you were the manager what course of action would you take and give your reasons for your decision?
against the care staff that no longer have to deal with the distress of counselling Mrs Davies when she experiences the grief of losing her husband again?
This led some Utilitarians, as we identified above, to propose that every person’s happi- ness counts for one, i.e. that it has the same value. This was developed by Mill to suggest the greatest good for the greatest number. However, if this is the case then we can assume that the power of the majority in any situation may well win over the needs of minorities. Would we want to live in such a society?
Let us use an example from social work in Wales, although the problem could apply to any situation where there is a linguistic minority.
Your local social services department has instituted a policy to provide information to local service users about the services they have on offer. The area covers both a rural and an urban population. Those living in the urban area form the majority and predominantly use English as their first language; those in the rural area, who form the minority, use Welsh as their first language. Your social services office decides to put most of its resources into providing leaflets and adverts in the local press within the urban areas, as this will affect the majority of likely service users, and they argue that people in the rural areas speak English anyway. This could be justified quite clearly if you took a Utilitarian approach but it would be unfair on first-language Welsh speakers. In this case the needs of all service users must be accounted for so that all receive the information in the language of their choice, which is likely to improve overall take-up of all services.
As in the previous case study we are again faced with two competing imperatives: G On the one hand we have a principle which urges us to produce as much good as possible
(utility) from this perspective so we distribute the leaflets to as many people as possible. G On the other hand the second imperative requires us to distribute this good as fairly as
possible (justice) and ensure that the leaflets are also distributed to those whose first language is Welsh.
Often these imperatives of utility and justice clash as we saw in the case of the family resource centre above and therefore taking a majority approach to the distribution of information in this case would fail the test of justice and fair treatment.