Chapter I
1. Utilitarianism has taken on many different faces since it was first proposed in the eighteenth century.
2. The form it takes for the individual is largely dependent on the type of individual that is interpreting it.
3. For example, an individual who is of the highest ethical and moral calibre would pursue Utilitarianism in its purest form, the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and that the greatest good is to be determined by consequences.
4. And an individual of a low moral or low ethical character may view Utilitarianism in a purely hedonistic light, a thing is good purely because of the pleasure it can give to me, and any other consideration is irrelevant.
5. These two views are a million miles apart, and yet they are the two ends of the spectrum in Utilitarianism over its history spanning more than two centuries.
6. As with every ideology, extreme hypotheticals have been proposed that supposedly show the shortcomings of Utilitarianism.
7. One of the most famous hypotheticals is one that says if five people need organ transplants to save their lives, they will definitely die if they do not get them, and will definitely live if they do get them, that it is a greater utility, a greater good to kill one person and harvest his or her organs, to save the five.
8. Just like Schrodinger's Cat, it is a hypothetical that is ludicrous for far more reasons than the obvious.
9. Every positive ideology must always be influenced by what is reasonably acceptable in the society in which a person lives.
10. The donor hypothetical would indeed expose a shortcoming in the highest form of Utilitarianism, but only to a theoretician, or in a world that is so completely different to that which we currently live in, or to an individual who will swallow any comment just so long as it is said loudly enough or charismatically enough.
11. Another commonly held argument against the highest form of Utilitarianism can actually be a strong argument in favour of it.
12. The argument is that a Utilitarian cannot be a good friend because in applying principles, Utilitarianism must be impartial.
13. In practice, if properly directed, this impartiality would manifest itself in its opposite, as greater empathy;
14. Because Utilitarianism in practice, just like any other ideology, must not deal in absolutes - absolutes and intellect do not go together - we are forced into the consideration that when dealing with an individual or group inside a Utilitarian ideal, we must not be impartial to them, but rather we must apprehend a given scenario as though the individual or group are our friends or family, because they are to someone, and so must be treated as though they matter as much to us as if they were family or friends;
15. The human race is given to extremes, and with the exception of those few cold fish in this world, a human cannot treat a friend or family member impartially in a life and death situation, and with a want to define such an important consideration in Utilitarianism, the human animal would take it to its extreme in the opposite, but in an enlightened Utilitarianism, it would not be as much of an opposite as it first appears.
16. What this does is lead us to a far more intellectual form of Utilitarianism
17. And a form of Utilitarianism that is slightly more difficult to define inside the common idea of what Utilitarianism has been considered to be.
18. But to bring it back to the principle point, Utilitarianism is whatever a person chooses to make it.
19. And the form an individual interprets will always reflect the sort of individual he or she is, be it deeply altruistic and intellectual, philanthropic, which is so very different from altruistic (and different from intellectual for that matter), or purely hedonistic or hypocritical.
20. We all engage in our own form of Utilitarianism, and it is one of the chief avenues by which we can determine who a person really is, and also one of the most reliable.