Utilitarianism is the belief that our goal should be to maximize the pleasure and minimize the pain of the most people possible. While we can’t satisfy everyone (two goals could be opposed or we don’t have enough resources,) a utilitarian believes that we can create a sort of moral calculation to figure out whether one action or another will have a greater net benefit.
This would mean that a small benefit over a large population will likely be more desirable for a utilitarian: say I give 100 people 1 dollar each (a total of $100) instead of giving 50 dollars to 1 person (total $50). This is desirable because it has a greater monetary value, just spread out. There are of course different types of utilitarianism, but the goal shared between all of them is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Egoism is essentially the functional opposite to utilitarianism. Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is still the goal, but it only applies to one subject: me (or you, obviously). This might initially come off as the philosophy of a Machiavellian a-hole, but many people subscribe to some sort of Egoism. So let’s see these two philosophies in action. And what better way than with a classic.
The Trolley Problem: I have no clue what a trolley is, but presumably it’s something similar to a train. It also doesn’t matter what it is, so long as it is fast enough to kill.
Anyways, a trolley is heading towards a track with 5 people on it. If you do nothing, these 5 people will be killed. However, you are next to a lever that would swerve the trolley to a side track with only one person on it. With only this information, it makes sense for a utilitarian to crank the lever and save 5 people (and kill 1 person). As for an egoist, it’s a bit of a toss-up. If no one ever finds out you were there, then might as well let it happen so that you don’t get grime on your hands from moving the lever. Or maybe you want to be known as a hero, which would be beneficial for your quest for world domination. Or maybe you want to let it be, because you don’t want to risk criminal liability for killing one person?
So what’s the right decision? If I’ve done my job right, I’ve just painted the utilitarian as a neutral, if not good, person, while the egoist comes off as a self-centered jerk. But obviously, there’s more to the equation.
The Trolley Problem, Redux: Same scenario, except the one person on the sidetracks is your mom. Or your dad. Or your friend. This is where the characterization of an egoist as a cold-hearted monster fades. While some egoists might act the same as before, the truth is that you benefit from these people. You might not care about your parents, but a smart egoist cares about what they do for you. An egoist acts in their own interest, but our interests tend to involve our friends and family. Your dream paradise probably involves other people who care about you, and you can’t do that if you don’t have anyone. (Note: of course Kant would be disappointed that you’re treating these people as means towards the end of your own happiness, but Kant is dead)
The utilitarian’s choice, however, would be the same as before. Bye Dad!
And choosing a utilitarian option for the classic trolley problem and being an egoist for the modified is what most people would do. Most people are impersonal utilitarians, but personal egoists. And it makes sense. When we have nothing on the line, no benefits or negatives except marginal ones, then what other metric is there to measure by except to help everyone? But when our own lives are impacted, we rationally choose the greatest benefit for us.
In a bit of a side note, this is the dilemma with governments and individuals. Assuming we’re only dealing with national issues and not other countries, a government should aim to benefit the most people. And that occasionally means that one person or group has to suffer (not necessarily in a terrible way, but say in political parties when the other party wins) in order to maximize the happiness of everyone. But when our own lives are on the line, and we can’t really experience other people’s lives and experiences as vividly as our own, then we mainly only know that we are suffering. If a personal egoist fails to recognize the greater benefit (for a controversial example, as an Asian I would want to abolish Affirmative Action, but it’s very reasonable to assume that society’s net benefit is greater), then it is in conflict with something that is obvious to an impersonal utilitarian.
Let’s say that we have another trolley problem. It’s the redux where your loved one is on the sidetracks, but instead of you pulling the lever, it’s the government, or just a random person. Of course from a utilitarian standpoint, it makes sense to pull the lever. But to you, a single person, a major person in your life has been killed. Even if the 5 people are other people’s loved ones, it takes lots of effort to overcome personal egoism.
