Critique of Utilitarianism in Light of Gigerenzer's Objections in Cognitive Science

Mirahmadi, Seyyed Mahdi; Fazeli, Seyyed Ahmad

doi:10.22054/wph.2025.80219.2247

Critique of Utilitarianism in Light of Gigerenzer's Objections in Cognitive Science

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

seyyed Mahdi Mirahmadi ¹

Seyyed Ahmad Fazeli ²

¹ PhD student in Philosophy, Faculty of Theology, University of Qom, Iran

² Associate Professor of Philosophy, Faculty of Theology, University of Qom, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22054/wph.2025.80219.2247

Abstract

Utilitarianism, as one of the normative ethical theories, has always been a subject of debate among philosophers. In its classical approaches, this theory posits that an action is morally good if it brings the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people. Ethicists have consistently raised objections to the fundamental components of this theory, as evident in the works of Frankena, J.J.C. Smart, and others. These objections have been primarily formulated from a philosophical perspective. On the other hand, decision-making theories in cognitive science and cognitive psychology are pursued through the lens of utility maximization and satisficing approaches. In one of his articles, Gerd Gigerenzer briefly touches on some of the shortcomings of consequentialist theory from the cognitive science perspective. This research aims to explain utilitarianism and decision-making theories more precisely, while critically examining Gigerenzer's objections. It appears that, based on the theory of utility maximization, the realization of the components of classical utilitarianism—particularly Bentham's utilitarianism—is unattainable. Moreover, the calculation of such outcomes, whether by the human mind or computational machines, as generally indicated in Gigerenzer's account, is impossible. Additionally, the existence of multiple criteria and personal disagreements in achieving and maximizing good are among the factors that, from the perspective of cognitive science, render such calculations unfeasible.

Keywords

Utilitarianism

cognitive science

utility maximization theory

satisficing theory

Gerd Gigerenzer

Subjects

philosophy

Bentham, J (2000). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (Batoche Books, 1781). Kitchener, ON: Batoche Books.

Borchert, D. M (2006). Sidgwick, Henry. In Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2nd ed.). Macmillan.

Briggs, R. A (2023). Normative theories of rational choice: Expected utility. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rational-choice-theories/

Chappell, T., & Crisp, R (1998). Utilitarianism. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved April 24, 2024.

Driver, J., & Loeb, D (2008). Moral heuristics and consequentialism. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), Moral psychology, Volume 2 (pp. 31-40). London: MIT Press.

Driver, J (2009). The history of utilitarianism. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/‌entries/utilitarianism-history/

Edwards, W (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(6), 380-417. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061792

Gigerenzer, G (2008). Moral intuition = fast and frugal heuristics? In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), Moral psychology, Volume 2 (pp. 1-26). London: MIT Press.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R (2000). When choice is demotivating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995

Hinman, L. M (2008). Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory (4th ed.). University of San Diego.

Mill, J. S (2001). Utilitarianism (Batoche Books, 1863). Kitchener, ON: Batoche Books.

Rachlin, H., Battalio, R., Kagel, J., & Green, L (1981). Maximization theory in behavioral psychology. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 371-417. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00008743

Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178-1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1178

Simon, H. A (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.1037/‌h0042769

Simon, H. A (1960). The new science of management decision. New York: Harper Press.

Smart, J. J. C (1973). Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge University Press.

Sunstein, C. R (2008). Fast, frugal, and (sometimes) wrong. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), Moral psychology, Volume 2 (pp. 27-30). London: MIT Press.

References [In Persian]

Kavandi, Sahar, Jahed, Mohsen, and Arshadi Bidgoli, Mohammad Hossein. “The Calculation Problem in Utilitarianism: A Critique and Review of J.J.C. Smart’s Theory.” Philosophical Researches, No. 93, Vol. 8 (2014): 195–216. [In Persian]

Sternberg, Robert J., and Sternberg, Karin. Cognitive Psychology, translated by Seyyed Kamal Khezari and Elaheh Hejazi. Tehran: SAMT Publications, 2022 (Fourth Edition). [In Persian]

Shirzad, Peak-Herfeh. “The Dangers of Benevolence: Explanation and Analysis of the Principle of Maximizing Good in Normative Ethics and John Rawls’ Critique of It.” Philosophy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2013): 125–144. [In Persian]

‌