A Utilitarian Response to Society’s Desire to Convert Other People to Their Point of View

Throughout the history of mankind, people have tried to change other peoples’ opinions; to convert other people to their point of view. This has always puzzled me because I believe that people have a right to their opinion, no matter how incorrect I think it may be. In this paper I intend to analyze, using utilitarian philosophy, why many people feel the need to convert other people to their belief system.

Utilitarian philosophy, which was first espoused by Jeremy Bentham during the eighteenth century in his book Principles of Morals and Legislation, in its simplest form states that a moral action is an action which brings to most happiness to the greatest amount of people. This theory is called the "greatest happiness principle" and is explained by John Stuart Mill in his work Utilitarianism:

…the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By ‘happiness’ is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness,’ pain, and the privation of pleasure. (311)

In addition to the greatest happiness principle, utilitarian theory is based upon the idea that the only possible end is happiness; that no one intends to be unhappy or to bring pain upon themselves. Even people who are said to work at being depressed (depression being the generally accepted opposite of happiness) are in fact seeking pleasure, for their depression brings a perverse sort of happiness. However, Bentham’s utilitarianism was non-qualitative, stating that the quality of the pleasure was of no importance, only the quantity mattered. Therefore, he would consider five hours of banging rocks together better than two hours of choral music. John Stuart Mill introduced the qualitative aspect to utilitarianism, arriving at what was later called ideal utilitarianism. After Mill’s time philosophers distinguished two separate views of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism states that each and every action a person performs should be judged as to whether it abides by the greatest happiness principle. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, asserts that general rules for society should be determined using the greatest happiness principle that will secure the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

During the history of society both beliefs and cultures have been extremely diverse and often opposing ideologies and philosophies have come into conflict. Two thousand years ago it was the fledgling Christians and the Romans, one thousand years ago it was the Europeans versus the Muslims, and today there are too many private skirmishes to count. Regardless of the time period, many people are interested in converting other people to their point of view, often forcibly. This insistence upon intellectual conformity has never sat well with me. As a child I was raised to believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that just because I may believe otherwise does not mean that their opinion is wrong or that it is my duty to instruct them in the supposed error of their ways. Yet I see many people who feel otherwise. Many Christians are of the opinion that they have been given a divine command to search out people who do not believe as they do and convince them to embrace Jesus Christ or suffer eternal damnation. Some radical sects of Islam do not even attempt to convert non-believers, rather they feel it is their holy duty to conduct a jihad against the unbelievers and in the end, kill them. This intolerance of differing beliefs has been present throughout history and continues today. The most prominent case of this in the United States in recent times that I know of was McCarthyism and the Red Scare in the 1950s. There was a pervasive fear of communism that led to trials, investigations, and widespread paranoia. Almost as a whole the country felt it was their duty to search out communist sympathizers and show them the error of their ways.

Why do people feel it is their duty to impose their belief systems, whether it is religious, political, sociological, economic, et cetera, upon others? In some religious cases, people do so because they feel that they have been given a command to do so by their god. Other cases are not as clear but I believe that they can be explained well using utilitarian philosophy.

To put it simply, people attempt to change another person’s point of view to their own because they believe it will make the other person happier. After all, supposedly a person cannot be truly happy if they proceed through life with incorrect notions. Since people derive pleasure from being correct the proselytizer sees this action as a moral or good action. The morality of his or her action is further supported because being happy is everyone’s goal in life, as John Stuart Mill says in Utilitarianism:

According to the ‘greatest happiness principle’… the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality. (314-315)

If a belief is correct, in the end it must bring more happiness than an incorrect belief. Although believing in an afterlife where everything is perfect may bring you great comfort in life, especially if you are having problems, if your belief is incorrect it will bring you pain and displeasure in the end after you have died (assuming there is a conscious afterlife). On account of the fact that the person who is attempting to change another person’s beliefs is convinced that their opinion is correct, they believe that it will bring that person greater pleasure than an incorrect belief. Because it brings greater pleasure to the same amount of people – in this example, a single person – it is a moral action.

Utilitarianism defines an action that brings the most pleasure to the largest amount of people as moral. However, a person can believe that their action is moral under utilitarian grounds while actually bringing displeasure to people. Although the action is not moral they see it as such and are able to justify it as moral. This disparity between actual happiness and intended happiness is one of the problems that can arise with utilitarianism, or virtually any philosophy. A person can believe that they are being moral and bringing happiness to a large amount of people by converting them to a supposedly correct point of view while in fact bringing displeasure to their subject.

Upon act utilitarian grounds I personally believe that in most cases attempting to change a person’s beliefs is immoral. Exceptions to this would be when the person believes in something that is detrimental to their health or someone else’s, or similar circumstances. When you state that you are correct and that another person is incorrect, you inflict pain upon that person by saying that they are wrong. There is a chance that you will bring happiness to the person by convincing them of your point of view but I believe that the majority of the time, especially when the subject is religion or another deeply seated belief, you will fail to do so. By performing an action that brings displeasure you are being immoral. If you could justify that action by saying that it brings greater pleasure to a greater number of people than that individual, you could justify it. The only scenario in which I can see this as a possibility is if you are harassing a person for the profound entertainment of others. Then it could be justified as moral using the utilitarian philosophy.

Throughout this paper I have not specifically addressed particular beliefs, although I have mentioned them in passing, because all beliefs can be attacked by other people. The belief most often attacked, however, is a person’s personal religious beliefs. I feel very deeply that a person’s religious beliefs should not be attacked in any way, shape, or form. According to utilitarian philosophy, attacking a person’s religious beliefs or affiliations is extremely immoral because that is attacking what is often the foundation of a person’s entire belief system. Such an attack would cause great displeasure and unhappiness to the target of the attack.

Utilitarian philosophy has given me better insight into the proselytizer’s mind by helping me to understand how they could believe that their actions are moral. Prior to writing this paper I was unable to rationalize actions such as these without resorting to the belief in a divine commandment. Now I see that attempting to change another person’s beliefs can be rationalized without falling back to such a position. I do feel, however, that these immoral actions will continue as long as people engage in what I believe to be misguided logic and thoughtlessness.

This paper was written for my PHL-100 course, Introduction to Philosophy. The page numbers refer to the text book we were using, the fourth edition of Fundamentals of Philosophy, by Stewart and Blocker.