It may seem that very few moral arguments hold their significance when viewed from all perspectives.  Religious doctrine breaks down when viewed by outsiders. Divine command theory is not meaningful from the eyes of a nonbeliever.  Doing what feels aligned to some sort of intrinsic conscience might not hold any moral significance when taken from the mind of psychopath, or even from the viewpoint of someone born into a belief structure defined by a different culture and upbringing.  In fact, many bases of morality create decisional paradoxes that prohibit any true definition of right and wrong and force action on the lesser of two evils.  Utilitarianism uses this reality of the grey zone in an often polarized spectrum to provide a framework for moral reasoning, provided that the wellbeing of the maximum number of participants is preserved.  Yet, in doing so, not all parties are considered.  Whenever the fate of a group is determined by the needs of the majority, equality is lost—equality which must exist in an ideal moral philosophy.

But what is utility and how is it distinguished in a multi-dimensional array of diverse personalities?  Utility is nothing more than a measure of usefulness.  Any act that is in some way beneficial to oneself, another, or a group is definably righteous.  That which maximizes this utility is the greatest moral course of action according to utilitarianism.  However, like the proverbial garbage,  what is utilizable to one might not be utilizable at an equivalent magnitude to another.  In fact, the action might oppose the intended benefit to some inauspicious being.  Therefore, moral reasoning based on maximum utility can be tedious and virtually impossible to predict.

While determining such an aggregation of happiness becomes more complex as the population of those affected by some action increases, it is still very difficult to make a case against utilitarianism ideology.  Certainly, one might assume that any effort to preserve happiness dissuades others from distributing justice in the case of some wrongdoing, but the maximization of utility itself is justice.  If justice is the antithesis of evil then, like fire and water, only the opposing forces can extinguish each other.  An eye for an eye leaves you with two blind men.  Society is only hurt by this sense of equality in wrongdoings.  This is where utilitarianism prospers.  It recognizes the value in goodness and the humanitarian strength in limiting pain and suffering—even in those that seemingly deserve the just affliction.  Very little, if anything, is more moral than doing what is best for everyone.

It was the forefathers of the United States who sought to provide this very idea to the field of politics.  Recognizing the unfairness in lacking a political voice, they adopted a democratic system to provide all people an equal say in the processes of government.  Like utilitarians, the forefathers hoped to provide an avenue for maximizing the utility of the greatest number of people.  Liberty birthed capitalism and democracy—a right to achieve maximum production of utility and provide for the majority of those who will utilize it best.  In many regards utilitarianism and democracy are merely reincarnations of each other and their natural issues are commutative.

Like any form of utility, the value of some political policy is variable depending on the perspective of those affected.  Whether a policy is supported by the majority or not, its impact may change from person to person and can certainly have a negative effect on those in the minority.  From a utilitarian point of view, it is morally reasonable to pass a traditional marriage law if it is supported by the majority.  The total gain in utility outweighs any losses.   But ultimately, those against such a bill do not have enough members for their voices to be heard and therefore their birthright to equality is destroyed by a simple numbers game.

As the underrepresentation of minorities is the downfall of democracy, an underrepresentation of those outside the population with the greatest opportunity to maximize utility is the ultimate failure of utilitarianism.  Underlying the humanitarian façade of utilitarianism is a capitalistic drive for moral significance.  There are things to be said about the socioeconomic gaps created by capitalism but none compare to the unrepresented fates of the morally unworthy.  This population includes anyone not in need enough to be saved nor poor enough to be considered worthy nor stable enough to provide the security to a beneficiary that the goodness will be passed along—as if goodness is some kind of currency looking to be multiplied throughout the moral economy.  Why give to the unwelcoming drug addict when her neighbor next door is a struggling mother of five who shows hope for redemption and appreciates all the help she receives?  Any utilitarian would answer this question with simply, “giving to the mother is where my help will do the most good.”

Now there is nothing wrong with helping a mother in need.  But there is something wrong with passing someone in need along the street because there might be someone else in more need further down the road.  Morality cannot be defined by some summation of happiness or a Forbes Top 40 list of happiness providers.  It is not about doing what is best, but rather simply doing something.  If everyone passed that man in need along the street in hopes of better allocating their resources, then that man would suffer forever for no better reason then someone focusing on silly calculations of an ambiguous measurement tool.   If everyone were to instead focus on what they can do with no discrimination of the needy, then all would be accounted for and no time would be wasted basing a decision on maximizing collective utility.  This is when equality becomes truly equal—for there are no minorities, no majorities, only people.  And when the people are what matter, everyone wins.