MODULE III Utilitarianism
TIME ALLOTMENT 2 weeks
INSTRUCTOR Teresa B. Lopo, PhD.
FACEBOOK Terry B. Lopo
EMAIL [Link]@[Link]
CELL NUMBER 09466740436
I. OVERVIEW
This module is a tour of the ethical lay of the land of utilitarianism. Explore the ethical theory of utilitarianism,
founded by Jeremy Bentham and John Staurt Mill. Articulate what utilitarian utilitarianism is, critique utilitarianism
and make use of utilitarianism in a practical way.
II. TARGETED COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME
CLO 6 Show respect towards gender, culture, physical, and mental differences through proper
language, actions, and thinking
CLO 7 Demonstrate qualities of an empowered individual in its personal and professional life.
CLO 10 Portray disciplines as having multi-cultural origin that respects diverse culture, gender
preference, and disabilities.
III. TARGETED TOPIC LEARNING OUTCOME
At the end of the lesson, the students will be able to:
1. Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics;
2. Distinguish between two utilitarian models; and
3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international scenarios
IV. ASSESSMENT
Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and that all actions are
directed toward pleasure? Explain your answer using a specific example.
V. TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITIES
A. ENGAGE
If an act benefits a lot of people, even though some many suffer as a consequence, was it a moral act?
B. EXPLORE
Discover the ethical theory of utilitarianism.
C. EXPLAIN
Explain the theory of utilitarianism according to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
D. ELABORATE
Do you agree that the greatest happiness produced become the basis in determining whether a certain act is
moral? If yes, why? If no, why?
E. EVALUATE
Everyone loves music including you. Let us presume that you love a particularly loud music and you have lots
of neighbors nearby. Show the cost and benefit of such activity between you and your neighbor.
Module III
Utilitarianism
I. Learning Objectives:
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics;
2. Distinguish between two utilitarian models; and
3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international
scenarios.
II. Introduction:
On January 25, 2015, the 84th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police operation at Tukanalipao,
Mamasapano in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan Exodus, it was intended to serve an arrest warrant for Zulkifli
Bin Hir or Marwan, a Malaysian terrorist and bomb-maker who had a $5 million bounty on his head. This mission
eventually led to clash between the Philippine National Police’s (PNP) SAF, on the one hand, and the Bangsamoro
Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police
operation was “successful” b
ecause of the death of Marwan, the firefight that ensued claimed sixty-seven lives
including forty-four SAF troopers, eighteen MILF fighters and five civilians. However, the relatively high number of
SAF members killed in this operation caught the attention of many including Philippine media and the legislature.
In one of the Congress investigations that followed this tragic mission, then Senate President Franklin Drilon
and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public hearing of an audio recording of an alleged conversation that
attempted to cover up the massacre of the PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of these
recordings as evidence under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law protects only the recording and interception of private
communications. Drilon cited Section 4 of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) and explained that “any
communication of spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any part
thereof, or any information therein contained/obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding
sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative
hearing or investigation.” S enator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate committee on public order and
dangerous drugs, argued otherwise. Senator Poe’s response leads us to ask: Can the government infringe individual
rights? If it is morally permissible for the government to infringe individual rights, when can the government do so?
Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual rights when considering the greatest benefit for the greatest
number of people?
This case exposes the aftermath of the Mamasapano incident and the Senate investigations. The Senate
inquiry proceedings raised questions on the possibility of wire tapping and the intrusion to one’s right to privacy.
While the 1987 Philippine Constitution does protect one’s right to private communication, it did provide some
exemptions to its inviolability. These exemptions include a lawful order of the court and/or issues involving public
safety and order. In fact, RA 4200 (or Anti-Wire Tapping Law) and RA 9372 (or the Human Security Act of 2007)
both provided exemptions to the inviolability of the right to privacy in instances of treason, espionage, rebellion,
and sedition. While this is certainly moral and legal issue, can it also constitute a moral concern? On what instances
is wiretapping morally permissible and on what instances is it not morally permissible?
Lesson/Unit/Study Guide/Notes Utilitarianism
When considering the moral permissibility of wiretapping, we calculate the costs and benefits of wiretapping.
If we calculate the costs and benefits of our actions, then we are considering an ethical theory that gives premium
to the consequences of actions as the basis of morality and as such is utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism -is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination of right
behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s consequences. This means that pleasure is good and that the
goodness of an action is determined by its usefulness. Its root word is “utility”, which refers to the usefulness
of the consequences of one’s action and behavior.
When we argue that wiretapping is permissible because doing so results in better public safety, then we are
arguing in a utilitarian way. It is utilitarian because we argue that some individual rights can be sacrificed for the
sake of the greater happiness of the many.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the two foremost utilitarian thinkers. Their
system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions. This means that the goodness or the badness of an
action is based on whether it is useful in contributing to a specific purpose for the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that the moral value of actions and decisions is based solely or
greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the usefulness of results that determines whether the action
or behavior is good or bad. While this is the case, not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian.
For Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a way of understanding the results of people’s actions. Specifically, they
are interested on whether these actions contribute or not to the total amount of resulting happiness in the world.
The utilitarian value pleasure and happiness; this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its promotion of
happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness as
experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of some individual’s rights.
The Principle of Utility
In the book, “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” (1789), Jeremy Bentham begins by
arguing that our actions are governed by two “sovereign masters”-- which he calls pleasure and pain. These
“masters” are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what ought to be done and not;
they fasten our choices to their throne.
The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure and pain. This principle
refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like
saying that in our everyday actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful. On the other hand,
the principles also refers to pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This
means that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier.
Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of utility, Bentham equates
happiness with pleasure.
Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as happiness and, consequently,
happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is intended pleasure and what makes us happy
is the privation of pleasure. The things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those that produce
unhappiness and pain are bad.
Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid doing things because
they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable, Mill explains, it is because they are inherently pleasurable in
themselves or they eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Bentham and Mill
characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever produced happiness or pleasure and the
avoidance of pain. The next step is to understand the nature of pleasure and pain to identify a criterion for
distinguishing pleasures and to calculate the resultant pleasure or pain.
What Bentham identified as the natural moral preferability of pleasure, Mill refers to as a theory of life. If we
consider, for example, what moral agents do and how they assess their actions, then it is hard to deny the pursuit
for happiness and the avoidance of pain. For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain
are not only important principles--- they are in fact the only principle in assessing an action’s morality. Why is it
justifiable to wiretap private conversations in instances of treason, rebellion, espionage, and sedition? Why is it
noble to build schools and hospitals? Why is it good to improve the quality of life and the like? There is no answer
than the principle of utility, that is, to increase happiness and decrease pain.
Four Theses of Utilitarianism
Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is determined solely by their
consequences.
Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that pleasure or
happiness is the good that we seek and that we should seek.
Maximalism: A right action produces the greatest good consequences and the least bad.
Universalism: The consequences to be considered are those of everyone affected, and everyone equally.
Principle of the Greatest Number
Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone and
independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high, intellectual, or in
other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences of our
actions.
Utilitarianism can lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone; it cannot be all
about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a moral good. If we are the only
ones who are made happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not
dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone’s happiness, including our own, as the standard by which
to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that
aim to improve the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s happiness, in fact, the
greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Justice and Moral Rights
Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit fort he greatest happiness of
the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
Mills expounds that the above mentioned rights referred are related to the interests that serve general
happiness. The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others are justified because they
contribute to the general good. This means that society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives
knowing that their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it. Extending this concept to
animals, they have rights because of the effect of such principles on the sum total of happiness that follows as a
consequence of instituting and protecting their interests. It is not accidental, therefore, that utilitarians are also the
staunchest defenders of animal rights. A right is justifiable in utilitarian principles in as much as they produce an
overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation.
Utilitarians argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the category of rights is
directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests. All of these rights are predicated on the person’s right
to life.
In this context, our participation in government and social interactions can be explained by the principle of
utility and be clarified by Mill’s consequentialism. Mill further associates utilitarianism with the possession of legal
and moral rights. We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates different
kinds of goods that he characterized as rights and are protected by law. Mill understands that legal rights are
neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject to some exceptions.
Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that when legal rights are
not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, then these rights need neither be observed,
nor be respected. This is like saying that the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even objectionable.
III. Learning Activities
Define the following key term:
1. Greatest Happiness
2. Utility
3. Theory of life
4. Moral right
5. Hedonism
6. Maximalism
7. Universalism
IV. Assessment
Answer the following questions:
1. Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, and that all actions
are
directed toward pleasure? Explain your answer using a specific example.
2. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans, than to build a hospital
because there are fewer sick people?
V. Enrichment Activity
Does utilitarianism questions individual rights? What is violating the civil rights of a minority increases the
sum total of pleasure of the majority? Explain.
VII. Assignment:
Go online and look for an instance where animal rights and welfare can be considered an issue. What is
the issue that you have identified in relation to the concepts of utilitarianism? Detail your findings and
opinion.