Utilitarianism
CHAPTER II
WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM?
• It is an ethical theory that argues that the goodnes of pleasure
and the determination of right behavior is based on the
usefulness of the actions consequences.
• It claims that “ones action and behavior are GOOD in as
much as they are directed toward the experience of the
greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number of
persons.”
• It comes from the root word “UTILITY”, which refers to the
USEFULNESS of the consequences of one’s action and
behavior.
Other definition:
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right
from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of
consequentialism.
CONSEQUENTIALISM - Consequentialism is
the branch of ethics that holds that the rightness
or wrongness of an action is dependent on its
results. Hence, to a consequential moralist,
an action can only be said to be morally right
when its consequences are good. Otherwise, it
will be immoral.
Other definition:
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism
because it also focuses on the results of an
action before determining its morality. In fact,
just like consequentialists, utilitarians believe
that an action is considered being moral if it
benefits the highest number of people involved.
In both, satisfaction is accomplished in case
people are contented with an action (Solomon,
R.C., 2009)
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism holds that what’s ethical (or moral) is
whatever maximizes TOTAL happiness while minimizing
total pain.
The word TOTAL is important here: if you act ethically
according to utilitarianism, you’re not
maximizing your happiness, but the total happiness of the
whole human race.
The main idea of utilitarian ethics is: secure the greatest
good for the greatest number.
UTILITARIANISM
It is the only moral framework that can
be used to justify military force or war.
However, because we cannot predict the
future, it’s difficult to know with
certainty whether the consequences of
our actions will be good or bad. This is
one of the limitations of utilitarianism.
Limitation of UTILITARIANISM
Limitation of UTILITARIANISM
So, although utilitarianism is
arguably the most reason-based
approach to determining right and
wrong, it has obvious limitations.
Limitation of UTILITARIANISM
Another example:
The Trolley Problem
Imagine there is a trolley heading toward a group of
5 workers on the tracks. You are sitting in a control
center several miles away, and you have a button
that can switch the trolley onto another track where
there’s only 1 worker. If you flip the switch, one
person will die. If you do nothing, 5 people will die.
Should you flip the switch?
Limitation of UTILITARIANISM
In surveys, most people in America and Britain
say yes. 1 death is better than 5 deaths, so if you
have to choose, you should try to minimize the loss
of life by flipping the switch. This is an example of
utilitarian reasoning.
*In other cultures, people think about the problem
differently.
Types of Utilitarianism
There are basically two branches of utilitarianism. They
both agree that the goal of ethics is to maximize
happiness. But they disagree on where that decision
should be applied:
1. Act Utilitarianism argues that we should always choose
our actions based on what will cause the greatest amount of
happiness.
2. Rule Utilitarianism argues that we should figure out
what sort of behavior usually causes happiness, and turn it
into a set of rules.
Types of Utilitarianism
Example:
Take the example of a judge sending a murderer to
prison. Say the judge knows the convict will not
commit any more violent crimes, and wants to be
lenient based on this knowledge (maybe the convict is
very old or terminally ill). The judge knows that this
will make the convict very happy, not to mention
their family and friends. Imagine that the victim’s
family has forgiven the convict and will not feel pain
as a result of this decision
Types of Utilitarianism
Should the judge let the convict go?
Act utilitarinism says yes, because this maximizes
happiness while causing no future pain in this case.
But rule utilitarianism says no, because in
general, convicts must be punished for their crimes,
even if there is no chance that they will commit
future crimes. The judge should follow the rules,
according to this argument, even if in this particular
case the rule isn’t necessary.
Two Foremost Utilitarian Thinkers
PRINCIPLES OF UTILITARIANISM
1. Principle of Utility
Jeremy Bentham begins by arguing that our actions are
governed by two “sovereign masters” – PLEASURE and
PAIN – which are given to us by nature to help us determine
what is good or bad and what ought to be done and not.
Principle of Utility
• is about our subjection to these souvereign matters : Pleasure and
Pain. It has two sides that explain:
1. The 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 every day actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do
what is painful.
2. The principle 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, Betham equates happiness
with pleasure.
Mill supports Bentham 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 people unhappy is the Privation
of Pleasure.
• He stated that the things that produce happiness are good;
whereas, those that produce unhappiness and pain are bad.
PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER
States that equating happiness with pleasure doesnt aim to
describe the utilitarian moral agent alone and
independently from others.
This is not only about individual’s pleasure, regardless of
how high, intellectual, or in ways noble it is, but it is also
about the pleasure of the greatest number affected by
consequences of our actions, according to John Stuart Mill.
PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER
Utilitarianism cannot 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 who are made happy by our
actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this
sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices
that produce more happiness for others.
• Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider
everyone’s happiness, including our own as
standards by which we evaluate what is moral.
PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER
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 evreyone’s happiness, in fact, the
greatest happiness of the greatest number. Eradication of disease
using technology, and other practical ways are examples of it.
Utilitarianism is interested with with the best consequence for the
highest number of people. It is not interested with the intention of
the agent.
Meaning, moral value cannot be recognized in the intention or the
motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and
exclusively on the difference it makes on the world’s total amount of
pleasure or pain.
UTILITY vs. GREATEST NUMBER
PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY:
The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far
as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce
unhappiness or pain. So even if it would cause greater happiness, you
shouldn't do it if it would cause pain.
EXAMPLE:
A serial killer who causes his victims great pain, is about to cut up his
latest victim. If you were to kill the serial killer, it would cause him much
pain, but the overall amount of happiness would be greater if you killed
him. Doesn't matter according to the principle of utility, because causing
pain is bad, so you should not kill the serial killer.
UTILITY vs. GREATEST NUMBER
--->> In terms of numbers:
10% pain to kill serial killer
90% pleasure to victim if not
murdered
= BAD to kill serial killer,
because you are still
causing pain.
UTILITY vs. GREATEST NUMBER
GREATEST HAPPINESS:
The greatest happiness principle, is the greatest overall happiness no
matter what, even if it would cause pain in order to serve the greater
overall happiness.
EXAMPLE:
An alien race who thrives on causing pain to humans comes to earth,
and by causing the most pain to humans, overall, there would be more
happiness to the alien race, so then according to the overall happiness
principle, it is good for the alien race to devour humanity and cause
horrific suffering, as long as it is cumulatively causing the alien race an
overall greatest happiness.
UTILITY vs. GREATEST NUMBER
--->> In terms of numbers:
40% pain to human race
60% pleasure to alien race to cause the
pain to humans
= GOOD for aliens to eat humans,
according to greatest happiness principle.
QUESTION:
Is it justifiable to let go of some rights
fro the sake of the benefit of the
majority?
JUSTICE - Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward
society’s pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
RIGHTS - Are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
examples:
Right to due process
Right to free speech or religion
- Rights serve general happiness, and 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.
- A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles inasmuch as they produce an
overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their
implementation.