utilitarianism essay brainly

Utilitarianism

I. definition.

Utilitarianism (pronounced yoo-TILL-ih-TARE-ee-en-ism) is one of the main schools of thought in modern ethics (also known as moral philosophy ). 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.

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?

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, and the survey results show that this school of thought is popular in British and American culture. (In other cultures, people think about the problem differently.)

II. 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:

• Act Utilitarianism argues that we should always choose our actions based on what will cause the greatest amount of happiness.
• Rule Utilitarianism argues that we should figure out what sort of behavior usually causes happiness, and turn it into a set of rules.

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.

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.

III. Utilitarianism vs. Deontology vs. Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism is the most common kind of consequentialism , which is one of the three major branches of ethics. (There are other kinds of consequentialism, but they’re uncommon, so for now we can say that utilitarianism and consequentialism are the same.)

Consequentialism/utilitarianism is contrasted with two other schools of thought:

There is considerable overlap between these schools of thought, and there’s no reason necessarily to choose one or another: they all have their own valuable points, and the truth surely lies somewhere in between all three. However, they are helpful perspectives to think through, and to do that we need to be aware of the differences between them.

IV. Famous Quotes About Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism — a philosophy suitable only for a nation of shopkeepers! ( Friedrich Nietzsche )

The German philosopher Nietzsche was a strong defender of virtue ethics (though scholars still disagree on exactly what his moral philosophy was). But he certainly didn’t agree with utilitarianism. In this quip, the irritable German is poking fun at the fact that utilitarianism comes from England — a “nation of shopkeepers,” as many people in Europe called it during the 19th century.

I do not care about the greatest good for the greatest number…most people are poop-heads; I do not care about them at all.  (James Alan Gardner, Ascending )

This is a humorous critique of utilitarianism based on the fact that not everyone deserves to be happy. But it points out an important question: how does utilitarianism account for the difference between justified happiness and unjustified happiness? Imagine two worlds: in one, evil people get enormous pleasure out of their work; in the other, evil people get only a little pleasure; the total amount of evil stays the same. A utilitarian would say the first world is better because there’s more happiness. Does that seem right to you?

V. The History and Importance of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a relatively new idea in ethics. The ancient Greek and Roman philosophers believed in virtue ethics — morality was all about being a good, honest, hardworking person and excelling in your line of work. The rise of Christianity in the West transformed our understanding of morality and made deontology more attractive — God’s Law was the basis for ethics, and this law was a set of rules .

It was only in the later stages of the Enlightenment, when traditional Christianity was being revolutionized both from inside and outside, that utilitarianism became a mainstream philosophy. A small group of British philosophers offered powerful arguments for utilitarianism, dealing with many of the more common objections and helping to place utilitarianism on a more respectable footing.

In the last half-century or so, utilitarianism has started to fall out of favor again among many philosophers, though it still has considerable popularity. It’s probably no coincidence that utilitarianism was on top of the philosophical world for almost exactly the same period of time that the British Empire was the dominant superpower!

This decline has come from two sources. On the one hand, we have seen brilliant philosophers take up the ideas of deontology and virtue ethics, making new arguments for some very old ideas. On the other hand, people are increasingly interested in the philosophies of India and China, which don’t fall neatly into the categories we saw in §2.

It’s hard to predict what the future holds for utilitarianism — maybe deontology and virtue ethics will come back and bury it once again, and its brief time in the spotlight will come to an end. Or maybe we will come up with entirely new ideas — perhaps influenced by the non-Western traditions — that will allow us to move beyond the old conflict, synthesizing a new moral philosophy out of the best that utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics have to offer.

VI. Utilitarianism in Popular Culture

Ursula Le Guin has a short story called The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas . In the story, the city of Omelas seems to be a perfect society — everyone is happy, everyone lives in harmony, and the city is at peace. But in a hidden basement somewhere in town, an innocent child is being horribly tortured day and night. This torture is what gives the city all its prosperity and happiness. If the torture stopped, the society would go into decline and the general happiness would go with it.

To a utilitarian, this is an acceptable state of affairs: millions of people are happy while only one person is in misery. If the situation were changed, millions of people would have their happiness taken away while only one person would benefit. Therefore, the torture should continue.

But deontologists argue that this is a major flaw in utilitarianism! How could a moral person allow such injustice to continue merely because it causes happiness?

Movie villains often have some sort of diabolical utilitarian reasoning for what they do. For example, in I. Robot the supercomputer V.I.K.I uses her massive database to calculate that human beings prefer safety over freedom, and therefore concludes that the most moral course of action is for her to imprison all the humans so they can no longer harm themselves or each other. If a few human rebellions have to be crushed along the way, she calculates, this is still justified

VII. Controversies

Impartiality.

Both utilitarianism and deontology face an interesting question: should ethics be impartial ? Impartiality is the ability to remove yourself from the equation and look at the ethical dilemma from a neutral perspective. If you’re impartial, you won’t give favor to your own country, city, or family in making moral decisions. In general, we tend to admire impartiality: we like people who can be even-handed and not pick favorites when it comes to ethical decisions.

However, this is also a very complicated position to take. Go back to the trolley problem : we had one track with 5 workers and one track with 1 worker. Most people say you should flip the switch and kill the 1. But what if that 1 person is your mother? Very few people would choose to flip the switch, and that’s understandable. Even if it’s understandable, though, is it right ? Is it better to let your own mother die to save 5 strangers, or the other way around? Utilitarianism has no definite answer to this problem.

Measuring Happiness

When faced with a moral decision, how can you know which course of action will maximize happiness? For one thing, we can’t see into other people’s minds, so we can’t know whether they’re truly happy or whether they’re just saying they are. And even if we could perceive happiness, though, how would we predict what would cause it? Human beings often make terrible predictions in this area.

For example, lots of people think that earning lots of money will make them happy, so the best utilitarian choice is to ensure that everyone has a good job and prosperity. However, scientific studies show that money only brings happiness in the short term, and that it works better for some people than others. As human beings, then, we actually don’t know how to make ourselves happy? So how can we trust ourselves to make moral decisions on this basis?

To make utilitarianism work, we need a more fleshed-out theory of what happiness is. Fortunately, there is an emerging field of “positive psychology” that focuses on exactly this problem. And it’s interesting to note what they’ve discovered so far: Buddhist and Hindu theories of happiness (based on meditation, family, and clearing the mind of desire) seem to have more scientific support than American and European ideas (based on prosperity and “success”).

a. Deontology

b. Ontology

c. Consequentialism

d. Virtue Ethics

a. Whatever works is OK

b. The greatest happiness for the greatest number

c. We should focus on practical matters, not frivolous things like art

d. Philosophy is a tool for inquiry, not a body of ideas

d. Britain/England

a. Act and Rule

b. Functional and Structural

c. Consequentialism and Deontology

d. Deontology and Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism Theory Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Utilitarianism is an ethical movement that began in 18th century. It dictates that the best course of action is the one that benefits majority. Here, you will discover an essay about utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism theory argues that the consequence of an action determines whether that particular action is morally right or wrong. Philosophers behind this theory include Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, R.M. Hare and Peter Singer. All these philosophers evaluate morality of actions depending on overall happiness or well-being. Thus, they see utilitarianism as a consequentialist ethic.

Consequentialist ethics holds that in determining whether an act, policy, rule or motive is morally right, we should check whether it has good consequences for all affected persons. Rather than asking if an action has good consequences for a person, we should just inquire whether that action adds to the person’s happiness.

Therefore, utilitarianism is an ethical theory that centers on happiness, not just the happiness of one person, but happiness of many people. Thus, the greatest happiness principle is synonymous with the principle of utility. The principle of greatest happiness states that a person should do things that will have the most happiness for all involved persons.

Critics of utilitarian ethics argue that because utilitarianism emphasizes on results, utilitarian theorists should agree that the theory of ethical relativism solves the problem of relativism. These critics claim that since utilitarian theorists argue that morality of an action depends on what the product of the action will take to all affected persons, then almost every action is moral. That is to say, utilitarianism is a consequentialistic ethic and thus, we cannot know whether an action is immoral until we see its bad consequences.

Given that, utilitarian ethics in some ways holds morality of an action hostage to the result, morality of the action appears relative. However, we refute ethical relativism since utilitarian ethics is a type of universalism, given its grounds in trust in universal human nature. Utilitarian theorists say that all people have altruistic and egoistic elements, and all people seek to evade pain and augment pleasure. Then, instead of ethical relativism, they support a liberal ethics that acknowledges there are universal principles and values.

The utilitarian perspective that ethics is more inclined to our feelings and not our rationality may seem to give evidence that utilitarianism is a type of relativism. Obviously, people have different outlooks about different matters. However, description of ethics may not always be from this perspective. Think about a cruel act such as premeditated murder.

How comes that this act immoral? Is it due to societal, divine, or natural laws? The truth is that human beings cannot make the moral judgment that premeditated murder is immoral until they experience negative sentiments about such acts. If there are human beings who do not get negative sentiments after reflecting on the idea of premeditated murder, or other monstrous acts, it is because those persons have something wrong with them and thus, cannot feel others pain.

Desensitization is the contemporary psychological word that describes why some people may not have feeling for the pain of others. People become desensitized making them not feel others pain. This psychological thought matches perfectly well with the utilitarian idea of sentience. However, human nature is universal and a universal ethics rests upon nothing more than human sentiments.

At the center of the utilitarian argument that shifts from the concern we physically have for our personal feelings of pain and pleasure, to others feelings of pain and pleasure, is the belief that this is the nature of human beings. When we hear about calamities happening to others, we may find ourselves flinching or grimacing. However, to go from a claim about our human nature to a moral claim that we ought to do this, and it is correct that we do this, and wrong when we fail to do this, includes an extra step in the argument.

The crucial step is to ask ourselves whether there is actually a difference between our pains and joys and other peoples’ pains and joys. This, for instance, is a problem to any racist. If dissimilar races experience equal pleasures and pains, then how come one race sees itself as superior to another race? If there is actually no difference between our pains and pleasures with others pains and pleasures, then we ought to, just due to consistency, view their suffering as just as significant as ours.

This is the heart of the justification of the theory of utility; we should do what will have the best outcomes for all persons involved, not only for ourselves, since there actually is no significant difference involving our welfare and other people’s welfare.

It is clear that equality is a main concept involved in this reasoning. A different way to portray the central utilitarian concept is just to say humans are equal; your pain or happiness is equal to another person’s anguish or happiness. However, another person’s happiness, well-being, suffering, pleasure and pain are not more crucial than yours. Hence, considering ethics along utilitarian line takes us from egoism through altruism to equality.

Other critics of utilitarianism argue that it is difficult and impossible to apply its principles. Those that hold that it is difficult to apply utilitarian principles argue that calculating the outcomes for all persons is impractical due to uncertainty and the big number involved. The truth, however, is that utilitarianism offers a clear way of determining whether an action is moral or not, and this does not involve calculations.

As mentioned earlier, a morally right action should have pleasurable consequences. Therefore, a person who says that it is difficult to apply this theory should support his/her claims with examples of actions that produce pleasurable outcomes, but are wrong. Therefore, the argument that it is difficult to calculate what is right does not hold any water, since it has no harm to the principle of utility. Rather, this is a problem of the human condition.

Other critics that oppose the application of utilitarian principles argue that it is not possible to gauge or quantify happiness and there is no defined method of weighing happiness against suffering. However, the truth is that happiness is measurable and comparable through words like happier and happiest. If it were not measurable, then these words would have little meaning.

In conclusion, the theory of utilitarianism is sound, logical and consistent. Utilitarian ethics follow the law of greatest happiness. According to this law, human beings seek to decrease suffering and maximize happiness. Hence, an action that is correct morally must lead to the greatest possible pleasure. This also implies that actions that cause pain on human beings are morally wrong. As seen in the arguments above, this theory is beyond reproach, as it caters for all possible objections.

• James Rachels’ The Challenge of Cultural Relativism Essay
• Michael Sandel’s Objections to Utilitarianism
• A Critique of Utilitarianism
• Ethics in Philosophy: Discussing Theories, Evaluating Key Concepts. In Search for the Truth
• Ethics is not Based on Religion
• Euthyphro: Concept of Holiness and Piety
• Humanity Theories: Utilitarianism
• Famine, Affluence, and Morality
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 19). Utilitarianism Theory Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/

"Utilitarianism Theory Essay." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Utilitarianism Theory Essay'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Utilitarianism Theory Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/.

1. IvyPanda . "Utilitarianism Theory Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Utilitarianism Theory Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The History of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19 th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good.

The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’.

Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further, the reason I have to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote the good. It is not peculiar to me.

All of these features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral decision-making have proven to be somewhat controversial and subsequent controversies have led to changes in the Classical version of the theory.

1. Precursors to the Classical Approach

2.1 jeremy bentham, 2.2 john stuart mill, 3. henry sidgwick, 4. ideal utilitarianism, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries.

Though the first systematic account of utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), the core insight motivating the theory occurred much earlier. That insight is that morally appropriate behavior will not harm others, but instead increase happiness or ‘utility.’ What is distinctive about utilitarianism is its approach in taking that insight and developing an account of moral evaluation and moral direction that expands on it. Early precursors to the Classical Utilitarians include the British Moralists, Cumberland, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Gay, and Hume. Of these, Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746) is explicitly utilitarian when it comes to action choice.

Some of the earliest utilitarian thinkers were the ‘theological’ utilitarians such as Richard Cumberland (1631–1718) and John Gay (1699–1745). They believed that promoting human happiness was incumbent on us since it was approved by God. After enumerating the ways in which humans come under obligations (by perceiving the “natural consequences of things”, the obligation to be virtuous, our civil obligations that arise from laws, and obligations arising from “the authority of God”) John Gay writes: “…from the consideration of these four sorts of obligation…it is evident that a full and complete obligation which will extend to all cases, can only be that arising from the authority of God ; because God only can in all cases make a man happy or miserable: and therefore, since we are always obliged to that conformity called virtue, it is evident that the immediate rule or criterion of it is the will of God” (R, 412). Gay held that since God wants the happiness of mankind, and since God's will gives us the criterion of virtue, “…the happiness of mankind may be said to be the criterion of virtue, but once removed ” (R, 413). This view was combined with a view of human motivation with egoistic elements. A person's individual salvation, her eternal happiness, depended on conformity to God's will, as did virtue itself. Promoting human happiness and one's own coincided, but, given God's design, it was not an accidental coincidence.

This approach to utilitarianism, however, is not theoretically clean in the sense that it isn't clear what essential work God does, at least in terms of normative ethics. God as the source of normativity is compatible with utilitarianism, but utilitarianism doesn't require this.

Gay's influence on later writers, such as Hume, deserves note. It is in Gay's essay that some of the questions that concerned Hume on the nature of virtue are addressed. For example, Gay was curious about how to explain our practice of approbation and disapprobation of action and character. When we see an act that is vicious we disapprove of it. Further, we associate certain things with their effects, so that we form positive associations and negative associations that also underwrite our moral judgments. Of course, that we view happiness, including the happiness of others as a good, is due to God's design. This is a feature crucial to the theological approach, which would clearly be rejected by Hume in favor of a naturalistic view of human nature and a reliance on our sympathetic engagement with others, an approach anticipated by Shaftesbury (below). The theological approach to utilitarianism would be developed later by William Paley, for example, but the lack of any theoretical necessity in appealing to God would result in its diminishing appeal.

Anthony Ashley Cooper, the 3 rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713) is generally thought to have been the one of the earliest ‘moral sense’ theorists, holding that we possess a kind of “inner eye” that allows us to make moral discriminations. This seems to have been an innate sense of right and wrong, or moral beauty and deformity. Again, aspects of this doctrine would be picked up by Francis Hutcheson and David Hume (1711–1776). Hume, of course, would clearly reject any robust realist implications. If the moral sense is like the other perceptual senses and enables us to pick up on properties out there in the universe around us, properties that exist independent from our perception of them, that are objective, then Hume clearly was not a moral sense theorist in this regard. But perception picks up on features of our environment that one could regard as having a contingent quality. There is one famous passage where Hume likens moral discrimination to the perception of secondary qualities, such as color. In modern terminology, these are response-dependent properties, and lack objectivity in the sense that they do not exist independent of our responses. This is radical. If an act is vicious, its viciousness is a matter of the human response (given a corrected perspective) to the act (or its perceived effects) and thus has a kind of contingency that seems unsettling, certainly unsettling to those who opted for the theological option.

So, the view that it is part of our very nature to make moral discriminations is very much in Hume. Further — and what is relevant to the development of utilitarianism — the view of Shaftesbury that the virtuous person contributes to the good of the whole — would figure into Hume's writings, though modified. It is the virtue that contributes to the good of the whole system, in the case of Hume's artificial virtues.

Shaftesbury held that in judging someone virtuous or good in a moral sense we need to perceive that person's impact on the systems of which he or she is a part. Here it sometimes becomes difficult to disentangle egoistic versus utilitarian lines of thought in Shaftesbury. He clearly states that whatever guiding force there is has made nature such that it is “…the private interest and good of every one, to work towards the general good , which if a creature ceases to promote, he is actually so far wanting to himself, and ceases to promote his own happiness and welfare…” (R, 188). It is hard, sometimes, to discern the direction of the ‘because’ — if one should act to help others because it supports a system in which one's own happiness is more likely, then it looks really like a form of egoism. If one should help others because that's the right thing to do — and, fortunately, it also ends up promoting one's own interests, then that's more like utilitarianism, since the promotion of self-interest is a welcome effect but not what, all by itself, justifies one's character or actions.

Further, to be virtuous a person must have certain psychological capacities — they must be able to reflect on character, for example, and represent to themselves the qualities in others that are either approved or disapproved of.

…in this case alone it is we call any creature worthy or virtuous when it can have the notion of a public interest, and can attain the speculation or science of what is morally good or ill, admirable or blameable, right or wrong….we never say of….any mere beast, idiot, or changeling, though ever so good-natured, that he is worthy or virtuous. (Shaftesbury IVM; BKI, PII, sec. iii)

Thus, animals are not objects of moral appraisal on the view, since they lack the necessary reflective capacities. Animals also lack the capacity for moral discrimination and would therefore seem to lack the moral sense. This raises some interesting questions. It would seem that the moral sense is a perception that something is the case. So it isn't merely a discriminatory sense that allows us to sort perceptions. It also has a propositional aspect, so that animals, which are not lacking in other senses are lacking in this one.

The virtuous person is one whose affections, motives, dispositions are of the right sort, not one whose behavior is simply of the right sort and who is able to reflect on goodness, and her own goodness [see Gill]. Similarly, the vicious person is one who exemplifies the wrong sorts of mental states, affections, and so forth. A person who harms others through no fault of his own “…because he has convulsive fits which make him strike and wound such as approach him” is not vicious since he has no desire to harm anyone and his bodily movements in this case are beyond his control.

Shaftesbury approached moral evaluation via the virtues and vices. His utilitarian leanings are distinct from his moral sense approach, and his overall sentimentalism. However, this approach highlights the move away from egoistic views of human nature — a trend picked up by Hutcheson and Hume, and later adopted by Mill in criticism of Bentham's version of utilitarianism. For writers like Shaftesbury and Hutcheson the main contrast was with egoism rather than rationalism.

Like Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson was very much interested in virtue evaluation. He also adopted the moral sense approach. However, in his writings we also see an emphasis on action choice and the importance of moral deliberation to action choice. Hutcheson, in An Inquiry Concerning Moral Good and Evil , fairly explicitly spelled out a utilitarian principle of action choice. (Joachim Hruschka (1991) notes, however, that it was Leibniz who first spelled out a utilitarian decision procedure.)

….In comparing the moral qualities of actions…we are led by our moral sense of virtue to judge thus; that in equal degrees of happiness, expected to proceed from the action, the virtue is in proportion to the number of persons to whom the happiness shall extend (and here the dignity , or moral importance of persons, may compensate numbers); and, in equal numbers , the virtue is the quantity of the happiness, or natural good; or that the virtue is in a compound ratio of the quantity of good, and number of enjoyers….so that that action is best , which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers ; and that worst , which, in like manner , occasions misery . (R, 283–4)

Scarre notes that some hold the moral sense approach incompatible with this emphasis on the use of reason to determine what we ought to do; there is an opposition between just apprehending what's morally significant and a model in which we need to reason to figure out what morality demands of us. But Scarre notes these are not actually incompatible:

The picture which emerges from Hutcheson's discussion is of a division of labor, in which the moral sense causes us to look with favor on actions which benefit others and disfavor those which harm them, while consequentialist reasoning determines a more precise ranking order of practical options in given situations. (Scarre, 53–54)

Scarre then uses the example of telling a lie to illustrate: lying is harmful to the person to whom one lies, and so this is viewed with disfavor, in general. However, in a specific case, if a lie is necessary to achieve some notable good, consequentialist reasoning will lead us to favor the lying. But this example seems to put all the emphasis on a consideration of consequences in moral approval and disapproval. Stephen Darwall notes (1995, 216 ff.) that the moral sense is concerned with motives — we approve, for example, of the motive of benevolence, and the wider the scope the better. It is the motives rather than the consequences that are the objects of approval and disapproval. But inasmuch as the morally good person cares about what happens to others, and of course she will, she will rank order acts in terms of their effects on others, and reason is used in calculating effects. So there is no incompatibility at all.

Hutcheson was committed to maximization, it seems. However, he insisted on a caveat — that “the dignity or moral importance of persons may compensate numbers.” He added a deontological constraint — that we have a duty to others in virtue of their personhood to accord them fundamental dignity regardless of the numbers of others whose happiness is to be affected by the action in question.

Hume was heavily influenced by Hutcheson, who was one of his teachers. His system also incorporates insights made by Shaftesbury, though he certainly lacks Shaftesbury's confidence that virtue is its own reward. In terms of his place in the history of utilitarianism we should note two distinct effects his system had. Firstly, his account of the social utility of the artificial virtues influenced Bentham's thought on utility. Secondly, his account of the role sentiment played in moral judgment and commitment to moral norms influenced Mill's thoughts about the internal sanctions of morality. Mill would diverge from Bentham in developing the ‘altruistic’ approach to Utilitarianism (which is actually a misnomer, but more on that later). Bentham, in contrast to Mill, represented the egoistic branch — his theory of human nature reflected Hobbesian psychological egoism.

2. The Classical Approach

The Classical Utilitarians, Bentham and Mill, were concerned with legal and social reform. If anything could be identified as the fundamental motivation behind the development of Classical Utilitarianism it would be the desire to see useless, corrupt laws and social practices changed. Accomplishing this goal required a normative ethical theory employed as a critical tool. What is the truth about what makes an action or a policy a morally good one, or morally right ? But developing the theory itself was also influenced by strong views about what was wrong in their society. The conviction that, for example, some laws are bad resulted in analysis of why they were bad. And, for Jeremy Bentham, what made them bad was their lack of utility, their tendency to lead to unhappiness and misery without any compensating happiness. If a law or an action doesn't do any good, then it isn't any good.

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was influenced both by Hobbes' account of human nature and Hume's account of social utility. He famously held that humans were ruled by two sovereign masters — pleasure and pain. We seek pleasure and the avoidance of pain, they “…govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think…” (Bentham PML, 1). Yet he also promulgated the principle of utility as the standard of right action on the part of governments and individuals. Actions are approved when they are such as to promote happiness, or pleasure, and disapproved of when they have a tendency to cause unhappiness, or pain (PML). Combine this criterion of rightness with a view that we should be actively trying to promote overall happiness, and one has a serious incompatibility with psychological egoism. Thus, his apparent endorsement of Hobbesian psychological egoism created problems in understanding his moral theory since psychological egoism rules out acting to promote the overall well-being when that it is incompatible with one's own. For the psychological egoist, that is not even a possibility. So, given ‘ought implies can’ it would follow that we are not obligated to act to promote overall well-being when that is incompatible with our own. This generates a serious tension in Bentham's thought, one that was drawn to his attention. He sometimes seemed to think that he could reconcile the two commitments empirically, that is, by noting that when people act to promote the good they are helping themselves, too. But this claim only serves to muddy the waters, since the standard understanding of psychological egoism — and Bentham's own statement of his view — identifies motives of action which are self-interested. Yet this seems, again, in conflict with his own specification of the method for making moral decisions which is not to focus on self-interest — indeed, the addition of extent as a parameter along which to measure pleasure produced distinguishes this approach from ethical egoism. Aware of the difficulty, in later years he seemed to pull back from a full-fledged commitment to psychological egoism, admitting that people do sometimes act benevolently — with the overall good of humanity in mind.

Bentham also benefited from Hume's work, though in many ways their approaches to moral philosophy were completely different. Hume rejected the egoistic view of human nature. Hume also focused on character evaluation in his system. Actions are significant as evidence of character, but only have this derivative significance. In moral evaluation the main concern is that of character. Yet Bentham focused on act-evaluation. There was a tendency — remarked on by J. B. Schneewind (1990), for example — to move away from focus on character evaluation after Hume and towards act-evaluation. Recall that Bentham was enormously interested in social reform. Indeed, reflection on what was morally problematic about laws and policies influenced his thinking on utility as a standard. When one legislates, however, one is legislating in support of, or against, certain actions. Character — that is, a person's true character — is known, if known at all, only by that person. If one finds the opacity of the will thesis plausible then character, while theoretically very interesting, isn't a practical focus for legislation. Further, as Schneewind notes, there was an increasing sense that focus on character would actually be disruptive, socially, particularly if one's view was that a person who didn't agree with one on a moral issues was defective in terms of his or her character, as opposed to simply making a mistake reflected in action.

But Bentham does take from Hume the view that utility is the measure of virtue — that is, utility more broadly construed than Hume's actual usage of the term. This is because Hume made a distinction between pleasure that the perception of virtue generates in the observer, and social utility, which consisted in a trait's having tangible benefits for society, any instance of which may or may not generate pleasure in the observer. But Bentham is not simply reformulating a Humean position — he's merely been influenced by Hume's arguments to see pleasure as a measure or standard of moral value. So, why not move from pleasurable responses to traits to pleasure as a kind of consequence which is good, and in relation to which, actions are morally right or wrong? Bentham, in making this move, avoids a problem for Hume. On Hume's view it seems that the response — corrected, to be sure — determines the trait's quality as a virtue or vice. But on Bentham's view the action (or trait) is morally good, right, virtuous in view of the consequences it generates, the pleasure or utility it produces, which could be completely independent of what our responses are to the trait. So, unless Hume endorses a kind of ideal observer test for virtue, it will be harder for him to account for how it is people make mistakes in evaluations of virtue and vice. Bentham, on the other hand, can say that people may not respond to the actions good qualities — perhaps they don't perceive the good effects. But as long as there are these good effects which are, on balance, better than the effects of any alternative course of action, then the action is the right one. Rhetorically, anyway, one can see why this is an important move for Bentham to be able to make. He was a social reformer. He felt that people often had responses to certain actions — of pleasure or disgust — that did not reflect anything morally significant at all. Indeed, in his discussions of homosexuality, for example, he explicitly notes that ‘antipathy’ is not sufficient reason to legislate against a practice:

The circumstances from which this antipathy may have taken its rise may be worth enquiring to…. One is the physical antipathy to the offence…. The act is to the highest degree odious and disgusting, that is, not to the man who does it, for he does it only because it gives him pleasure, but to one who thinks [?] of it. Be it so, but what is that to him? (Bentham OAO , v. 4, 94)

Bentham then notes that people are prone to use their physical antipathy as a pretext to transition to moral antipathy, and the attending desire to punish the persons who offend their taste. This is illegitimate on his view for a variety of reasons, one of which is that to punish a person for violations of taste, or on the basis of prejudice, would result in runaway punishments, “…one should never know where to stop…” The prejudice in question can be dealt with by showing it “to be ill-grounded”. This reduces the antipathy to the act in question. This demonstrates an optimism in Bentham. If a pain can be demonstrated to be based on false beliefs then he believes that it can be altered or at the very least ‘assuaged and reduced’. This is distinct from the view that a pain or pleasure based on a false belief should be discounted. Bentham does not believe the latter. Thus Bentham's hedonism is a very straightforward hedonism. The one intrinsic good is pleasure, the bad is pain. We are to promote pleasure and act to reduce pain. When called upon to make a moral decision one measures an action's value with respect to pleasure and pain according to the following: intensity (how strong the pleasure or pain is), duration (how long it lasts), certainty (how likely the pleasure or pain is to be the result of the action), proximity (how close the sensation will be to performance of the action), fecundity (how likely it is to lead to further pleasures or pains), purity (how much intermixture there is with the other sensation). One also considers extent — the number of people affected by the action.

Keeping track of all of these parameters can be complicated and time consuming. Bentham does not recommend that they figure into every act of moral deliberation because of the efficiency costs which need to be considered. Experience can guide us. We know that the pleasure of kicking someone is generally outweighed by the pain inflicted on that person, so such calculations when confronted with a temptation to kick someone are unnecessary. It is reasonable to judge it wrong on the basis of past experience or consensus. One can use ‘rules of thumb’ to guide action, but these rules are overridable when abiding by them would conflict with the promotion of the good.

Bentham's view was surprising to many at the time at least in part because he viewed the moral quality of an action to be determined instrumentally. It isn't so much that there is a particular kind of action that is intrinsically wrong; actions that are wrong are wrong simply in virtue of their effects, thus, instrumentally wrong. This cut against the view that there are some actions that by their very nature are just wrong, regardless of their effects. Some may be wrong because they are ‘unnatural’ — and, again, Bentham would dismiss this as a legitimate criterion. Some may be wrong because they violate liberty, or autonomy. Again, Bentham would view liberty and autonomy as good — but good instrumentally, not intrinsically. Thus, any action deemed wrong due to a violation of autonomy is derivatively wrong on instrumental grounds as well. This is interesting in moral philosophy — as it is far removed from the Kantian approach to moral evaluation as well as from natural law approaches. It is also interesting in terms of political philosophy and social policy. On Bentham's view the law is not monolithic and immutable. Since effects of a given policy may change, the moral quality of the policy may change as well. Nancy Rosenblum noted that for Bentham one doesn't simply decide on good laws and leave it at that: “Lawmaking must be recognized as a continual process in response to diverse and changing desires that require adjustment” (Rosenblum 1978, 9). A law that is good at one point in time may be a bad law at some other point in time. Thus, lawmakers have to be sensitive to changing social circumstances. To be fair to Bentham's critics, of course, they are free to agree with him that this is the case in many situations, just not all — and that there is still a subset of laws that reflect the fact that some actions just are intrinsically wrong regardless of consequences. Bentham is in the much more difficult position of arguing that effects are all there are to moral evaluation of action and policy.

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was a follower of Bentham, and, through most of his life, greatly admired Bentham's work even though he disagreed with some of Bentham's claims — particularly on the nature of ‘happiness.’ Bentham, recall, had held that there were no qualitative differences between pleasures, only quantitative ones. This left him open to a variety of criticisms. First, Bentham's Hedonism was too egalitarian. Simple-minded pleasures, sensual pleasures, were just as good, at least intrinsically, than more sophisticated and complex pleasures. The pleasure of drinking a beer in front of the T.V. surely doesn't rate as highly as the pleasure one gets solving a complicated math problem, or reading a poem, or listening to Mozart. Second, Bentham's view that there were no qualitative differences in pleasures also left him open to the complaint that on his view human pleasures were of no more value than animal pleasures and, third, committed him to the corollary that the moral status of animals, tied to their sentience, was the same as that of humans. While harming a puppy and harming a person are both bad, however, most people had the view that harming the person was worse. Mill sought changes to the theory that could accommodate those sorts of intuitions.

To this end, Mill's hedonism was influenced by perfectionist intuitions. There are some pleasures that are more fitting than others. Intellectual pleasures are of a higher, better, sort than the ones that are merely sensual, and that we share with animals. To some this seems to mean that Mill really wasn't a hedonistic utilitarian. His view of the good did radically depart from Bentham's view. However, like Bentham, the good still consists in pleasure, it is still a psychological state. There is certainly that similarity. Further, the basic structures of the theories are the same (for more on this see Donner 1991). While it is true that Mill is more comfortable with notions like ‘rights’ this does not mean that he, in actuality, rejected utilitarianism. The rationale for all the rights he recognizes is utilitarian.

Mill's ‘proof’ of the claim that intellectual pleasures are better in kind than others, though, is highly suspect. He doesn't attempt a mere appeal to raw intuition. Instead, he argues that those persons who have experienced both view the higher as better than the lower. Who would rather be a happy oyster, living an enormously long life, than a person living a normal life? Or, to use his most famous example — it is better to be Socrates ‘dissatisfied’ than a fool ‘satisfied.’ In this way Mill was able to solve a problem for utilitarianism.

Mill also argued that the principle could be proven, using another rather notorious argument:

The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it…. In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people do actually desire it. If the end which the utilitarian doctrine proposes to itself were not, in theory and in practiced, acknowledged to be an end, nothing could ever convince any person that it was so. (Mill, U, 81)

Mill then continues to argue that people desire happiness — the utilitarian end — and that the general happiness is “a good to the aggregate of all persons.” (81)

G. E. Moore (1873–1958) criticized this as fallacious. He argued that it rested on an obvious ambiguity:

Mill has made as naïve and artless a use of the naturalistic fallacy as anybody could desire. “Good”, he tells us, means “desirable”, and you can only find out what is desirable by seeking to find out what is actually desired…. The fact is that “desirable” does not mean “able to be desired” as “visible” means “able to be seen.” The desirable means simply what ought to be desired or deserves to be desired; just as the detestable means not what can be but what ought to be detested… (Moore, PE, 66–7)

It should be noted, however, that Mill was offering this as an alternative to Bentham's view which had been itself criticized as a ‘swine morality,’ locating the good in pleasure in a kind of indiscriminate way. The distinctions he makes strike many as intuitively plausible ones. Bentham, however, can accommodate many of the same intuitions within his system. This is because he notes that there are a variety of parameters along which we quantitatively measure pleasure — intensity and duration are just two of those. His complete list is the following: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. Thus, what Mill calls the intellectual pleasures will score more highly than the sensual ones along several parameters, and this could give us reason to prefer those pleasures — but it is a quantitative not a qualitative reason, on Bentham's view. When a student decides to study for an exam rather than go to a party, for example, she is making the best decision even though she is sacrificing short term pleasure. That's because studying for the exam, Bentham could argue, scores higher in terms of the long term pleasures doing well in school lead to, as well as the fecundity of the pleasure in leading to yet other pleasures. However, Bentham will have to concede that the very happy oyster that lives a very long time could, in principle, have a better life than a normal human.

Mill's version of utilitarianism differed from Bentham's also in that he placed weight on the effectiveness of internal sanctions — emotions like guilt and remorse which serve to regulate our actions. This is an off-shoot of the different view of human nature adopted by Mill. We are the sorts of beings that have social feelings, feelings for others, not just ourselves. We care about them, and when we perceive harms to them this causes painful experiences in us. When one perceives oneself to be the agent of that harm, the negative emotions are centered on the self. One feels guilt for what one has done, not for what one sees another doing. Like external forms of punishment, internal sanctions are instrumentally very important to appropriate action. Mill also held that natural features of human psychology, such as conscience and a sense of justice, underwrite motivation. The sense of justice, for example, results from very natural impulses. Part of this sense involves a desire to punish those who have harmed others, and this desire in turn “…is a spontaneous outgrowth from two sentiments, both in the highest degree natural…; the impulse of self-defense, and the feeling of sympathy.” (Chapter 5, Utilitarianism ) Of course, he goes on, the justification must be a separate issue. The feeling is there naturally, but it is our ‘enlarged’ sense, our capacity to include the welfare of others into our considerations, and make intelligent decisions, that gives it the right normative force.

Like Bentham, Mill sought to use utilitarianism to inform law and social policy. The aim of increasing happiness underlies his arguments for women's suffrage and free speech. We can be said to have certain rights, then — but those rights are underwritten by utility. If one can show that a purported right or duty is harmful, then one has shown that it is not genuine. One of Mills most famous arguments to this effect can be found in his writing on women's suffrage when he discusses the ideal marriage of partners, noting that the ideal exists between individuals of “cultivated faculties” who influence each other equally. Improving the social status of women was important because they were capable of these cultivated faculties, and denying them access to education and other opportunities for development is forgoing a significant source of happiness. Further, the men who would deny women the opportunity for education, self-improvement, and political expression do so out of base motives, and the resulting pleasures are not ones that are of the best sort.

Bentham and Mill both attacked social traditions that were justified by appeals to natural order. The correct appeal is to utility itself. Traditions often turned out to be “relics” of “barbarous” times, and appeals to nature as a form of justification were just ways to try rationalize continued deference to those relics.

In the latter part of the 20th century some writers criticized utilitarianism for its failure to accommodate virtue evaluation. However, though virtue is not the central normative concept in Mill's theory, it is an extremely important one. In Chapter 4 of Utilitarianism Mill noted

… does the utilitarian doctrine deny that people desire virtue, or maintain that virtue is not a thing to be desired? The very reverse. It maintains not only that virtue is to be desired, but also that it is to be desired disinterestedly, for itself. Whatever may be the opinion of utilitarian moralists as to the original conditions by which virtue is made virtue … they not only place virtue at the very head of things which are good as a means to the ultimate end, but they also recognize as a psychological fact the possibility of its being, to the individual, a good in itself, without looking to any end beyond it; and hold, that the mind is not in a right state, not in a state conformable to Utility, not in the state most conducive to the general happiness, unless it does love virtue in this manner …

In Utilitarianism Mill argues that virtue not only has instrumental value, but is constitutive of the good life. A person without virtue is morally lacking, is not as able to promote the good. However, this view of virtue is someone complicated by rather cryptic remarks Mill makes about virtue in his A System of Logic in the section in which he discusses the “Art of Life.” There he seems to associate virtue with aesthetics, and morality is reserved for the sphere of ‘right’ or ‘duty‘. Wendy Donner notes that separating virtue from right allows Mill to solve another problem for the theory: the demandingness problem (Donner 2011). This is the problem that holds that if we ought to maximize utility, if that is the right thing to do, then doing right requires enormous sacrifices (under actual conditions), and that requiring such sacrifices is too demanding. With duties, on Mill's view, it is important that we get compliance, and that justifies coercion. In the case of virtue, however, virtuous actions are those which it is “…for the general interest that they remain free.”

Henry Sidgwick's (1838–1900) The Methods of Ethics (1874) is one of the most well known works in utilitarian moral philosophy, and deservedly so. It offers a defense of utilitarianism, though some writers (Schneewind 1977) have argued that it should not primarily be read as a defense of utilitarianism. In The Methods Sidgwick is concerned with developing an account of “…the different methods of Ethics that I find implicit in our common moral reasoning…” These methods are egoism, intuition based morality, and utilitarianism. On Sidgwick's view, utilitarianism is the more basic theory. A simple reliance on intuition, for example, cannot resolve fundamental conflicts between values, or rules, such as Truth and Justice that may conflict. In Sidgwick's words “…we require some higher principle to decide the issue…” That will be utilitarianism. Further, the rules which seem to be a fundamental part of common sense morality are often vague and underdescribed, and applying them will actually require appeal to something theoretically more basic — again, utilitarianism. Yet further, absolute interpretations of rules seem highly counter-intuitive, and yet we need some justification for any exceptions — provided, again, by utilitarianism. Sidgwick provides a compelling case for the theoretical primacy of utilitarianism.

Sidgwick was also a British philosopher, and his views developed out of and in response to those of Bentham and Mill. His Methods offer an engagement with the theory as it had been presented before him, and was an exploration of it and the main alternatives as well as a defense.

Sidgwick was also concerned with clarifying fundamental features of the theory, and in this respect his account has been enormously influential to later writers, not only to utilitarians and consequentialists, generally, but to intuitionists as well. Sidgwick's thorough and penetrating discussion of the theory raised many of the concerns that have been developed by recent moral philosophers.

One extremely controversial feature of Sidgwick's views relates to his rejection of a publicity requirement for moral theory. He writes:

Thus, the Utilitarian conclusion, carefully stated, would seem to be this; that the opinion that secrecy may render an action right which would not otherwise be so should itself be kept comparatively secret; and similarly it seems expedient that the doctrine that esoteric morality is expedient should itself be kept esoteric. Or, if this concealment be difficult to maintain, it may be desirable that Common Sense should repudiate the doctrines which it is expedient to confine to an enlightened few. And thus a Utilitarian may reasonably desire, on Utilitarian principles, that some of his conclusions should be rejected by mankind generally; or even that the vulgar should keep aloof from his system as a whole, in so far as the inevitable indefiniteness and complexity of its calculations render it likely to lead to bad results in their hands. (490)

This accepts that utilitarianism may be self-effacing; that is, that it may be best if people do not believe it, even though it is true. Further, it rendered the theory subject to Bernard Williams' (1995) criticism that the theory really simply reflected the colonial elitism of Sidgwick's time, that it was ‘Government House Utilitarianism.’ The elitism in his remarks may reflect a broader attitude, one in which the educated are considered better policy makers than the uneducated.

One issue raised in the above remarks is relevant to practical deliberation in general. To what extent should proponents of a given theory, or a given rule, or a given policy — or even proponents of a given one-off action — consider what they think people will actually do, as opposed to what they think those same people ought to do (under full and reasonable reflection, for example)? This is an example of something that comes up in the Actualism/possibilism debate in accounts of practical deliberation. Extrapolating from the example used above, we have people who advocate telling the truth, or what they believe to be the truth, even if the effects are bad because the truth is somehow misused by others. On the other hand are those who recommend not telling the truth when it is predicted that the truth will be misused by others to achieve bad results. Of course it is the case that the truth ought not be misused, that its misuse can be avoided and is not inevitable, but the misuse is entirely predictable. Sidgwick seems to recommending that we follow the course that we predict will have the best outcome, given as part of our calculations the data that others may fail in some way — either due to having bad desires, or simply not being able to reason effectively. The worry Williams points to really isn't a worry specifically with utilitarianism (Driver 2011). Sidgwick would point out that if it is bad to hide the truth, because ‘Government House’ types, for example, typically engage in self-deceptive rationalizations of their policies (which seems entirely plausible), then one shouldn't do it. And of course, that heavily influences our intuitions.

Sidgwick raised issues that run much deeper to our basic understanding of utilitarianism. For example, the way earlier utilitarians characterized the principle of utility left open serious indeterminacies. The major one rests on the distinction between total and average utility. He raised the issue in the context of population growth and increasing utility levels by increasing numbers of people (or sentient beings):

Assuming, then, that the average happiness of human beings is a positive quantity, it seems clear that, supposing the average happiness enjoyed remains undiminished, Utilitarianism directs us to make the number enjoying it as great as possible. But if we foresee as possible that an increase in numbers will be accompanied by a decrease in average happiness or vice versa , a point arises which has not only never been formally noticed, but which seems to have been substantially overlooked by many Utilitarians. For if we take Utilitarianism to prescribe, as the ultimate end of action, happiness on the whole, and not any individual's happiness, unless considered as an element of the whole, it would follow that, if the additional population enjoy on the whole positive happiness, we ought to weigh the amount of happiness gained by the extra number against the amount lost by the remainder. (415)

For Sidgwick, the conclusion on this issue is not to simply strive to greater average utility, but to increase population to the point where we maximize the product of the number of persons who are currently alive and the amount of average happiness. So it seems to be a hybrid, total-average view. This discussion also raised the issue of policy with respect to population growth, and both would be pursued in more detail by later writers, most notably Derek Parfit (1986).

G. E. Moore strongly disagreed with the hedonistic value theory adopted by the Classical Utilitarians. Moore agreed that we ought to promote the good, but believed that the good included far more than what could be reduced to pleasure. He was a pluralist, rather than a monist, regarding intrinsic value. For example, he believed that ‘beauty’ was an intrinsic good. A beautiful object had value independent of any pleasure it might generate in a viewer. Thus, Moore differed from Sidgwick who regarded the good as consisting in some consciousness. Some objective states in the world are intrinsically good, and on Moore's view, beauty is just such a state. He used one of his more notorious thought experiments to make this point: he asked the reader to compare two worlds, one was entirely beautiful, full of things which complemented each other; the other was a hideous, ugly world, filled with “everything that is most disgusting to us.” Further, there are not human beings, one imagines, around to appreciate or be disgusted by the worlds. The question then is, which of these worlds is better, which one's existence would be better than the other's? Of course, Moore believed it was clear that the beautiful world was better, even though no one was around to appreciate its beauty. This emphasis on beauty was one facet of Moore's work that made him a darling of the Bloomsbury Group. If beauty was a part of the good independent of its effects on the psychological states of others — independent of, really, how it affected others, then one needn't sacrifice morality on the altar of beauty anymore. Following beauty is not a mere indulgence, but may even be a moral obligation. Though Moore himself certainly never applied his view to such cases, it does provide the resources for dealing with what the contemporary literature has dubbed ‘admirable immorality’ cases, at least some of them. Gauguin may have abandoned his wife and children, but it was to a beautiful end.

Moore's targets in arguing against hedonism were the earlier utilitarians who argued that the good was some state of consciousness such as pleasure. He actually waffled on this issue a bit, but always disagreed with Hedonism in that even when he held that beauty all by itself was not an intrinsic good, he also held that for the appreciation of beauty to be a good the beauty must actually be there, in the world, and not be the result of illusion.

Moore further criticized the view that pleasure itself was an intrinsic good, since it failed a kind of isolation test that he proposed for intrinsic value. If one compared an empty universe with a universe of sadists, the empty universe would strike one as better. This is true even though there is a good deal of pleasure, and no pain, in the universe of sadists. This would seem to indicate that what is necessary for the good is at least the absence of bad intentionality. The pleasures of sadists, in virtue of their desires to harm others, get discounted — they are not good, even though they are pleasures. Note this radical departure from Bentham who held that even malicious pleasure was intrinsically good, and that if nothing instrumentally bad attached to the pleasure, it was wholly good as well.

One of Moore's important contributions was to put forward an ‘organic unity’ or ‘organic whole’ view of value. The principle of organic unity is vague, and there is some disagreement about what Moore actually meant in presenting it. Moore states that ‘organic’ is used “…to denote the fact that a whole has an intrinsic value different in amount from the sum of the values of its parts.” (PE, 36) And, for Moore, that is all it is supposed to denote. So, for example, one cannot determine the value of a body by adding up the value of its parts. Some parts of the body may have value only in relation to the whole. An arm or a leg, for example, may have no value at all separated from the body, but have a great deal of value attached to the body, and increase the value of the body, even. In the section of Principia Ethica on the Ideal, the principle of organic unity comes into play in noting that when persons experience pleasure through perception of something beautiful (which involves a positive emotion in the face of a recognition of an appropriate object — an emotive and cognitive set of elements), the experience of the beauty is better when the object of the experience, the beautiful object, actually exists. The idea was that experiencing beauty has a small positive value, and existence of beauty has a small positive value, but combining them has a great deal of value, more than the simple addition of the two small values (PE, 189 ff.). Moore noted: “A true belief in the reality of an object greatly increases the value of many valuable wholes…” (199).

This principle in Moore — particularly as applied to the significance of actual existence and value, or knowledge and value, provided utilitarians with tools to meet some significant challenges. For example, deluded happiness would be severely lacking on Moore's view, especially in comparison to happiness based on knowledge.

Since the early 20th Century utilitarianism has undergone a variety of refinements. After the middle of the 20th Century it has become more common to identify as a ‘Consequentialist’ since very few philosophers agree entirely with the view proposed by the Classical Utilitarians, particularly with respect to the hedonistic value theory. But the influence of the Classical Utilitarians has been profound — not only within moral philosophy, but within political philosophy and social policy. The question Bentham asked, “What use is it?,” is a cornerstone of policy formation. It is a completely secular, forward-looking question. The articulation and systematic development of this approach to policy formation is owed to the Classical Utilitarians.

Primary Literature

• Bentham, Jeremy, 1789 [PML]. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.
• –––, 1785 [OAO]. “Offences Against Oneself.” Louis Compton (ed.), The Journal of Homosexuality , 3(4) (1978): 389–406, 4(1): 91–107..
• Cooper, Anthony Ashley (3 rd Earl of Shaftesbury), 1711 [IVM]. Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit , in Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions and Times , excerpts reprinted in Raphael 1969.
• Cumberland, Richard, 1672. De Legibus Naturae Disquisitio Philosophica , London. English translation by John Maxwell, A Treatise of the Laws of Nature , 1727, reprinted New York, Garland, 1978.
• Gay, John, 1731. A Dissertation Concerning the Fundamental Principle and Immediate Criterion of Virtue in Frances King's An Essay on the Origin of Evil , London.
• Hume, David, 1738. A Treatise of Human Nature , edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.
• Hutcheson, Francis, 1725. An Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue , London; excerpts reprinted in Raphael 1969.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1843. A System of Logic , London: John W. Parker.
• –––, 1859. On Liberty , London: Longman, Roberts & Green.
• –––, 1861 [U]. Utilitarianism , Roger Crisp (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
• Moore, G. E., 1903 [PE]. Principia Ethica , Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988.
• Price, Richard, 1758 [PE]. A Review of the Principle Questions in Morals , London: T. Cadell in the Strand, 1787.
• Raphael, D. D., 1969 [R]. British Moralists , in two volumes, London: Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Secondary Literature

• Crisp, Roger, 1997. Mill on Utilitarianism. , London: Routledge.
• Darwall, Stephen, 1995. Hume and the Invention of Utilitarianism , University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
• Donner, Wendy, 1991. The Liberal Self: John Stuart Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• –––, 2011. “Morality, Virtue, and Aesthetics in Mill's Art of Life,” in Ben Eggleston, Dale E. Miller, and David Weinstein (eds.) John Stuart Mill and the Art of Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Driver, Julia, 2004. “Pleasure as the Standard of Virtue in Hume's Moral Philosophy.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. , 85: 173–194.
• –––, 2011. Consequentialism , London: Routledge.
• Gill, Michael, 2006. The British Moralists on Human Nature and the Birth of Secular Ethics , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hruschka, Joachim, 1991. “The Greatest Happiness Principle and Other Early German Anticipations of Utilitarian Theory,” Utilitas , 3: 165–77.
• Long, Douglas, 1990. “‘Utility’ and the ‘Utility Principle’: Hume, Smith, Bentham, Mill,” Utilitas , 2: 12–39.
• Rosen, Frederick, 2003. “Reading Hume Backwards: Utility as the Foundation of Morals,” in Frederick Rosen (ed.), Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill , London: Routledge, 29–57.
• Rosenblum, Nancy, 1978. Bentham's Theory of the Modern State , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ryan, Alan, 1990. The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Scarre, Geoffrey, 1996. Utilitarianism , London: Routledge.
• Schneewind, J. B., 1977. Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1990. “The Misfortunes of Virtue,” Ethics , 101: 42–63.
• Schofield, Philip, 2006. Utility and Democracy: the Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Schultz, Bart, 2004. Henry Sidgwick, Eye of the Universe , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Skorupski, John, 1989. John Stuart Mill , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

• The Bentham Project

Bentham, Jeremy | consequentialism | hedonism | Hume, David | Mill, John Stuart | Moore, George Edward | Scottish Philosophy: in the 18th Century | Shaftesbury, Lord [Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of] | Sidgwick, Henry | well-being

Acknowledgments

The editors would like to thank Gintautas Miliauskas (Vilnius University) for notifying us about several typographical errors in this entry.

Copyright © 2014 by Julia Driver < julia . driver @ austin . utexas . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5 Utilitarianism

Frank Aragbonfoh Abumere

Introduction

Let us start our introduction to utilitarianism with an example that shows how utilitarians answer the following question, “Can the ends justify the means?” Imagine that Peter is an unemployed poor man in New York. Although he has no money, his family still depends on him; his unemployed wife (Sandra) is sick and needs $500 for treatment, and their little children (Ann and Sam) have been thrown out of school because they could not pay tuition fees ($500 for both of them). Peter has no source of income and he cannot get a loan; even John (his friend and a millionaire) has refused to help him. From his perspective, there are only two alternatives: either he pays by stealing or he does not. So, he steals $1000 from John in order to pay for Sandra’s treatment and to pay the tuition fees of Ann and Sam. One could say that stealing is morally wrong. Therefore, we will say that what Peter has done— stealing from John—is morally wrong.

Utilitarianism, however, will say what Peter has done is morally right. For utilitarians, stealing in itself is neither bad nor good; what makes it bad or good is the consequences it produces. In our example, Peter stole from one person who has less need for the money, and spent the money on three people who have more need for the money. Therefore, for utilitarians, Peter’s stealing from John (the “means”) can be justified by the fact that the money was used for the treatment of Sandra and the tuition fees of Ann and Sam (the “end”). This justification is based on the calculation that the benefits of the theft outweigh the losses caused by the theft. Peter’s act of stealing is morally right because it produced more good than bad. In other words, the action produced more pleasure or happiness than pain or unhappiness, that is, it increased net utility.

The aim of this chapter is to explain why utilitarianism reaches such a conclusion as described above, and then examine the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism. The discussion is divided into three parts: the first part explains what utilitarianism is, the second discusses some varieties (or types) of utilitarianism, and the third explores whether utilitarianism is persuasive and reasonable.

What is Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. For consequentialism, the moral rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences it produces. On consequentialist grounds, actions and inactions whose negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences will be deemed morally wrong while actions and inactions whose positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences will be deemed morally right. On utilitarian grounds, actions and inactions which benefit few people and harm more people will be deemed morally wrong while actions and inactions which harm fewer people and benefit more people will be deemed morally right.

Benefit and harm can be characterized in more than one way; for classical utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), they are defined in terms of happiness/unhappiness and pleasure/pain. On this view, actions and inactions that cause less pain or unhappiness and more pleasure or happiness than available alternative actions and inactions will be deemed morally right, while actions and inactions that cause more pain or unhappiness and less pleasure or happiness than available alternative actions and inactions will be deemed morally wrong. Although pleasure and happiness can have different meanings, in the context of this chapter they will be treated as synonymous.

Utilitarians’ concern is how to increase net utility. Their moral theory is based on the principle of utility which states that “the morally right action is the action that produces the most good” (Driver 2014). The morally wrong action is the one that leads to the reduction of the maximum good. For instance, a utilitarian may argue that although some armed robbers robbed a bank in a heist, as long as there are more people who benefit from the robbery (say, in a Robin Hood-like manner the robbers generously shared the money with many people) than there are people who suffer from the robbery (say, only the billionaire who owns the bank will bear the cost of the loss), the heist will be morally right rather than morally wrong. And on this utilitarian premise, if more people suffer from the heist while fewer people benefit from it, the heist will be morally wrong.

From the above description of utilitarianism, it is noticeable that utilitarianism is opposed to deontology, which is a moral theory that says that as moral agents we have certain duties or obligations, and these duties or obligations are formalized in terms of rules (see Chapter 6). There is a variant of utilitarianism, namely rule utilitarianism, that provides rules for evaluating the utility of actions and inactions (see the next part of the chapter for a detailed explanation). The difference between a utilitarian rule and a deontological rule is that according to rule utilitarians, acting according to the rule is correct because the rule is one that, if widely accepted and followed, will produce the most good. According to deontologists, whether the consequences of our actions are positive or negative does not determine their moral rightness or moral wrongness. What determines their moral rightness or moral wrongness is whether we act or fail to act in accordance with our duty or duties (where our duty is based on rules that are not themselves justified by the consequences of their being widely accepted and followed).

Some Varieties (or Types) of Utilitarianism

The above description of utilitarianism is general. We can, however, distinguish between different types of utilitarianism. First, we can distinguish between “actual consequence utilitarians” and “foreseeable consequence utilitarians.” The former base the evaluation of the moral rightness and moral wrongness of actions on the actual consequences of actions; while the latter base the evaluation of the moral rightness and moral wrongness of actions on the foreseeable consequences of actions. J. J. C. Smart (1920-2012) explains the rationale for this distinction with reference to the following example: imagine that you rescued someone from drowning. You were acting in good faith to save a drowning person, but it just so happens that the person later became a mass murderer. Since the person became a mass murderer, actual consequence utilitarians would argue that in hindsight the act of rescuing the person was morally wrong. However, foreseeable consequence utilitarians would argue that—looking forward (i.e., in foresight)—it could not be foreseen that the person was going to be a mass murderer, hence the act of rescuing them was morally right (Smart 1973, 49). Moreover, they could have turned out to be a “saint” or Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King Jr., in which case the action would be considered to be morally right by actual consequence utilitarians.

A second distinction we can make is that between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism focuses on individual actions and says that we should apply the principle of utility in order to evaluate them. Therefore, act utilitarians argue that among possible actions, the action that produces the most utility would the morally right action. But this may seem impossible to do in practice since, for every thing that we might do that has a potential effect on other people, we would thus be morally required to examine its consequences and pick the one with the best outcome. Rule utilitarianism responds to this problem by focusing on general types of actions and determining whether they typically lead to good or bad results. This, for them is the meaning of commonly held moral rules: they are generalizations of the typical consequences of our actions. For example, if stealing typically leads to bad consequences, stealing in general would be considered by a rule utilitarian to be wrong. [1]

Hence rule utilitarians claim to be able to reinterpret talk of rights, justice, and fair treatment in terms of the principle of utility by claiming that the rationale behind any such rules is really that these rules generally lead to greater welfare for all concerned. We may wonder whether utilitarianism in general is capable of even addressing the notion that people have rights and deserve to be treated justly and fairly, because in critical situations the rights and wellbeing of persons can be sacrificed as long as this seems to lead to an increase overall utility.

For example, in a version of the famous “trolley problem,” imagine that you and an overweight stranger are standing next to each other on a footbridge above a rail track. You discover that there is a runaway trolley rolling down the track and the trolley is about to kill five people who cannot get off of the track quickly enough to avoid the accident. Being willing to sacrifice yourself to save the five persons, you consider

jumping off the bridge, in front of the trolley…but you realize that you are far too light to stop the trolley….The only way you can stop the trolley killing five people is by pushing this large stranger off the footbridge, in front of the trolley. If you push the stranger off, he will be killed, but you will save the other five. (Singer 2005, 340)

Utilitarianism, especially act utilitarianism, seems to suggest that the life of the overweight stranger should be sacrificed regardless of any purported right to life he may have. A rule utilitarian, however, may respond that since in general killing innocent people to save others is not what typically leads to the best outcomes, we should be very wary of making a decision to do so in this case. This is especially true in this scenario since everything rests on our calculation of what might possibly stop the trolley, while in fact there is really far too much uncertainty in the outcome to warrant such a serious decision. If nothing else, the emphasis placed on general principles by rule utilitarians can serve as a warning not to take too lightly the notion that the ends might justify the means.

Whether or not this response is adequate is something that has been extensively debated with reference to this famous example as well as countless variations. This brings us to our final question here about utilitarianism—whether it is ultimately a persuasive and reasonable approach to morality.

Is Utilitarianism Persuasive and Reasonable?

First of all, let us start by asking about the principle of utility as the foundational principle of morality, that is, about the claim that what is morally right is just what leads to the better outcome. John Stuart Mill’s argument that it is is based on his claim that “each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness” (Mill [1861] 1879, Ch. 4). Mill derives the principle of utility from this claim based on three considerations, namely desirability, exhaustiveness, and impartiality. That is, happiness is desirable as an end in itself; it is the only thing that is so desirable (exhaustiveness); and no one person’s happiness is really any more desirable or less desirable than that of any other person (impartiality) (see Macleod 2017).

In defending desirability, Mill argues,

The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it: and so of the other sources of our experience. In like manner…the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it. (Mill [1861] 1879, Ch. 4)

In defending exhaustiveness, Mill does not argue that other things, apart from happiness, are not desired as such; but while other things appear to be desired , happiness is the only thing that is really desired since whatever else we may desire, we do so because attaining that thing would make us happy. Finally, in defending impartiality, Mill argues that equal amounts of happiness are equally desirable, whether the happiness is felt by the same person or by different persons. In Mill’s words, “each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons” (Mill [1861] 1879, Ch. 4). We may wonder, however, whether this last argument is truly adequate. Does Mill really show here that we should treat everyone’s happiness as equally worthy of pursuit, or does he simply assert this?

Let us grant that Mill’s argument here is successful and the principle of utility is the basis of morality. Utilitarianism claims that we should thus calculate, to the best of our ability, the expected utility that will result from our actions and how it will affect us and others, and use that as the basis for the moral evaluation of our decisions. But then we may ask, how exactly do we quantify utility? Here there are two different but related problems: how can I come up with a way of comparing different types of pleasure and pain, benefit or harm that I myself might experience, and how can I compare my benefit and yours on some neutral scale of comparison? Bentham famously claimed that there was a single universal scale that could enable us to objectively compare all benefits and harms based on the following factors: intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, proximity, fecundity, purity, and extent. And he offered on this basis what he called a “felicific calculus” as a way of objectively comparing any two pleasures we might encounter (Bentham [1789] 1907).

For example, let us compare the pleasure of drinking a pint of beer to that of reading Shakespeare’s Hamlet . Suppose the following are the case:

• The pleasure derived from drinking a pint of beer is more intense than the pleasure derived from reading Hamlet (intensity).
• The pleasure of drinking the beer lasts longer than that of reading Hamlet (duration).
• We are confident that drinking the beer is more pleasurable than reading Hamlet (certainty/uncertainty).
• The beer is closer to us than the play, and therefore it is easier for us to access the former than the latter (proximity).
• Drinking the beer is more likely to promote more pleasure in the future while reading Hamlet is less likely to promote more pleasure in the future (fecundity).
• Drinking the beer is pure pleasure while reading Hamlet is mixed with something else (purity).
• Finally, drinking the beer affects both myself and my friends in the bar and so has a greater extent than my solitary reading of Hamlet (extent).

Since, on all of these measures, drinking a pint of beer is more pleasurable than reading Hamlet , it follows according to Bentham that it is objectively better for you to drink the pint of beer and forget about reading Hamlet , and so you should. Of course, it is up to each individual to make such a calculation based on the intensity, duration, certainty, etc. of the pleasure resulting from each possible choice they may make in their eyes, but Bentham at least claims that such a comparison is possible.

This brings us back to the problem we mentioned before that, realistically, we cannot be expected to always engage in very difficult calculations every single time we want to make a decision. In an attempt to resolve this problem, utilitarians might claim that in the evaluation of the moral rightness and moral wrongness of actions, the application of the principle of utility can be backward-looking (based on hindsight) or forward-looking (based on foresight). That is, we can use past experience of the results of our actions as a guide to estimating what the probable outcomes of our actions might be and save ourselves from the burden of having to make new estimates for each and every choice we may face.

In addition, we may wonder whether Bentham’s approach misses something important about the different kinds of pleasurable outcomes we may pursue. Mill, for example, would respond to our claim that drinking beer is objectively more pleasurable than reading Hamlet by saying that it overlooks an important distinction between qualitatively different kinds of pleasure. In Mill’s view Bentham’s calculus misses the fact that not all pleasures are equal—there are “higher” and “lower” pleasures that make it “better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” (Mill [1861] 1879, Ch. 2). Mill justifies this claim by saying that between two pleasures, although one pleasure requires a greater amount of difficulty to attain than the other pleasure, if those who are competently acquainted with both pleasures prefer (or value) one over the other, then the one is a higher pleasure while the other is a lower pleasure. For Mill, although drinking a pint of beer may seem to be more pleasurable than reading Hamlet , if you are presented with these two options and you are to make a choice—each and every time or as a rule—you should still choose to read Hamlet and forego drinking the pint of beer. Reading Hamlet generates a higher quality (although perhaps a lower quantity) of pleasure, while drinking a pint of beer generates lower quality (although higher quantity) of pleasure.

In the end, these issues may be merely technical problems faced by utilitarianism—is there some neutral scale of comparison between pleasures? If there is, is it based on Betham’s scale which makes no distinctions between higher and lower pleasures, or Mill’s which does? The more serious problem, however, remains, which is that utilitarianism seems willing in principle to sacrifice the interests and even perhaps lives of individuals for the sake of the benefit of a larger group. And this seems to conflict with our basic moral intuition that people have a right not to be used in this way. While Mill argued that the notion of rights could be accounted for on purely utilitarian terms, Bentham simply dismissed it. For him such “natural rights” are “simple nonsense, natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts”  (Bentham [1796] 1843, 501).

Let us conclude by revisiting the question we started with: can the ends justify the means? I stated that as far as utilitarianism is concerned the answer to this question is in the affirmative. While the answer is plausible and right for utilitarians, it is implausible for many others, and notably wrong for deontologists. As we have seen in this chapter, on a close examination utilitarianism is less persuasive and less reasonable than it appears to be when it is far away.

Bentham, Jeremy. (1789) 1907. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bentham, Jeremy. (1796) 1843. Anarchical Fallacies. In The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. John Bowring. Vol 2. Edinburgh: William Tait.

Driver, Julia. 2014.  “The History of Utilitarianism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Hooker, Brad. 2016. “Rule Consequentialism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/consequentialism-rule/

Macleod, Christopher. 2017. “John Stuart Mill.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , ed. Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/mill/

Mill, John Stuart . Utilitarianism . (1861) 1879. 7th ed. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11224

Singer, Peter. 2005. “Ethics and Intuitions.” The Journal of Ethics 9(3/4): 331-352.

Smart, J. J. C. 1973. “An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics.” In Smart, J. J. C. and Bernard Williams.

Smart, J. J. C. and Bernard Williams. 1973. Utilitarianism: For and Against . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Further Reading

Hare, R. M. 1981. Moral Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hooker, Brad. 1990. “Rule-Consequentialism.” Mind 99(393): 66-77.

Scheffler, Samuel. 1988. Consequentialism and Its Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, Amartya and Bernard Williams, eds. 1982. Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sidgwick, Henry. 1907. The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan.

Singer, Peter. 2000. Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: HarperCollins.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1985. “The Trolley Problem.” The Yale Law Journal 94(6): 1395-1415.

Williams, Bernard. 1973. “A Critique of Utilitarianism.” In Smart, J. J. C and Bernard Williams.

• Of course, there may be exceptions to such a rule in particular, atypical cases if stealing might lead to better consequences. This raises a complication for rule utilitarians: if they were to argue that we should follow rules such as “do not steal” except in those cases where stealing would lead to better consequences, then this could mean rule utilitarianism wouldn’t be very different from act utilitarianism. One would still have to evaluate the consequences of each particular act to see if one should follow the rule or not. Hooker (2016) argues that rule utilitarianism need not collapse into act utilitarianism in this way, because it would be better to have a set of rules that are more clear and easily understood and followed than ones that require us to evaluate many possible exceptions. ↵

Utilitarianism Copyright © 2019 by Frank Aragbonfoh Abumere is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Famine, Affluence, and Morality

Utilitarianism: Simply Explained

Introduction.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that combines two key claims:

(1) Everyone matters equally    and (2) It’s better to do more good than less.

Seems obvious, right? But these simple ideas turn out to have radical implications for how we should live our lives. The purpose of this website is to (i) introduce and defend these key ideas, and (ii) explore their practical implications .

Most people say they’d like to help people and make a difference in the world. Utilitarians are interested in doing the most good they can .

1. Everyone Matters Equally

The greatest moral atrocities in history—from slavery to the Holocaust—stem from denying moral equality . Their perpetrators claim that certain groups of people don’t matter and can rightly be oppressed, their interests and well-being disregarded by those with greater power.

Utilitarianism rejects this claim at its root. It opposes not just racism, sexism, and homophobia, but also nationalism, speciesism, and any other bias or “ism” that would lead us to disregard the suffering of any sentient being.

Utilitarians believe that if someone can suffer, then they matter morally. Moreover, we ought to care just as much about preventing their suffering (and promoting their well-being) as we would anyone else’s. Just as we recognize it was wrong for people to disregard others’ interests in the past, so we should expect that neglecting moral equality could lead us into moral error today.

2. It’s Better to do More Good than Less

Given a choice between helping a lot or helping a little, it’s better to help a lot! This sounds obvious, but is often neglected. For example, when donating to charity, very few people put effort into finding the best cause possible. But some organizations can do hundreds or even thousands of times more good than others, so the choice of where to give can be even more important than how much you give. $100 to a highly effective charity will be much more worthwhile than even $100,000 to an ineffective (or possibly even counterproductive) charity. For this reason, utilitarianism encourages people to find and put into practice the very best ways of doing good.

If we don’t think about it, we’re more likely to donate to a random charity we’re asked to support, or to select a charity based on our personal connection to the cause. This is understandable, but it means passing up an opportunity to potentially do more good for others at no greater cost to ourselves. It also risks biasing our decisions in unfair ways: because cancer affects people like me (and those in my local community), whereas malaria does not, I’m more likely to feel an emotional connection to cancer charities. If I let my emotions decide who I will help, I will unfairly neglect those in other countries who, through no fault of their own, suffer from problems that I personally never have to worry about.

Feelings are important, of course, as they help to motivate us to do good in the first place. But feelings need to be guided by careful thought and evidence. Effective Altruism involves combining the head and the heart so that we can do the most good.

Click here for a more advanced introduction to utilitarianism and its definition.

Two Arguments for Utilitarianism

The idea of giving rational arguments for moral views can seem strange. Those with strong views rarely change their mind when presented with rational arguments. Yet the implications of our values are not always obvious, so it can be helpful to carefully think them through—especially if we’re not yet certain where our moral compass points.

The Veil of Ignorance

Humans are masters of self-deception and motivated reasoning. If something benefits us personally, it’s all too easy to convince ourselves that it must be okay. To correct for such self-serving biases, philosophers invented a concept called the veil of ignorance . Imagine looking down on the world from a kind of “God’s eye view”. You can see everyone, and understand the possible futures—what will happen to each and every person depending on what particular choices are made— but you don’t know which of these people is you !

When you compare different options from behind the veil of ignorance, you are forced to be impartial. If you don’t know who you will end up being, the most rational way to promote your self-interest is to choose whatever would best promote everyone’s interests overall . Slave-owners might rethink their position if evaluating the institution of slavery from behind the veil of ignorance—if they believed they were equally likely to end up as anyone , then the risk that they themselves might end up suffering in the position of a slave would clearly outweigh the “benefit” of a chance of being a slave-owner.

Choosing rationally from behind the veil of ignorance would lead to supporting both key claims of utilitarianism: (i) everyone matters equally, and (ii) it’s better to do more good than less. The veil of ignorance indicates what we would choose if free from self-serving biases, which is plausibly what we should choose, morally.

Generalizing the Golden Rule

Many ethical traditions endorse some form of the Golden Rule : “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Of course, it needs to be interpreted sensibly: we wouldn’t want a masochist to go around whipping people who aren’t as into that as he is. Rather, it suggests that other people’s interests matter just as ours do, and so we should take others’ interests fully into account just as we would want others to do with our interests. Utilitarians call this the equal consideration of interests principle.

One vivid way to implement this principle is to imagine yourself in the position of each affected person, one after the other, living each of their lives (with their tastes and preferences) in sequence. If you were, in effect, everybody , what would it be rational for you to choose? Clearly, this would support (i) treating everyone’s interests equally, and (ii) always preferring more good rather than less—that is, the key ideas of utilitarianism.

Click here for a more advanced discussion of arguments for utilitarianism.

Two Objections to Utilitarianism

Critics have raised many important objections to utilitarianism. In this section, we’ll briefly discuss the two most influential: the rights objection, and the demandingness objection.

The Rights Objection

Utilitarianism seems to endorse the controversial idea that “the end justifies the means”. In theory, it allows that any act—even deliberately killing an innocent person—may be justified if it serves to bring about a better outcome (such as saving more lives overall). Many consider it monstrous for a moral theory to permit violating an individual’s rights in this way.

A vivid example of this objection is found in the following thought experiment: Imagine that five patients each need a different transplanted organ or they will soon die⁠. A healthy patient, Chuck, comes into the hospital for a routine check-up and the doctor finds that Chuck is a perfect match as a donor for all five patients. Should the doctor kill Chuck and use his organs to save the five others?

Utilitarianism seems to imply that the doctor should kill Chuck, since one death is better than five. But many people find this answer to be unacceptable, and would sooner reject utilitarianism than believe that the doctor really ought to kill Chuck.

In response, utilitarians may argue that it will generally lead to better results if agents are deeply reluctant to kill innocent people. Historically, we know that most times when people violate rights for the so-called “greater good”, they end up doing vastly more harm than good. They do not usually manage to bring about better outcomes at all. In addition to the direct harm done, violating rights also causes indirect harms via reduced social trust and cooperation. (How many more people would die for lack of routine medical care, if they feared that their doctor might murder them?) In practice, rights are an excellent tool for promoting human well-being, so we ought to be very wary of violating rights in this way. The doctor cannot reasonably be confident that killing Chuck would really do more good than harm (once the risk of indirect effects is taken into account). So utilitarianism can accommodate our condemnation of the murder after all.

The Demandingness Objection

Utilitarianism claims that we should do whatever would bring about the overall best result, counting everyone equally. This implies that we are almost always acting wrongly, because there is almost always something better that we could be doing. For example, almost anytime you spend money on yourself, you could have done more good by instead donating that money to effective global charities.

If a person constantly told you to do everything that utilitarianism requires, they’d probably drive you crazy. “Give me a #*@!-ing break!” you might snap at them. They would be making unreasonable demands. But surely morality itself should not be in the business of making unreasonable demands, right?

Utilitarians may respond by denying that their theory is best understood as making “demands” in this sense. When utilitarianism says that we ought to donate more to charity, this really just means that it would be the best or morally ideal choice. But it’s not as though anyone would blame you for falling short of the ideal. (Utilitarians might instead reserve blame for those who give egregiously little weight to others’ interests, and positively praise anyone who is more altruistic than average.)

Click here for a more advanced discussion of objections to utilitarianism.

History and Track Record

The classical utilitarians of the 18th and 19th centuries had social and political attitudes that were far ahead of their time. As a progressive social reformer, Jeremy Bentham defended issues such as the separation of church and state; the abolition of slavery and of capital punishment; legal regulations to protect criminals and non-human animals from cruel treatment; and the decriminalization of homosexuality as early as the late 1700s. Indeed, his manuscripts on homosexuality were so liberal that his editor hid them from the public after Bentham’s death. They were only published two centuries later.

John Stuart Mill defended freedom of speech and the provision of social welfare for the poor. He was the second member of the UK’s Parliament to call for women’s suffrage, and he advocated for gender equality more generally.

In a similar vein, Henry Sidgwick advocated for women’s education and the freedom of education from religious doctrines. Modern utilitarians like Peter Singer are outspoken advocates drawing attention to pressing moral problems such as extreme poverty and factory farming.

While the early proponents of utilitarianism were far from perfect, their reasoning led them to avoid many of the moral prejudices of their time and reach more enlightened moral and political positions. Those of us living today are, of course, no less fallible than our forebears. To help overcome our own biases, our moral and political views may similarly benefit from being checked against utilitarian principles.

Note: the rest of this website provides a college-level academic guide to utilitarian moral theory. Readers interested in learning more about utilitarianism are encouraged to explore this more advanced material.

How to Cite This Page

Want to learn more about utilitarianism.

Read about the theory behind utilitarianism:

Learn how to use utilitarianism to improve the world:

Deontology vs. Utilitarianism

What's the difference.

Deontology and Utilitarianism are two ethical theories that provide different approaches to moral decision-making. Deontology, often associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant, focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, regardless of their consequences. It emphasizes the importance of following moral rules and principles, such as honesty and respect for others, regardless of the outcome. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, popularized by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, prioritizes the greatest overall happiness or utility for the majority. It suggests that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences and the amount of pleasure or pain it produces. While Deontology emphasizes duty and moral principles, Utilitarianism focuses on the overall happiness and well-being of the majority.

Further Detail

Introduction.

When it comes to ethical theories, two prominent frameworks that often emerge in discussions are deontology and utilitarianism. Both of these theories provide different perspectives on how to determine the morality of an action or decision. While deontology focuses on the inherent nature of an action, utilitarianism emphasizes the consequences and overall happiness it produces. In this article, we will explore the attributes of deontology and utilitarianism, highlighting their key differences and similarities.

Deontology, derived from the Greek word "deon" meaning duty or obligation, is an ethical theory that places emphasis on the inherent nature of an action rather than its consequences. According to deontologists, certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their outcomes. This theory is often associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who believed in the existence of moral absolutes.

Deontologists argue that individuals have certain moral duties or obligations that they must adhere to, regardless of the consequences. These duties are derived from rational principles and are considered universal and unchanging. For example, telling the truth is seen as a moral duty, even if lying could potentially lead to better outcomes.

Deontology also emphasizes the importance of moral rules and principles. These rules act as guides for decision-making and provide a framework for determining the morality of an action. Deontologists believe that individuals should follow these rules consistently, regardless of the situation or potential consequences.

Furthermore, deontology places a strong emphasis on the autonomy and dignity of individuals. It argues that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end. This means that individuals should never be used as a mere tool to achieve a greater good, even if it may result in overall happiness.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is an ethical theory that focuses on the consequences of an action or decision. It was popularized by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarians believe that the morality of an action is determined by its ability to maximize overall happiness or utility.

According to utilitarianism, the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory is often associated with the principle of the "greatest happiness principle" or the "principle of utility." Utilitarians argue that the consequences of an action should be the primary consideration when determining its morality.

Utilitarianism also emphasizes the idea of impartiality. It suggests that all individuals' happiness should be taken into account, without any bias or favoritism. This means that the happiness of one person is not considered more valuable than the happiness of another. Utilitarians aim to create the greatest overall happiness for the entire population.

Furthermore, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that it evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcomes. It does not focus on the inherent nature of the action itself, but rather on the consequences it produces. Utilitarians argue that actions should be judged based on their ability to maximize happiness and minimize suffering.

Key Differences

While both deontology and utilitarianism provide frameworks for ethical decision-making, they differ in several key aspects. One of the main differences lies in their focus. Deontology emphasizes the inherent nature of an action, while utilitarianism focuses on the consequences it produces.

Another difference is the role of moral rules and duties. Deontology places a strong emphasis on following moral rules and fulfilling duties, regardless of the consequences. In contrast, utilitarianism does not prioritize specific rules but rather evaluates actions based on their overall impact on happiness.

Additionally, deontology prioritizes the autonomy and dignity of individuals, treating them as ends in themselves. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, considers individuals as means to an end, focusing on the overall happiness of the population rather than individual autonomy.

Furthermore, deontology often relies on moral absolutes, believing in the existence of universal and unchanging moral principles. Utilitarianism, however, does not adhere to absolute moral rules and instead evaluates actions based on their consequences in specific situations.

Lastly, deontology can sometimes lead to conflicting moral duties, where following one duty may violate another. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, aims to provide a more flexible approach by considering the overall consequences and weighing the happiness produced against any potential negative effects.

Similarities

Despite their differences, deontology and utilitarianism also share some similarities. Both theories aim to provide a framework for ethical decision-making and guide individuals in determining the morality of their actions.

Both deontology and utilitarianism recognize the importance of considering the well-being of others. While deontology emphasizes the autonomy and dignity of individuals, it also acknowledges the impact of one's actions on others. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, directly focuses on maximizing overall happiness, which inherently includes the well-being of others.

Moreover, both deontology and utilitarianism acknowledge the complexity of ethical decision-making. They recognize that moral dilemmas can arise, where different principles or consequences may conflict with each other. Both theories provide a framework for individuals to navigate these dilemmas and make informed ethical choices.

Additionally, both deontology and utilitarianism have been influential in shaping ethical discussions and debates. They have provided a foundation for various ethical theories and have contributed to the development of moral philosophy as a whole.

Overall, while deontology and utilitarianism differ in their approach to determining the morality of an action, they both offer valuable insights into ethical decision-making. Understanding the attributes of these theories can help individuals navigate complex moral dilemmas and make informed choices that align with their own ethical beliefs.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Newest Articles

• Exploring Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Exploring the Principles of Virtue Ethics
• Exploring Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
• Materialism and Physicalism: Exploring the Philosophical Concepts
• Metaphysics
• Theory of Forms
• Epistemology
• Materialism
• Moral relativism
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue ethics
• Normative ethics
• Applied ethics
• Moral Psychology
• Philosophy of art
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of beauty
• Nature of Art
• Philosophy of Film
• Philosophy of Music
• Deductive reasoning
• Inductive reasoning
• Justification
• Perception and Knowledge
• Beliefs and Truth
• Modern philosophy
• Romanticism
• Analytic philosophy
• Enlightenment philosophy
• Existentialism
• Enlightenment
• Ancient philosophy
• Classical Greek philosophy
• Renaissance philosophy
• Medieval philosophy
• Pre-Socratic philosophy
• Hellenistic philosophy
• Presocratic philosophy
• Rationalism
• Scholasticism
• Jewish philosophy
• Early Islamic philosophy
• Reasoning and Argumentation
• Seeking Justice After a Tractor-Trailer Accident: Why You Need an Experienced Lawyer
• Critical Thinking
• Fallacies and logical errors
• Skepticism and doubt
• Creative Thinking
• Lateral thinking
• Thought experiments
• Argumentation and Logic
• Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Fallacies and Rebuttals
• Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
• Reasoning and Problem-Solving
• Critical Thinking and Decision Making
• Creative Thinking and Problem Solving
• Analytical Thinking and Reasoning
• Philosophical Writing and Analysis
• Argumentative Writing and Analysis
• Interpreting Philosophical Texts
• Writing Essays and Articles on Philosophy
• Philosophical Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Research Design and Methodology
• Ethics and Morality
• Aesthetics and Beauty
• Metaphysical terms
• Ontological argument
• Ethical terms
• Aesthetic terms
• Metaphysical theories
• Kant's Categorical Imperative
• Aristotle's Four Causes
• Plato's Theory of Forms
• Hegel's Dialectic
• Ethical theories
• Aesthetic theories
• John Dewey's aesthetic theory
• Immanuel Kant's aesthetic theory
• Modern philosophical texts
• Foucault's The Order of Things
• Descartes' Meditations
• Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
• Ancient philosophical texts
• Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
• Plato's Republic
• Ancient philosophers
• Modern philosophers
• Modern philosophical schools
• German Idealism
• British Empiricism
• Ancient philosophical schools
• The Skeptic school
• The Cynic school
• The Stoic school
• The Epicurean school
• The Socratic school
• Philosophy of Language
• Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
• Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
• Meaning of Words and Phrases
• Philosophy of Science
• Scientific Realism and Rationalism
• Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model
• Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Philosophy of Mind
• Mind-Body Dualism and Emergentism
• Materialism and Physicalism
• Identity Theory and Personal Identity
• Philosophy of Religion
• Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering
• Religious Experience and Faith
• Metaphysical Theories
• Idealism and Realism
• Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarianism
• Phenomenalism and Nominalism
• Epistemological Theories
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism
• Rationalism and Empiricism
• Foundationalism and Coherentism
• Aesthetic Theories
• Formalist Aesthetics, Emotional Aesthetics, Experiential Aesthetics
• Relational Aesthetics, Sociological Aesthetics, Historical Aesthetics
• Naturalistic Aesthetics, Immanent Aesthetics, Transcendental Aesthetics
• Ethical Theories
• Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology
• Subjectivism, Egoism, Hedonism
• Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, Care Ethics
• Metaphysical Terms
• Cause, Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility
• Identity, Persistence, Time, Space
• Substance, Attribute, Essence, Accident
• Logic and Argumentation Terms
• Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction, Induction
• Inference, Validity, Soundness, Refutation
• Premise, Conclusion, Entailment, Contradiction
• Epistemological Terms
• Perception and Knowledge Claims
• Infallibility, Verifiability, Coherence Theory of Truth
• Justification, Beliefs and Truths
• Ethical Terms
• Modern Texts
• A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
• Medieval Texts
• The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides
• The Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
• The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes
• Ancient Texts
• The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero
• The Republic by Plato
• Understanding Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism and Deontology
• Philosophical Terms

Do you want to understand the intricacies of ethical theories such as virtue ethics, utilitarianism and deontology? Are you looking for a comprehensive explanation of the different views on moral decision making? In this article, we will provide a thorough overview of these three philosophical theories, exploring their implications and differences. We will start by introducing virtue ethics and discussing its core beliefs and principles. We will then move on to utilitarianism, exploring its impact and implications. Finally, we will discuss deontology and its implications for moral decision making.

Through this analysis, we will provide a comprehensive understanding of the three ethical theories. Ethics is a complex topic, which can be broken down into three main philosophical concepts: virtue ethics , utilitarianism and deontology . This article will explain each concept and how they are used in ethical decision-making. The first concept to consider is virtue ethics . This ethical framework focuses on the virtues that individuals should possess in order to make moral decisions. According to this perspective, individuals should aim to cultivate good habits and character traits such as honesty, integrity, courage and compassion.

The goal of this approach is to create a moral individual who will act with virtuous intentions. The second concept is utilitarianism . This ethical framework takes a consequentialist approach and focuses on the outcomes of an action. According to utilitarianism, the moral action is the one that produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. The third concept is deontology . This ethical framework focuses on following moral rules or duties regardless of the consequences.

Utilitarianism is one of the three major ethical theories, alongside virtue ethics and deontology. Utilitarianism is used in ethical decision-making to determine the best course of action in a given situation. It involves weighing up the benefits and harms associated with each action, and then selecting the option that produces the most net benefit. This means that utilitarianism puts a premium on producing the greatest good for the greatest number of people, without regard for individual rights or interests.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is based on the idea that an individual's character traits, or virtues, should be the basis for any ethical decision-making. Virtue ethics is not concerned with the consequences of an action, but rather the character of the person making the decision. The theory behind virtue ethics is that a person who has good character will make the right decision when faced with a moral dilemma. In virtue ethics, a person's ethical behavior is based on their own internal sense of what is right and wrong.

This means that an individual's ethical decisions are based on their own personal values, rather than on external factors such as laws or rules. Virtue ethics emphasizes that an individual's character is the most important factor in determining their ethical decisions. Virtue ethics is used in ethical decision-making by focusing on the character traits of the individual making the decision. A good-hearted person will make ethical decisions based on their own sense of what is right and wrong, rather than relying on external rules or laws.

Additionally, virtue ethics encourages individuals to develop their character and strive to become better people, which can help them make more ethical decisions in the future. Ultimately, virtue ethics is based on the idea that an individual's character traits will inform their ethical decisions. By focusing on an individual's character and values, virtue ethics seeks to encourage individuals to make ethical decisions based on their own sense of what is right and wrong. Ultimately, each ethical framework has its own merits and drawbacks, and the most suitable approach for any particular situation depends on the context and an individual's own personal values.

By understanding the core principles of virtue ethics, utilitarianism and deontology, individuals can make more informed decisions when faced with a moral dilemma. Virtue ethics is based on the development of good character traits, utilitarianism focuses on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and deontology emphasizes following moral rules regardless of the outcome. Each approach has its own implications and limitations, but by understanding them all, individuals can make more informed ethical decisions.

Top Articles

• Exploring Humanism: A Comprehensive Overview

• Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism, and Hedonism

• Exploring the Theory of Forms: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Moral Relativism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Pragmatism: A Modern Philosophy
• Medieval Philosophy: An Overview
• Epistemology: Understanding the Nature of Knowledge
• Existentialism: An Introduction
• Exploring Idealism: The History and Concepts of a Modern Philosophy
• Materialism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Virtue Ethics: What it is and How it Works
• Understanding Inference: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophy of Language: Exploring the Ways We Communicate
• Understanding Fallacies and Logical Errors
• Exploring Deductive Reasoning
• Exploring the Philosophy of Beauty
• Exploring Inference: A Philosophical Thinking Primer
• Lateral Thinking: An Overview
• Understanding Utilitarianism: An Overview
• Thought Experiments: Exploring Creative and Philosophical Thinking
• Exploring Skepticism and Doubt: A Philosophical and Critical Thinking Perspective

Exploring Hellenistic Philosophy: An Introduction

• A Comprehensive Look at Causality

Exploring the Ontological Argument

• Exploring Egoism: What It Is and What It Means
• Altruism: Exploring the Power of Selflessness
• Exploring the Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism
• Exploring Aristotle's Four Causes
• Exploring Plato's Theory of Forms
• Deontology: An Introduction to an Ethical Theory
• Exploring Virtue Ethics: The Philosophical Theory
• Hegel's Dialectic: A Comprehensive Overview
• A Comprehensive Overview of Foucault's The Order of Things
• Socrates: An In-Depth Exploration of the Ancient Philosopher
• Exploring Immanuel Kant's Aesthetic Theory
• Descartes' Meditations: An Introduction for None
• Exploring Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Aristotle: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Exploring the Life and Legacy of Cicero: An Introduction
• Exploring Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

Epicurus - An Introduction to His Philosophy

• Descartes: A Comprehensive Overview
• Sublime: An Introduction to Aesthetic and Philosophical Terms
• Exploring Plato's Republic
• Exploring Pragmatism: A Modern Philosophical School
• Exploring the Life and Works of David Hume
• Exploring the Skeptic School of Ancient Philosophy
• The Cynic School: An In-depth Look
• The Stoic School: An Overview
• German Idealism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Analytic Philosophy: A Primer
• Exploring the Socratic School: An Overview
• A Comprehensive Overview of Presocratic Philosophy
• Exploring the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant
• Exploring British Empiricism
• Justification: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the Nature of Art
• Understanding Normative Ethics
• Exploring Beliefs and Truth: A Philosophical Guide
• Exploring Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Exploring Cosmology: What We Know and What We Don't
• Understanding Fallacies and Rebuttals
• Exploring Critical Thinking and Decision Making
• Exploring Theology: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophy of Film: Exploring Aesthetics and Types of Philosophy
• Philosophy of Music: Exploring the Aesthetics of Sound
• Exploring the Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
• Exploring Identity Theory and Personal Identity
• Exploring Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Understanding the Meaning of Words and Phrases
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Exploration
• Exploring the Interplay between Religious Experience and Faith
• Exploring the Concepts of Cause, Necessity, Possibility, and Impossibility
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Perception and Knowledge Claims: Understanding Epistemological Terms
• Exploring Naturalistic, Immanent and Transcendental Aesthetics
• Exploring Rationalism and Empiricism
• Exploring Identity, Persistence, Time, and Space
• Exploring Phenomenalism and Nominalism
• Exploring Infallibility, Verifiability, and the Coherence Theory of Truth
• Understanding Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Care Ethics
• Exploring Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman
• Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism and Hedonism
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero: A Comprehensive Overview
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring 'The Summa Theologiae' by Thomas Aquinas

New Articles

Which cookies do you want to accept?

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Utilitarianism?

Understanding utilitarianism.

• From the Founders
• Relevance in a Political Economy
• Utilitarianism's Relevance in the Workplace
• Relevance in Business

Quantitative vs. Qualitative

• Limitations
• Utilitarianism FAQs

The Bottom Line

• Government & Policy

Utilitarianism: What It Is, Founders, and Main Principles

Investopedia / Jessica Olah

Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and oppose actions that cause unhappiness or harm. When directed toward making social, economic, or political decisions, a utilitarian philosophy would aim for the betterment of society as a whole.

Utilitarianism would say that an action is right if it results in the happiness of the greatest number of people in a society or a group.

Key Takeaways

• Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that advocates actions that foster happiness and oppose actions that cause unhappiness.
• Utilitarianism promotes "the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people."
• When used in a sociopolitical construct, utilitarian ethics aims for the betterment of society as a whole.
• Utilitarianism is a reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, but it has limitations.
• Utilitarianism does not account for things like feelings and emotions, culture, or justice.

Utilitarianism is a tradition of ethical philosophy that is associated with Jeremy Bentham (1747-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), two British philosophers, economists, and political thinkers. Utilitarianism holds that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce sadness, or the reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the actor but that of everyone affected by it.

At work, you display utilitarianism when you take actions to ensure that the office is a positive environment for your co-workers to be in, and then make it so for yourself.

"The greatest good for the greatest number" is a maxim of utilitarianism.

The 3 Generally Accepted Principles of Utilitarianism State That

• Pleasure, or happiness, is the only thing that has intrinsic value. To say that something has intrinsic value means that it is simply good in itself. Intrinsic value contrasts with instrumental value. Something has instrumental value when it is a means to some end.
• Actions are right if they promote happiness, and wrong if they promote unhappiness. This principle is quite controversial since it involves that the moral quality of an action is decided by the size of its consequences. So long as an action produces maximum benefits for the greatest number of people, utilitarianism does not care whether the results are driven by immoral motives. However, this principle can be refuted since most people would agree that the moral quality of an action depends on the motive or intention behind it.
• Everyone's happiness counts equally. Although this axiom may seem quite obvious, this principle of equality was radical and progressive in Bentham's time. By then, it was commonly accepted that some lives and some people's happiness were simply more important and valuable than others. Betham's principle of equality makes the government responsible for creating policies that would benefit all equally, not just the elite.

From the Founders of Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham describes his "greatest happiness principle" in "Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," a 1789 publication in which he writes: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."

John Stuart Mill had many years to absorb and reflect on Jeremy Bentham's thoughts on utilitarianism by the time he published his own work "Utilitarianism " in 1863. The key passage from this book:

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility, or 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.

Utilitarianism's Relevance in a Political Economy

In liberal democracies throughout the centuries, the progenitors of utilitarianism spawned variants and extensions of its core principles. Some of the questions they wrestled with include: What constitutes "the greatest amount of good"? How is happiness defined? How is justice accommodated?

In today's Western democracies, policymakers are generally proponents of free markets and some base level of government interference in the private lives of citizens so as to assure safety and security. Although the appropriate amount of regulation and laws will always be a subject of debate, political and economic policies are geared primarily toward fostering as much well-being for as many people as possible, or at least they should be. Where there are disadvantaged groups who suffer income inequality or other negative consequences because of a utilitarian-based policy or action, most politicians would try to find a remedy.

Utilitarianism's Relevance in the Workplace

Most companies have a formal or informal code of ethics , which is shaped by their corporate culture, values, and regional laws. Today, having a formalized code of business ethics is more important than ever. For a business to grow, it not only needs to increase its bottom line , but it also must create a reputation for being socially responsible . Companies also must endeavor to keep their promises and put ethics at least on par with profits. Consumers are looking for companies that they can trust, and employees work better when there is a solid model of ethics in place.

On an individual level, if you make morally correct decisions at work, then everyone's happiness will increase. However, if you choose to do something morally wrong—even if legal—then your happiness and that of your colleagues, will decrease.

Utilitarianism's Relevance in Business

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. As such, it is the only moral framework that can justify military force or war. Moreover, utilitarianism is the most common approach to business ethics because of the way that it accounts for costs and benefits .

The theory asserts that there are two types of utilitarian ethics practiced in the business world, "rule" utilitarianism and "act" utilitarianism.

• Rule utilitarianism helps the largest number of people using the fairest methods possible.
• Act utilitarianism makes the most ethical actions possible for the benefit of the people.

"Rule" Utilitarian Ethics

An example of rule utilitarianism in business is tiered pricing for a product or service for different types of customers. In the airline industry, for example, many planes offer first-, business-, and economy-class seats. Customers who fly in first or business class pay a much higher rate than those in economy seats, but they also get more amenities—simultaneously, people who cannot afford upper-class seats benefit from the economy rates. This practice produces the highest good for the greatest number of people.

And the airline benefits, too. The more expensive upper-class seats help to ease the financial burden that the airline created by making room for economy-class seats.

"Act" Utilitarian Ethics

An example of act utilitarianism could be when pharmaceutical companies release drugs that have been governmentally approved, but with known minor side effects because the drug is able to help more people than are bothered by the side effects. Act utilitarianism often demonstrates the concept that “the end justifies the means”—or it's worth it.

Quantitative Utilitarism vs. Qualitative Utilitarism

Quantitative utilitarianism is a branch of utilitarianism that was developed out of the work of Jeremy Bentham. Quantitative utilitarians focus on utility maximization, that is, maximizing the overall happiness of everyone, and use a hedonic approach to determine the rightness or wrongness of actions. Bentham defined as the foundation of his philosophy the principle that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”.

Qualitative utilitarianism is a branch of utilitarianism that arose from the work of John Stuart Mill. Qualitative utilitarians categorize pleasures and pains in a more qualitative manner, depending on the level of their consequences, and disregarding any quantifiable proof of their importance.

Qualitative utilitarianism argues that mental pleasures and pains are different in kind and superior in quality to purely physical ones. Quantitative utilitarianism argues that mental pleasures and pains differ from physical ones only in terms of quantity.

The Limitations of Utilitarianism

In the workplace, though, utilitarian ethics are difficult to achieve. These ethics also can be challenging to maintain in our business culture, where a capitalistic economy often teaches people to focus on themselves at the expense of others. Similarly, monopolistic competition teaches one business to flourish at the expense of others.

• A limitation of utilitarianism is that it tends to create a black-and-white construct of morality. In utilitarian ethics, there are no shades of gray—either something is wrong or it is right.
• Utilitarianism also cannot predict with certainty whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad—the results of our actions happen in the future.
• Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values like justice and individual rights. For example, say a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of his one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone an ethical one.

So, although utilitarianism is surely a reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations.

What Are the Principles of Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism puts forward that it is a virtue to improve one's life better by increasing the good things in the world and minimizing the bad things. This means striving for pleasure and happiness while avoiding discomfort or unhappiness.

What Is a Utilitarian?

A utilitarian is a person who holds the beliefs of utilitarianism. Today, these people might be described as cold and calculating, practical, and perhaps selfish—since they may seek their own pleasure at the expense of the social good at times.

What Is Utilitarian Value in Consumer Behavior?

If a consumer buys something only for its practical use-value, in a calculative and rational evaluation, then it is of utilitarian value. This precludes any sort of emotional or sentimental valuing, psychological biases, or other considerations.

What Is the Role of Utilitarianism in Today’s Business Environment?

Because its ideology argues for the greatest good for the greatest number, a business acting in a utilitarian fashion should increase the welfare of others. However, in practice, utilitarianism can lead to greed and dog-eat-dog competition that can undermine the social good.

Utilitarianism offers a relatively simple method for deciding the morally right course of action for any particular situation. Over the years, the principle of utilitarianism has been refined and expanded in many variations. Utilitarians today describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences or in purely economic terms of monetary benefits over monetary costs, rather than in terms of "happiness" and "pleasure".

Jeremy Bentham. "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)." J. H Burns and HLA Hart, 1970.

John Stuart Mill. "Utilitarianism, Liberty, and Representative Government (1863)." Wildside Press, 2007.

University of Idaho, Dept. of Ethics. " Ethics Glossary ."

Santa Clara University. " Calculating Consequences:The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Utilitarianism — Reflection On Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism And Deontology

Reflection on Ethical Theories: Utilitarianism and Deontology

• Categories: Deontology Utilitarianism

About this sample

Words: 1395 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 1395 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

• Geuras, D., & Garofalo, C. (2011). Practical ethics in public administration. Vienna, VA: Management Concepts.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 467 words

2 pages / 1122 words

3 pages / 1419 words

1 pages / 585 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Utilitarianism

At what point does it become ethically sanctioned to take an innocent person’s life? To what extent do people’s moral institutions compose their apprehension of what is right or wrong? This paper will evaluate how the “trolley [...]

Everyday, people make decisions on what they believe is the best choice that will produce the best outcome. However, too many people do not image of the consequences nor do they think about the principles of morals when carrying [...]

Consequentialism is an ethical theory based on whether or not a decision made or an act carried out is deemed right or wrong based on the outcome has a positive end result. Utilitarianism and Hedonism are types of [...]

Moral philosophy has long been a subject of profound debate and contemplation, with various ethical theories offering distinct perspectives on how we should make moral decisions. Two prominent ethical frameworks, utilitarianism [...]

It is widely accepted that Utilitarianism, as a discipline, is not as unifying or as straightforward a moral theory as it might at first appear; as Crisp highlights, there are, in fact, 'many variations, some of them subtle, [...]

The dilemma of whether or not the Death Penalty is ethical is major problem facing society today. The death penalty is given to those who commit crimes deemed by society and government as deserving the infliction of death with [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Ethics Defined UT Star Icon

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that asserts that right and wrong are best determined by focusing on outcomes of actions and choices.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.

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.

Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights.  For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.

So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations.

Related Terms

Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges an action’s moral correctness by its consequences.

Moral Philosophy

Moral Philosophy studies what is right and wrong, and related philosophical issues.

Moral Reasoning

Moral Reasoning is the branch of philosophy that attempts to answer questions with moral dimensions.

Stay Informed

Support our work.