UTILITARIANISM
Moral Theories of Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill
ETHICAL JUDGMENTS
• Ethical philosophy differs from the sciences because
it is normative or prescriptive, rather than
descriptive.
• In other words, ethics tell us how we ought to act or
what we should do, while the sciences are more
likely to observe how things are in nature or society.
MAKING ETHICAL JUDGMENTS IN
UTILITARIANISM
• Utilitarianism says that the Result or the Consequence
of an Act is the real measure of whether it is good or
bad.
• This theory emphasizes Ends over Means.
• Theories, like this one, that emphasize the results or
consequences are called teleological or
consequentialist.
Jeremy
Bentham
BENTHAM’S FORMULATION OF
UTILITARIANISM
• Man is under two great masters, pain and pleasure.
• The great good that we should seek is happiness. (a
hedonistic perspective)
• Those actions whose results increase happiness or
diminish pain are good.
FOUR THESES OF UTILITARIANISM
• Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is
determined solely by their consequences.
• Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act
produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that
pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek
and that we should seek.
• Maximalism: A right action produces the
greatest good consequences and the least
bad.
• Universalism: The consequences to be
considered are those of everyone affected,
and everyone equally.
TWO FORMULATIONS OF
UTILITARIAN THEORY
Principle of
Utility: The best We
Greatest Happiness:
action is that ought to do that
which which produces
produces the the greatest
greatest happiness and
happiness least pain for the
and/or greatest number
reduces pain. of people.
TWO TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM
• Rule: An action is right if and
• Act: An Action is right if
only if it conforms to a set of rules
and only if it produces the
the general acceptance of
greatest balance of
which would produce the
pleasure over pain for the
greatest balance of pleasure
greatest number. (Jeremy
over pain for the greatest
Bentham)
number. (John Stuart Mill)
APPLICATION OF UTILITARIAN THEORY
• A) You attempt to help
an elderly man across • B) You attempt to help an
the street. He gets across elderly man across the street.
safely. You stumble as you go, he is
knocked into the path of a
• Conclusion: the Act was car, and is hurt.
a good act.
• Conclusion: The Act was a
bad act.
APPLICATION OF UTILITARIAN THEORY
• If you can use eighty soldiers as a decoy in war, and
thereby attack an enemy force and kill several hundred
enemy soldiers, that is a morally good choice even though
the eighty might be lost.
• If lying or stealing will actually bring about more happiness
and/or reduce pain, Act Utilitarianism says we should lie
and steal in those cases.
CRITICISMS OF BENTHAM’S THEORY
Bentham’s theory could mean that if 10 people would be
happy watching a man being eaten by wild dogs, it would
be a morally good thing for the 10 men to kidnap someone
(especially someone whose death would not cause grief to
many others) and throw the man into a cage of wild, hungry
dogs.
JOHN STUART MILL’S
ADJUSTMENTS TO UTILITARIANISM
• Mill argues that we must consider the quality of the
happiness, not merely the quantity.
• For example, some might find happiness with a pitcher of
beer and a pizza. Others may find happiness watching a
fine Shakespearean play. The quality of happiness is greater
than quantity.
CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM
• Bernard Williams criticizes the implied “doctrine of
negative responsibility” in Utilitarianism. For example, a
thug breaks into my home and holds six people hostage,
telling us he will kill all of us. “However,” the thug says, “if
you will kill two of your family, I will let you and the other
three live.”
• With Utilitarianism, the good thing to do is to kill two
members of my family.
CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM
• Utilitarianism plays fast and loose with God’s
commandments. If lying, stealing, or killing could lead
to an increase of happiness for the greatest number,
we are told we should lie, steal or kill. Isn’t that a
rejection of God’s commands?
