Lesson 2: Utilitarianism

Objectives:

1. Understand the principles behind utilitarianism.

2. Recognize the principle behind the greatest good.
3. Review personal convictions on the topic.

The Common Good

If we calculate the costs and benefits of our actions, then we are considering an ethical theory that
gives premium to the consequences of actions as the basis of morality; such is utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the determination
of right behavior based on the useful of the action’s consequences. This means that pleasure is
good and that the goodness of an action is determined by its usefulness. Put together, utilitarianism
claims that one’s actions and behavior are good inasmuch as they are directed toward the
experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number of persons.

From the “utility” which thereby refers to the consequences of actions and
behavior as useful.

Utilitarianism by nature is consequentialist, meaning that the moral value of actions and decisions
is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their consequences; it is the usefulness of results
that determines whether the action or behavior is good or bad. However, it is important to
remember that not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian.

The utilitarian value pleasure and happiness; the usefulness of actions is

based on its promotion of happiness

Principle of Utility

The principle of utility is about our subjection to sovereign masters namely, pleasure and pain.
These “masters” are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what ought
to be done and not.

On one hand the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain
and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our everyday actions we do what is pleasurable
and we do not do what is painful. On the other hand, the principle also refers to pleasure as good if
and only if they produce more happiness that unhappiness. This means that it is not enough to
experience pleasure, but also to inquire whether the things we do make us happier.
Proponents of Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham John Stuart Mill

Jeremy Bentham was born on February 15, John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in
1748 in London, England. He was the teacher Pentonville, London, United Kingdom. He was
of James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill, the son of James Mill, a friend and disciple of
Bentham first wrote about the greatest Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart Mill was
happiness principle of ethics and was known homeschooled. He studied Greek at the age of
for a system of penal management called three and Latin at the age of eight. He wrote a
panopticon. He was an advocate of economic history of Roman Law at age 11, and suffered a
freedom, women’s rights, and the separation of nervous breakdown at the age of 20. He was
church and state among others. He was also married to Harriet Taylor after 21 years of
an advocate of animal rights and the abolition friendship. His ethical theory and his defense
of slavery, death penalty, and corporal of utilitarian views are found in his long essay
punishment for children. Bentham denied titled Utilitarianism (1861). Mill died on May 8,
individual legal rights nor agreed with the 1873 in Avignon, Franze from erysipelas.
natural law. On his death on June 6, 1832,
Bentham donated his corpse to the University
College London, where his auto-icon is in
public display to this day to serve as his
memorial.

Bentham, one of the proponents of Utilitarianism, equates happiness with pleasure. Mill supports
Bentham’s principle of utility. He reiterates moral good and happiness and, consequently,
happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is intended for pleasure and
what makes us unhappy is the privation of pleasure. The things that produce happiness and
pleasure are good; whereas those that produce unhappiness and pain are bad.

Bentham and Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever produced
happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next step is to understand the nature of
pleasure and pain, to identify a criterion for distinguishing pleasures, and to calculate the resultant
pleasure or pain; it is in relation to these aforementioned themes that a distinction occurs between
Bentham and Mill.

In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for evaluating
pleasure and pain commonly called felicific calculus or the Mathematics of Happiness. This is a
common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can produce. In this
framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of (1) intensity or strength of pleasure, (2)
duration or length of experience of pleasure, (3) certainty, uncertainty, or the likelihood that
pleasure will occur, and (4) propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there will be pleasure. However,
when we evaluate our tendency to choose these actions, we need to consider two more
dimensions namely, (1) fecundity or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same
kind, and (2) purity or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Lastly, when considering the number of persons who are affected by pleasure or pain, another
dimension is to be considered – the extent. Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all actions
and their resultant pleasure. This means that actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless
of preferences and values. In this sense, pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ but not
qualitatively differ from other experiences of pleasure and pain accordingly.

Action is evaluated by: A person’s tendency to choose

actions is evaluated by:
1. Intensity or strength of 1. Fecundity or the
pleasure. chance it has of being
2. Duration or length of followed by sensation
experience of of the same kind. When considering the
pleasure. 2. Purity or the chance it numbers of persons who are
3. Certainty, uncertainty, has of not being affected by pleasure or pain,
and likelihood that followed by sensations extent should be considered.
pleasure will occur. of the opposite kind.
4. Propinquity,
remoteness, or how
soon there will be
pleasure.

Mill dissents Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of utility must
distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not merely quantitatively. For Mill, utilitarianism cannot
promote the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any kind of animals. He thinks that there are
higher intellectual and lower base pleasures. We, as moral agents, are capable of searching and
desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than pigs are capable of.

For Mill, crude bestial pleasures, which are appropriate animals are degrading to us because we are
by nature not easily satisfied by pleasures only for animals. Human pleasures are qualitatively
different from animal pleasures. Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity.

Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An excessive quantity of
what is otherwise pleasurable might result in pain.

Principle of the Greatest Number

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone and
independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how
high, how intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but is also about the pleasure of the greatest
number affected by the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts.
It is neither about our pleasure no happiness alone; it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones
satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a moral good. This means that it is necessary for us
to consider everyone’s happiness including our own, as the standard by which to evaluate what is
moral. It also implies that utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim
to improve the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with everyone’s happiness,
in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It is not
interested with the intention of the agent. Moral value cannot be discernible in the intention or the
motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively on the difference it makes
on the world’s total amount of pleasure and pain,

Justice and Rights

Mill understands justice as respect for rights directed towards society’s pursuit for the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on society and are justified by
utility.

Justice Rights
• Carry a very strong emotional import • Are related to interests that serve
because the category of rights is general happiness.
directly associated with the individual’s • Are justifiable on utilitarian principles
most vital interests. inasmuch as they produce an overall
• Predicated on the person’s right to life. happiness that is greater than the
• People are treated justly when the legal unhappiness resulting from their
and moral rights are respected. implementation.
• Moral rights take precedence over • Example: right to due process, right to
legal rights. free speech or religion, animal rights,
o Legal rights – refers to rights etc.
that belongs to a person by law.
o Moral rights – concerned with
the basic conditions of a good
life.

Mill suggests that it is morally permissible to not follow, even violate, an unjust law. The implication
is that those who protest over political policies of a morally objectionable government act in a
morally obligatory way. While not always preferred, Mill thinks that it is commendable to endure
legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience for the sake of promoting a higher moral good. At
an instance of conflict between moral and legal rights, Mill points out that moral rights take
precedence over legal rights.