Utilitarianism: Producing the Best Consequences

According to utilitarianism, an action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest
numbers. Unlike ethical egoism, utilitarianism is a universal teleological system.

• It calls for the maximization of goodness in society—that is, the greatest goodness for the greatest
number—and not merely the good of the agent.

Types of utilitarianism:

1. Classic utilitarianism

It developed by Greek philosopher Epicurus (342–270 BC), asserts that pleasure is the ultimate goal and
the standard for determining goodness. Rightness and wrongness are judged based on the pleasure or
pain produced by actions. Epicurus emphasized individual experiences of pleasure and pain, advocating
against ethical egoism. However, he also inspired the concept of general happiness, considering the
positive consequences of actions that affect others, not just the individual.

The classical expressions of utilitarianism, though, appear in the writings of two English philosophers
and social reformers Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). They were the
nonreligious ancestors of the twentieth-century secular humanists, optimistic about human nature and
our ability to solve our problems without recourse to God.

• Engaged in a struggle for legal as well as moral reform, they were impatient with the rule bound
character of law, which led Great Britain to make the law serve main features of utilitarianism, both of
which Bentham articulated:

Jeremy Bentham; quantity over quality

▪ The consequentialist principle (or its teleological aspect): rightness or wrongness of an act is
determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow from it

✓ the end counts

✓ End justifies the means

▪ The utility principle (or its hedonic aspect)

✓ the only thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state (for example, pleasure, happiness,
welfare) Hedonistic utilitarianism views pleasure as the sole good and pain as the only evil.

• An act is right if it either brings about more pleasure than pain or prevents pain, and an act is wrong if
it either brings about more pain than pleasure

There is something appealing about Bentham’s utilitarianism. It is simple in that there is only one
principle to apply: Maximize pleasure and minimize suffering

John Stuart Mill: Quality over Quantity

John Stuart Mill, sought to distinguish happiness from mere sensual pleasure. His version of the theory is
often called eudemonistic utilitarianism (from the Greek Eudaimonia, meaning “happiness”).
He defines happiness in terms of;

➢ Certain types of higher-order pleasures or satisfactions

➢ Minimal suffering

Two types of pleasures:

1. lower, or elementary;- eating, drinking, sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation

▪ The lower pleasures are more intensely gratifying and lead to pain when overindulged in
2. higher ;
▪ High culture, scientific knowledge, intellectuality, and creativity
▪ Higher pleasures tend to be more long term, continuous, and gradual
▪ higher, or more refined, pleasures are superior to the lower ones: “It is better to be a human
being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied to
The point is: the quality of the higher pleasures is better, It is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Humans
are the kind of creatures who require more to be truly happy. They want the lower pleasures,
but they also want deep friendship, intellectual ability, and culture, the ability to create and
appreciate art, knowledge, and wisdom.

Mill is clearly pushing the boundaries of the concept of “pleasure “by emphasizing higher qualities such
as knowledge, intelligence, freedom, friendship, love, and health.

In fact, one might even say that his litmus test for happiness really has little to do with actual pleasure
and more to do with a non-hedonic cultivated state of mind.

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

There are two classical types of utilitarianism; they both agree that human actions/behaviors should
produce best results/consequences. However, they differ about how to do that.

Act-utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is equal to the evaluation of individual actions.

✓an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative

✓act-utilitarian’s, such as Bentham, say that ideally we ought to apply the principle to all of the
alternatives open to us at any given moment.

✓practical problem with act-utilitarianism

▪ First: we cannot do the necessary calculations to determine which act is the correct one in each case,
for often we must act spontaneously and quickly

▪ Second: it seems to fly in the face of fundamental intuitions about minimally correct behavior The
alternative to act-utilitarianism is a view called rule-utilitarianism—elements of which we find in Mill’s
theory. :

Rule-utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism is equal to the evaluation of rules.

✓An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose
acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative

✓Human beings are rule-following creatures and Rule utilitarianism Evaluate individual actions by
seeing if they obey or disobey those rules.

“Direct and extreme for act utilitarianism and indirect and restricted for rule utilitarianism’.

Example;

“If a man finds a woman in a quiet place where he believes he can do whatever he wants, including
committing rape, and he chooses to go through with the act to achieve his own happiness, this could be
seen as following utilitarianism or Bentham's principle. However, if he considers the potential
consequences, such as being arrested or facing severe repercussions, and decides against raping her, this
would align more with rule utilitarianism, as described by John Stuart Mill."

The Comparative Consequences Objection

• It seems to require a superhuman ability to look into the future and survey a mind-boggling array of
consequences of actions

We normally do not know the long-term consequences of our actions because life is too complex and
the consequences go on into the indefinite future.

Consistency objection to rule utilitarianism

Consistency objection to rule-utilitarianism argues that when taken to its logical extremes, it either
devolves into a deontological system or shifts towards act-utilitarianism. This inconsistency undermines
its ability to provide a truly independent standard for moral judgments.

Essentially, one could always enhance utility by breaking existing rules, suggesting that rule utilitarianism
is not a reliable ethical framework.

The No-Rest Objection

According to utilitarianism, one should always do an act that promotes the most utility. But there is
usually infinite set of possible acts to choose from even if I can be excused.

The Publicity Objection

• It is usually thought that moral principles must be known to all so that all may freely obey the
principles.

Relativism Objection: Some people think rule-utilitarianism is too flexible because

it can support different rules in different cultures. For example, one culture might
accept polygamy while another prefers monogamy. However, the argument is that
these rules are based on what works best in each situation, not just what a
community decides.

Ends Justifying Immoral Means: A big criticism of utilitarianism is that it might

allow for bad actions if they lead to good outcomes. For instance, if hurting a few
people could make many others happier, utilitarianism might say that’s okay. Critics
argue that if a moral theory can justify actions we all agree are wrong, then it’s not
a good moral theory.
The Lying Objection: Philosopher William D. Ross points out that utilitarianism
could justify lying if it benefits the majority. For example, if lying to someone could
lead to greater happiness overall, utilitarianism might say it’s acceptable. Many
people find this idea troubling because it seems to go against the value of honesty
Altruism

Altruism, a term introduced by August Comte, emphasizes the importance of living for the benefit of
others.

Altruism as an ethical theory claims that it is man’s moral Obligation to help or serve others.

• An action is morally right if the consequences of that action Are more favorable than unfavorable to
everyone except the Agent.

• Each of us has a special obligation to benefit others.

• A duty to relieve the distress and promote the happiness of our Fellows.

• An individual has a moral obligation to serve others and to Advance their interests.

• Altruism is not only for the good of others but also to prevent Harm to them.

Three-Step Action Formula

1. Assess Consequences: Evaluate the potential outcomes of each available option.

2. Evaluate Happiness: Determine which option maximizes overall happiness or utility.

3. Choose the Best Outcome: Select the option that benefits the greatest number of people.

Strengths of Utilitarianism

1. Simplicity and Applicability: Utilitarianism provides a single, clear principle—promote the Most
utility—making it straightforward to apply in various situations.
2. Focus on Human Well-Being: It emphasizes promoting flourishing and reducing suffering,
Offering:

• A clear decision-making process.

• An understanding that morality is about helping people rather than adhering to rigid rules.

3. Concern for Future Generations: Utilitarianism addresses the importance of preserving

Resources for future generations, asserting that we have a duty to maximize overall happiness and
Ensure a high quality of life for those to come.