Lecture 11 and 12

Utilitarianism, Justice and Fairness in Ethics

„We should always act to produce the greatest good for the greatest number“

„Everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one“

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)

Within utilitarianism there is a wide spectrum of ethical theories.

Utilitarianism is a belief that behavior is moral if it produces the greatest good for the greatest
number of people. Is an ethical concept that understands utility as a principle for judging
human actions, utility is here as a basic aspect in relation to the goal. The happiness of the
individual must not be in conflict with the public good and a good act is such an act as leads to
the said state.

Utilitarianism: turn of the 19th century

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. Is an ethical theory that considers
its utility as the complete criterion of the morality of an action. The founder of utilitarianism,
Jeremy Bentham, defined its basic principle as ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people by satisfying their personal interests. Most utilitarians are concerned with
maximizing the amount of happiness for the individual. Conversely, negative utilitarianism
focuses on minimizing individual suffering.

Utilitarianism has some of its roots in Aristippa's ethics. Etymologically, it comes from the
Latin utile = useful or utilitas = benefit/advantage. Utilitarianism is considered an important
direction of later empirical ethics. Its development is marked by the theory of natural rights.

The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham

(1748–1832) for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to
induce. Bentham believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the
amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. The felicific calculus could in principle, at least,
determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm (felicity calculus) is also
known as the utility calculus, the hedonistic calculus and the hedonic calculus.

To be included in this calculation are several variables (or vectors), which Bentham called
"circumstances". These are: Intensity: How strong is the pleasure? Duration: How long will the
pleasure last? Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur? Fecundity: The probability that
the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind. Purity: The probability that it will
not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind. Extent: How many people will be affected?

A basic principle of utilitarianism is known under the name of felicific calculus/utility

calculus/hedonistic calculus/hedonic calculus by Bentham. You can calculate the right/wrong
action to choose. (I – Intesity – how strong is it/ D – Duration – how long it is/ C – Certainty –
how likely it could be/ P- Propinquity – when it could arrive/ F – Fecundity – if it will cause
further pleasure/ P- Purity – how free from pain it is/ E – Extent – how many people are
affected/.

This calculus is very characteristic of utilitarian reasoning and value judgments. If an individual
is faced with several alternative courses of action, then according to utilitarianism he should
choose the course of action which, in its consequence, in all probability brings the greatest
possible happiness.

Among the main representatives of utilitarian ethics were the English positivists Jeremy
BENTHAM and John Stuart MILL.

Utilitarian ethics assumes that no human action is morally good or bad in itself.

Example: social worker and his client

According to the classical form of utilitarianism, a person in a situation of two conflicts should
act in such a way that the greatest possible good comes from his actions. The social worker
must then calculate not only the positives, but also the negatives and the positives should
prevail in the consequences of his actions. In our example is not ethical to lie, but when it
benefits a sick patient that we do not tell him the whole truth about his condition, then it is a
moral, correct, constructive lie, while the truth in this case could have a destructive effect on
his psyche. In this sense, then, utilitarian ethics has the character of social pragmatism.
Utilitarianism can be understood as a combination of several principles.

1: The principle of consequences. According to this principle, there is no action that is right or
wrong in itself. It is always about what the action causes. This is how we sometimes talk about
consequentialism, because the act itself is neither good nor bad, the act is. What is important
are the consequences of this act, i.e. its consequences.

2:The principle of usefulness. The criterion of action is usefulness. Morally correct action is
what causes the greatest good to the greatest number of people.

3:The principle of hedonism. If we accept the idea that the morally right action is that which
causes the greatest amount of good, then the question is what is that good. In social work,
good can be defined relatively simply as an improvement in the client's quality of life. However,
this can lead to the fact that everyone determines what is good for themselves.

4:Social principle. If it is about the greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number
of people. Morality must never be egoistic, it must take into account the interests and specific
wishes of other people.

The utilitarianism answers 2 main questions:

What rules should I follow to achieve a specific goal?

Do these rules maximize happiness?

What problems can arise when applying utilitarianism?

1: It could require us to violate the standards of justice.

2: Immoral actions.

3: Applying utilitarianism in practice can often conflict with basic human rights, because
utilitarian decision-making ethics is based on assessing the consequences of an individual's
actions. In general, people are guided in their decision-making by ethical rules that prohibit
lying or murder, because doing so is evil.

One utilitarian thinks/more utilitarian think about the consequences of his/their actions and
as long as lying or murder results in the maximization of happiness, he/they is/are willing to lie
and even kill. In this case neither lying nor murder is bad and it all depends on the
circumstances.

The question that utilitarianism does not answer is:

What is the price for this maximum happiness for the maximum number of people? From the
point of view of utilitarianism, there is no unconditionally good or unconditionally bad action.

If the action is judged according to the focus on maximizing benefit (utility), i.e. if and only if
the ratio of happiness to misery applied to all people affected by the action is greater than the
ratio of happiness to harm resulting from any alternative action, we speak of act utilitarianism.

When choosing an action, the act utilitarian will proceed as follows:

1. thinks over all relevant alternatives of action

2. make a list of all individuals who will be affected by individual action alternatives, including
himself

3. evaluates the impact each possible action will have on individuals - by evaluating the degree
of happiness and misery (or pain) that the possible action will bring to the individual.

4. decides on the action that maximizes the benefit, i.e. the result of which will be the most
good in proportion to the misery However, decision-making based on such a principle can lead
to several unwanted problems.

Bentham - lawyer, social reformer and theoretician of liberalism. He considered the principle of
utility to be the basis of morality and law. The goal of every person's utilitarian action is to
achieve happiness and avoid pain. the happiness of society as a whole is the arithmetical sum
of individual interests. The basic principle of utility is thus the achievement of happiness for
the greatest possible number of people. As long as the individual is successful in his personal
life, society will develop and progress. It emphasizes the role of public welfare.

Mill is a philosopher, logician and political liberal. For Mill, the subject of ethics is the study of
the relationship between the egoistically based interests of the individual and social interests.
The goal of social interests must be the moral organization of society. He is a supporter of
qualitative utilitarianism, he is interested in higher forms of happiness, i.e. human dignity. He
also solves issues of individual freedom, looks for the principle of how to adjust coercive and
powerful ways of treating individuals in society, the goal is to prevent harm to others. The value
of the state lies in the value of its citizens, no society contributes to its own development if its
members do not have political freedom.

Bentham was intensely interested in the social conditions of his time, especially in the
environment of hospitals and prisons. Thus, we include him among the representatives of
social utilitarianism. In his philosophy of the need to achieve the greatest possible happiness
for the greatest number of people, according to him, the individual striving for his own
happiness should learn to adapt his own efforts to the general goal. Nature has placed mankind
under the rule of two sovereign rulers, pain and joy.
Mill tried to reconcile the demands of the individual and society, leaning towards socialism
guaranteeing individual freedom. According to him, utilitarian morality values ​people's power
to sacrifice their own good for the good of others. But he refuses to acknowledge that the
sacrifice itself is good. We consider a sacrifice that does not increase or tends to increase the
sum of the final good to be useless. In his work On Freedom, he considers utility to be the basic
requirement of all ethics, but it must be utility in the broadest sense, based on the permanent
well-being of man as a being capable of development.

Bentham: the basic principle as securing the greatest possible happiness for the greatest
possible number of people with the satisfaction of their personal interests.

Mill: introduced into utilitarianism the principle of qualitative assessment of well-being, the
requirement to prioritize mental pleasure over bodily pleasure.

Bentham, but also J.S. Mill, both classics of utilitarian theory. According to Bentham, all people
are created to serve two masters: the desire for happiness and the equally strong desire to
minimize human suffering.

J. S. Mill distinguishes between its higher and lower species in the question of happiness, the
higher species being superior to the lower ones.
Justice and fairness: Promoting the common good = commonwealth = general (public)
welfare/
„In a just society, the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled“

The sense of justice is continuous with the love of humankind“

John Rawls

John Bordley Rawls (1921 – 2002) as political philosopher in 20th century, proposes justice and
fairness as an ethical framework. His main work: A theory of Justice published in 1971. Justice as
a very first virtue in a social institution. Justice as fairness.

Social order: the organized set of social institution and patterns of instituionalized
relationships that together compose society. The beliefs and standards that enable stability in a
society and help to keep things moving. It can be maintained through social contracts, social
norms, or social hierarchies.

Example: capitalist social order

Social justice: the fair division of resources, opportunities and privileges in society.

Anonymity´s condition: the situation in which someone´s name is not given or known. You do
not let people know that you were the person who did it. You remain anonymous when you do
something. Anonymity is important as an ethical principle in research because it protects the
identity and privacy of research participants.

The veil of ignorance: Philosopher John Rawls suggests that we should imagine we sit behind a
veil of ignorance that keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal
circumstances. By being ignorant of our circumstances, we can more objectively consider how
societies should operate. The Veil of Ignorance is a powerful thought experiment that allows us
to test ideas for fairness. Is a thought experiment and philosophical concept introduced by the
American philosopher John Rawls in his work, A Theory of Justice (1971). It serves as a powerful
tool for evaluating the fairness and impartiality of societal structures and institutions. The Veil
of Ignorance is a way of working out the basic institutions and structures of a just society. Is a
thought experiment used to think about the principles that should structure an interdependent
society. People will choose the manner of distribution without them knowing what will be their
position in the society. They won´t know their race, gender, economic status or level of
education, so that their choice will be good and fair for everybody and as much as possible be
unbiased. Philosopher John Rawls suggests that we should imagine we sit behind a veil of
ignorance that keeps us from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal
circumstances. By being ignorant of our circumstances, we can more objectively consider how
societies should operate.

The Golden Rule of Morality: Treat others as you would like to be treated!

People all over the world have been experiencing unfair treatment or injustice. These are the
social dilemmas that hinder people to live comfortably and to treat others equally.
What is the difference between Justice and Fairness? Are closely related terms. Fairness is a
quality of being fair, showing no bias towards some people or individuals. Justice, in broader
terms, is giving a person his due. We want fair treatment in all situations as we believe that we
are all equals and deserve impartiality. In humans, the concept of fairness is closely related to
that of justice. Distinguishing the two, fairness involves voluntary interactions with other
individuals, whereas justice is meted out by an impartial third party.

Justice refers to the concept of right and wrong in accordance with the law and cannot be
considered just if fairness was not practised. Fairness = the morally correct distribution of
resources (social, economical and political) between people.

Fairness and justice are often used interchangeably, but fairnesss refers to the perception of
equal treatment, while justice refers to the application of rules and laws.

John Rawls, a Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University,

A: developed a theory of the GOOD as Justice and Justice conceived as Fairness.

B: in a Theory of Justice, Rawls defends a conception of justice as fairness.

C: the maxi – min principle is the principle of the GOOD. Maximize liberty (opportunities) and
minimize inequalities (differences, disadvantages). Rawls proposes the following 2 principles of
justice:

1: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic
liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.

2: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:

a: to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and

b: attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Rawl´s theory of justice and fairness enable individuals to pursue their own conceptions of
what is good and not just the common good being dictated upon by the government , justice is
what is good and also called as fairness. This helps a society in ordering its socio – political
affairs especially crafting laws that distribute fair and equal access to opportunities for everyone
especially the disabled and minorities. This offers a fair, equal and just criteria for the
distribution of goods, thus, called a naturally distributive justice.

Forms of distributive justice:

1: Egalitarianism =all people are equal and deserve equal opportunities and rights.

A: political egalitarianism = legal rights of every citizen are equally observed.

B: economic egalitarianism = the distribution of socioeconomic goods are equally observed.

2: Capitalism= it is based around the idea that equal work produces equal outcomes.

3: Socialism = Socialism is an economic and political system based on collective ownership of

the means of production. All legal production and distribution decisions are made by the
government in a socialist system.Is a concept that addresses the ownership of the goods in
a society.
There are four different types of justice: distributive (determining who gets what), procedural
(determining how fairly people are treated), retributive (based on punishment for
wrong-doing) and restorative (which tries to restore relationships to "rightness.")

Procedural justice: determining how fairly people are treated.

Restorative justice: restoration means putting things back as they were.

Retributive justice: works on the principle of punishment, although what constitutes fair and
proportional punishment is widely debated.

Distributive justice: guarantees the common welfare by sharing what God has created. 5
principles of distributive justice: equality, equity, need, proportionality and fairness.

While distributive justice is focused on what we consider to be a fair distribution of goods and
services, retributive justice is focused on what to do when an injustice has taken place. The
issue of legal punishment is a significant part of retributive justice.

Everyone in the society who is not acting according to law (means in strict compliance with
applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations of any governmental authority having
jurisdiction) will be sanctioned!

OECD as an example: : provides policies to improve economic well – being of people around
the world. They represent human – centered values and fairness.
Summary: Utilitarianism

Utility/Hedonistic/Hedonic/Felicific calculus is comprised of seven elements, one can calculate the

pleasure and pain of flowing from an action in a given situation using this calculus.

1. Intensity: How powerful is it?

2. Durability: How long has it been going on?

3. Its probability (certainty or uncertainty): How likely is it?

4. Its proximity/ remoteness: When is it likely to arrive?

5. Its fecundity: What if it could bring you even more pleasure?

6. Its purity: How pain-free is it?

7. The scope/ extent of the problem: How many people are affected?

By considering all of this, we can determine the best course of action to take in any given situation. The
goal is to provide the greatest amount of pleasure to as many people as possible.

Universal egoism: It means everyone should do, what is in his interests. This idea promoted the value of
liberty/freedom. According to Bentham, liberty is the absence of restraint. It means, one has liberty and
is “free” to the extent that one is not impeded by others.

Hedonism: Etymology: greek word hedone which means pleasure. Definition: pursuit of self –
indulgence or living a life of pleasure by eradicating bodily and mental pains. Types: normative,
motivational, egotistical and altruistic. Goal: indulge oneself. Synonyms: selfishness, gratification,
debauchery, enjoyment. General impressions: negative, less virtuous, related with greed. Criticisms: as
being unethical.

Altruism: Etymology: latin word alteri which means other people. Definition: the belief in self -
sacrifacing concern for others welfare. Types: nepotistic, reciprocal, group - based, moral. Goal: help
others. Synonyms: benevolence, kinddess, social conscience, charity. General impressions: positive, more
virtuous, related with kindness. Criticisms: it cannot purely exist.

The core idea of utilitarianism is that we ought to act in a way that maximizes happiness for the greatest
number. So, the morally right action is, according to utilitarians, the action that produces the most good.

It is an ethical theory developed to determine what we morally ought to do. It is a variety

of consequentialism. That is, utilitarianism takes the consequences that action produces as the only
relevant factor to determining whether that action is or isn’t morally permissible.

Utilitarianism is the view that one ought to promote maximal well-being, welfare, or utility. The theory
evaluates the moral rightness of actions, rules, policies, motives, virtues, social institutions, etc. in terms
of what delivers the most good to the most people.
According to MacAskill, Meissner, and Chappell (2022), all utilitarian theories share four defining
characteristics / the four elements of utilitariansim:

Consequentialism: The view that one ought to act in a way that promotes good outcomes.

Welfarism: The view that only the welfare or well-being of individuals determines the value of an
outcome.

Impartiality: The view that the identity of individuals is irrelevant to the moral value of an outcome. The
interests of all individuals hold equal moral weight.

Aggregationism: The view that the value of the world is the sum of the values of its parts. The parts are
experiences, lives, societies, and so on.

The 2 elements of classical utilitariasnism:

A: Theories of Well-Being: Hedonism

B: Population Ethics: The Total View
The oldest and most prominent utilitarian theory is classical utilitarianism, which can be defined as
follows: Classical utilitarianism is the view that one ought always to promote the sum total of happiness
minus suffering. Classical utilitarianism can be distinguished from the wider utilitarian family of views
because it accepts two additional elements: first, hedonism, the view that well-being consists only of
conscious experiences; and second, the total view of population ethics, on which one outcome is better
than another if and only if it contains a greater sum total of well-being, where well-being can be
increased either by making existing people better off or by creating new people with good lives.
Any theory that denies any of the elements above is not utilitarian. For example, a non-consequentialist
might hold that actions can be inherently right or wrong regardless of the outcomes they produce.

A key feature of utilitarianism has always been its focus on practical action. Jeremy Bentham was one
person who highlighted this in his writing. Other important contributors to utilitarianism include John
Stuart Mill (1871), Henry Sidgwick (1874), Richard M. Hare (1993), and Peter Singer (Lazari-Radek &
Singer, 2017).

Examples of utilitarianism: redistributing money to the poor (redistribution of excess money from the
rich to the poor), effective altruism, global health and development, farm animal welfare, reducing
existential risks, career choices, Outreach, women’s suffrage, bulldoze a house to build a highway, organ
transplant hypothesis,

A real life example of utilitarianism: For example, if you could sacrifice your life to save the lives of
several other people then, other things being equal, according to utilitarianism, you ought to do so.

Another example of utilatirianism: For example, if you are choosing ice cream for yourself, the utilitarian
view is that you should choose the flavor that will give you the most pleasure. If you enjoy chocolate but
hate vanilla, you should choose chocolate for the pleasure it will bring and avoid vanilla because it will
bring displeasure.
Pros of utilitarianism: Simplicity, Practicality, Intuitiveness, Impartiality.

Cons of utilitarianism: the most common objections raised against utilitarianism:

∙ The alienation objection claims that utilitarianism is cold and impersonal, thereby
alienating us from the particular people and projects that truly matter to us.
∙ The demandingness objection claims that utilitarianism is too demanding because it
requires excessive self-sacrifice.
∙ The equality objection claims that utilitarianism ignores, or doesn’t give enough value
to equality and distributive justice.
∙ The mere means objection claims that utilitarianism treats people merely as means to
the greater good. This objection is particularly popular with the followers of Kant.
∙ The rights objection charges utilitarianism with being overly permissive, claiming that
utilitarianism might allow infringing upon the rights of others to maximize overall
well-being.
∙ The separateness of persons objection claims that utilitarianism neglects the boundaries
between individuals to maximize overall well-being.
∙ The special obligations objection holds that utilitarianism is too impartial and does not
account for the special obligations we have to our friends or family members.

Conclusion:

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which we define as follows: Consequentialism is the view

that one ought always to promote overall value.Utilitarianism is one of the most widespread and
intuitive approaches to ethics. Like any moral theory, it has many arguments for and against it. It was
first fully articulated in the nineteenth century and is still an important and controversial ethical theory.

Aditional information:
Option A: Ethics is divided into four main branches = 4 dimensions of ethics!
A: Meta-Ethics (Ethics about Ethics)
Deals with questions like: What is meant by being right? What is meant by being wrong? Deals with the
definition of right and wrong. Meta means about the thing itself. So meta – ethics is ethics about ethics.
B: Prescriptive Ethics (Normative Ethics) – which is again divided into Deontological Ethics,
Teleological Ethics, and Virtue Ethics.
Deals with questions like: Is that action right (ethical)? Was that action wrong? Checks if the action /
outcome of an action fits into the definition of right and wrong. Deontological focuses on action/duty,
teleological focuses on outcome/end and virtue ethics focuses on character.
C: Descriptive Ethics (Comparative Ethics)
Deals with peoples beliefs about morality. Deals with what society thinks as good or bad. It is an
empirical investigation of the moral beliefs of various groups.
D: Applied (special) Ethics – for example Business ethics or Bioethics. The most practical branch of
ethics. Deals with ethical questions specific to practical fields.
Questions:
Is it ethical to allow euthanasia? D
How many among you think that it is wrong to kill a person? C
Is it wrong to kill a person? B
What is meant by a wrong action? A
Option B: Ethics, also known as moral philosophy is divided into 4 categories:
A:Metaethics: the study of morality itself, the study of the origin and meaning of ethical theories,
analyses fundamental ethical concepts, what is morality?philosophizing about ethics, cognitisism versus
non-cognitivism

B: Normative (prescriptive) ethics: the study of ethical action, what is morally right or wrong, what is
moral? Applies to basic human behavior, is divided into deontologigal theories, teleological theories and
virtue based theory. Consequentialism (examples of consequentialism are: utilitarianism, hedonism,
ethical egoism) belongs to teleological theories and holds that an action´s rightness or wrongness
depends on the consequence it causes (happiness, pain).

C: Descriptive (comparative) ethics: deals with describing and understanding moral behavior.

D: Applied ethics: the application in specific situations, also called as practical ethics, the application of
ethics to real-world problems.

The most important forms/types/kinds/of ethical theories:

Deontology

Rights-based theory

Utilitarianism

Virtue-based theory

Basic division of ethics: A: general (basic)

B: special (applied)
General ethics = presents truths of human acts and from these truths deduces the general

principles of morality = examples = conscience, duty or the essence of good.

Special ethics = is applied ethics, it applies the principles of general ethics in different

departments of human activity, individual or social = examples = bioethics, economic ethics,

political ethics.

4 Major Branches of Philosophy:

A:Metaphysics B: Epistemology C: Axiology D: Logic
Cosmology Agnosticism Ethics Deduction
Teleology Skepticism Aesthetics Induction
Ontology A Priori Syllogism
A Posteriori Dialectic

3 general types of prescriptive approaches:

A: consequentialist (teleological)
B: non – consequentialist (duty ethics = duty based = deontological)
C: virtue ethics

A: Teleological = telos = goal, focus on results of decision or action, one´s target.

Consequentialism as an example: is divided into Utilitarianism, Ethical Hedonism, Ethical
Altruism and Ethical Egoism. (Jeremy Bentham)
B: Deontological = deon = duty (Immanuel Kant)
duty, obligation, principles, rights. Focus on what is right in broad, abstract, universal
principles.
Example: Kantianism = Kantian ethics, Justice, Moral Rights.
Virtue ethics = (latin virtus = excellence, character, power, strength, courage), ethical theory
that see the primary focus of ethics to be the character of the person rather than the
person´s actions. Virtue ethics is divided into indivindual character ethics, work character
ethics, professional character ethics (Aristotle)

Deontology focuses on duties, Virtue ethics focuses on character and Consequentialism

focuses on conseqeunces of actions.

Another example of ethical theory: Rawls´s social justice theory