Utilitarianism
Maximize good
Jeremy Bentham
 Principle of utility:
Maximize good
 “... the greatest happiness of
the whole community, ought to
be the end or object of pursuit.
. . . The right and proper end of
government in every political
community, is the greatest
happiness of all the individuals
of which it is composed, say, in
other words, the greatest
happiness of the greatest
number.”
Bentham’s Principle
 “By the principle of utility
is meant that principle
which approves or
disapproves of every
action whatsoever,
according to the tendency
it appears to have to
augment or diminish the
happiness of the party
whose interest is in
question: or, what is the
same thing in other words
to promote or to oppose
that happiness.”
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
 “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.”
Consequences
 Consequentialism: an
act’s value depends
on its consequences
(effects on the
amount of good)
 Universalism:
everyone’s good
counts equally
Motives, intentions, etc.
 Utilitarians treat what comes before the act as
relevant, but only because of consequences:
 1. An intention is good if it tends to lead to good actions.
 2. A motive is good if it tends to lead to good intentions.
 3. A character trait is good if it tends to lead to good
motives.
 4. A person is good if he/she tends to have good character
traits.
 5. A society is good if it tends to have good people.
Intrinsic good
 Maximize what?
 Utilitarians need a
theory of basic or
intrinsic good
 Moral good =
maximizing basic
good
 Basic good = ?
Hedonism
 Intrinsic good:
Happiness
 What is
happiness?
Happiness
 Bentham & Mill:
pleasure and the
absence of pain
 Hedonism:
pleasure and pain
are the only
sources of value
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
 A good act increases
the balance of
pleasure over pain in
the community
 A bad act decreases it
 The best acts
maximize the balance
of pleasure over pain
Bentham’s Utilitarianism
 We must consider,
not just ourselves, but
everyone affected
 Individualism: effect
on community is sum
of affects on
members
Moral Calculus







People affected
A
B
.
.
.
Z
 Total







Pleasure
P(A)
P(B)
.
.
.
P(Z)
P
Pain
L(A)
L(B)
.
.
.
L(Z)
L
Difference
B(A)
B(B)
.
.
.
B(Z)
B
Bentham’s Arguments
 Common sense: common sense moral
judgments agree with PU
 Arguments for other principles assume
PU: “if people don’t follow this rule, bad
things happen.”
 We can resolve conflicts; we must have a
measure of value that allows us to do that
Bentham against conscience
 “Principle of sympathy
and antipathy” tends
to severity or leniency
 Capricious: people’s
reactions differ
 Confuses motive with
justification
 PU is justification, not
motive
Utilitarianism
Too narrow?
(False negative)
 You ought
to do it
Too
broad?
(False
positive)
It maximizes
the balance
of pleasure
over pain
Problem Cases
 Trolley Problem
(Foot)
 A trolley is headed out
of control down a track
on which five people
have been tied
 You can flip a switch to
divert it to a track on
which one person is
tied
 Should you flip the
switch?
 Fat Man Problem
(Thomson)
 A trolley is headed out
of control down a track
on which five people
have been tied
 You can divert it by
pushing an innocent
fat man onto the track
 Should you do it?
Problem Cases
 Backyard Problem
(Unger)
 A trolley is headed out
of control down a track
on which five people
have been tied
 You can divert it by
smashing your trolley
into it
 But both will go off
track and kill a man
lying in a hammock in
his backyard
 Transplant Surgeon
Problem (Thomson)
 A healthy man with no
family or friends
checks into a hospital
for routine tests
 A surgeon could save
five other patients by
harvesting his heart,
lungs, liver, and
kidneys
 Should he kill the
healthy man for his
organs?
Problem Cases
 Fort Sensible
 The enemy alleges
that an innocent officer
in the fort committed a
terrible crime
 They say they will
destroy the fort and kill
everyone inside if he
isn’t turned over to be
tortured to death, and
they have the means
to do it
 Should you turn him
over?
 Somewhere in Latin
America (Williams)
 A tyrannical captain
has lined 20 innocent
people up against a
wall to be shot
 He makes you an
offer: If you shoot one,
he’ll release the other
19
 What should you do?
Problem Cases
 Shipwreck
 Your ship sinks;
survivors are clinging
to planks
 You, a good swimmer,
can pull one plank to
safety
 One plank has two
people
 Another has one—
your mother (or your
child, or the President,
etc.)
 Ties (Butler, Ross)
 Say A and B offer the
same expected utility
 But B involves
breaking a promise, or
being unjust, or telling
a lie
 Are they equally
good? Isn’t A better?
 What if B offers slightly
more expected utility?
Carlyle’s Objection
 Thomas Carlyle: “Pig
philosophy!”
 Utilitarianism: good =
feeling good
Mill’s 1830s response
 The goal is to maximize the good for
mankind as a species
 This has two implications:
 I can best do that by promoting my own
good; we are all best off when each
tends his own
 I have reason to develop my capacities,
my talents, and my intellect; they
produce benefits for mankind, not just
for me
Qualities of pleasures
 Mill: pleasures differ in
quality as well as quantity
 “It is better to be a
human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied.”
 We are capable of better
pleasures than pigs are
Judging Quality
 Which pleasures are
higher?
 See what the
competent judges
prefer
 Who is competent to
judge? Those with
experience of both
 Intellectual > social >
sensual
Qualities of Pleasure
 Intellectual
 Social
 Sensual
Virtue
 Even if higher pleasures were not more
intrinsically valuable, utilitarianism would
not be pig philosophy
 Higher pleasures —> virtues —> benefits
for others
 Mill affirms his 1830s answers
Bentham v. Mill
 Bentham agrees that pleasures differ in quality:
“In regard to well-being, quality as well as
quantity requires to be taken into account.”
 He has an entire chapter on kinds of pleasures
Bentham v. Mill
 But Bentham thinks you are the most
competent judge of quality for you:
 “Quantity depends upon general
sensibility, sensibility to pleasure and pain
in general; quality upon particular
sensibility: upon a man's being more
sensible to pleasure or pain from this or
that source, than to ditto from this or that
other.”
Bentham on Liberty
 I can know quality for me by reflection
 But I can judge qualities for others only by
what they say and do
 So, each can judge best for him/herself:
“every man is a better judge of what is
conducive to his own well-being than any
other man can be.”
Mill on Liberty
 Harm principle:
 The only justification for
restricting liberty is harm
to others
 Self-regarding actions:
sphere of liberty
 We ought to be free to do
what we please so long
as we don’t violate
someone else’s rights
Mill on Rules
 Principle of utility justifies acts
 It need not be a motivation or even a
practical test
 We apply it by “secondary principles,”
common sense moral rules
 We justify these rules by utility
 We appeal to the principle of utility only
when secondary principles conflict
Act v. Rule Utilitarianism
 Act utilitarianism (Bentham): an act is right




if it maximizes good
Utility —> act
Rule utilitarianism (Maimonides): an act is
right if it accords with the rules that
maximize good
Utility —> Rules —> Act
Disagree when a rule conflicts with utility
Breaking Rules
 What if we can do better by





breaking a (good) rule?
Don’t break it!
Rules essential to moral
thought
We are tempted to break rules
for our own advantage
We’ll usually go wrong
Moral chaos
Interpreting Mill
 Is Mill an act or ruleutilitarian?
 His greatest
happiness principle
speaks of acts
 But he stresses
secondary principles
Mill: Breaking Rules
 Letter to John Venn:
 Advocates act
utilitarianism
 But agrees with
Maimonides
 If we break a rule, we’ll
usually go wrong
 So, better to obey the rule
Mill: Acts and Rules
 Act utilitarianism is
right, but act as a rule
utilitarian
 Act utilitarianism is
theoretically correct: it
tells us what makes
right acts right
 But rule utilitarianism
is a better practical
test