Professional
Ethics
PHIL 3340
Today’s Topic
Utilitarianism
Part II
The Principle of Utility
“By the Principle of Utility is meant
that principle which
approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever,
according to the tendency which it appears to have to
augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose
interest is in question…” Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
In other words, the ethical thing to do is to act in such a way
that one produces the greatest amount of happiness and
causes the least amount of pain possible.
The Principle of Utility
• Which act produces the greatest total
amount of utility?
Action
Act 1
Act 2
Act 3
# People Affected Utility Per Person
5
100
2000
Total
1000
40
1
• Recall that the classical utilitarian is NOT concerned with the
distribution of happiness but with the total amount of happiness.
The Principle of Utility
• Which act produces the greatest total
amount of utility?
Action
Act 1
Act 2
Act 3
# People Affected Utility Per Person
5
100
2000
1000
40
1.5
Total
5000
4000
3000
• In this case Act 1 would be the right act for the classical utilitarian
even though Act 2 and Act 3 have greater distribution of happiness.
The Principle of Rational
Benevolence
The good of any one individual is of no more
importance, from the point of view of the Universe,
than the good of any other; so that as a rational
being I am bound to aim at good generally -- so far
as it is attainable by my efforts -- not merely at a
particular part of it.
-Henry Sidgwick
Racists, Sexists, Speciesists
Racists: violate the principle of rational benevolence
(RB) by giving greater weight to the interests of
their own race.
Sexists: violate the principle of RB by giving
greater weight to the interests of their own gender.
Speciesists:
violate the principle of RB by giving
greater weight
to members of their own species.
Three Elements of
Classical Utilitarianism
1.  Actions are to be judged right
or wrong solely
by virtue of their consequences.
2. In assessing consequences, the only thing that
matters is the total amount of happiness that
is created.
3. Each
person’s
happiness counts as the same.
• Critics have objected to each of these elements.
Objection 1: Is Happiness the
Only Thing That Matters?
Consider the following example:
You think someone is your friend but she ridicules
you behind your back. You are unaware of it and
suffer no unhappiness. Now suppose you go to
your grave never knowing about the ridicule and
further suppose that everyone had a good laugh at
your expense.
Question: Is this situation morally acceptable?
Objection 2: Justice Are Consequences All That Matter?
• Suppose we live in a world with elites and slaves.
• Suppose each of the 25 elites gets 100 units of happiness and
the 75 slaves get 30 units of happiness each.
• Such a world with 4750 units of happiness would be better
than a world in which each person got 40 units of happiness for
a total of 4000 units.
• This scenario conflicts with our sense of justice.
Objection 2: Rights Are Consequences All That Matter?
• Consider the Ms. York case in our text. (p.112)
• To see if the case was morally acceptable we need
to measure the unhappiness of Ms. York with the
happiness of the officers.
• However it seems this kind of utility calculus ignores Ms.
York’s right to privacy.
• This raises the general question of how Utilitarians deal
with the notion of a “right”.
Objection 3:
Utilitarianism Is Too Demanding
Utilitarianism seems to demand that we all become
moral saints.
•
• It thus blurs the distinction between acts we normally
consider to be our duty, such as giving something to
charity from time to time, and supererogatory acts or
acts that are good but not obligatory.
• Rachels notes this threatens the meaning each of
us may find in our lives and projects. (p.115)
Objection 3:
Utilitarianism Is Too Demanding
A related issue is that utilitarianism would seriously
disrupt our personal relationships.
•
• Consider John Cottingham’s example on p.116.
• Thus what starts out as a simple sounding ethical
theory gets complicated quickly!
Reply to Objections:
Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism: judges the morality of an action
by whether the action itself produces the most utility,
or at least as much utility as any other action.
Rule Utilitarianism: judges the morality of an action
by whether the moral rule presupposed by the action,
if generally followed, would produce the most utility,
or at least as much utility as any other rule.
• Compare: percentage tennis with free-style tennis.
Reply to Objections:
Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
• Using the act vs. rule utilitarianism distinction, the
rule-utilitarian might argue that rules against slavery,
violating rights to privacy, free-speech, etc, are good
rules to have because following them maximizes
overall utility, even if in some weird and unusual cases
they might not.
• One clear consequence of this reply is that a
utilitarian, since she is a consequentialist, cannot be
an absolutist about ethical rules.
Reply to Objections:
Additional Considerations
1.  All values have a utilitarian basis - truth telling,
keeping promises, loving one’s children, etc.
2. Our gut reactions cannot be trusted.
3. We need to focus on all the consequences.