Utilitarianism
How ought we to act?
England
Bentham (1748-1832)
Mill (1806-1873)
1700
1900
Mozart (1756-1791)
Kant (1724-1804)
Germany
America
For
comparison
Jefferson (1743-1826)
Lincoln (1809-1865)
Making Ethical Judgments
Areas of Emphasis in Making Moral
Judgments
Purpose or Act, Rule,
Motive
or Maxim
Results or
Consequences
Making Ethical Judgments in
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism says that the Result or
the Consequence of an Act is the real
measure of whether it is good or bad.
 This theory emphasizes Ends over
Means.
 Theories, like this one, that emphasize
the results or consequences are called
teleological or consequentialist.

Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
is the first notable figure
endorsing “the principle of
utility.” That principle states:
an action is right as it tends to
promote happiness, wrong as it
tends to diminish it, for the party
whose interests are in question
Bentham is famous for
identifying happiness with
pleasure, and providing a
“hedonic calculus” for
determining the rightness of
an action.
Bentham’s Formulation of
Utilitarianism
Man is under two great masters, pain and
pleasure.
 The great good that we should seek is
happiness. (a hedonistic perspective)
 Those actions whose results increase
happiness or diminish pain are good. They
have “utility.”

Four Theses of Utilitarianism
Consequentialism: The rightness of actions is
determined solely by their consequences.
 Hedonism: Utility is the degree to which an act
produces pleasure. Hedonism is the thesis that
pleasure or happiness is the good that we seek
and that we should seek.
 Maximalism: A right action produces the
greatest good consequences and the least bad.
 Universalism: The consequences to be
considered are those of everyone affected, and
everyone equally.

Hedonic Calculus



Bentham’s objective was to
measure the values of
various pleasure and pains
He developed the Hedonic or
Felicific Calculus
(Greek ‘hedone’ means
pleasure)
This is an attempt to
provide a method for
measuring the values of
various pleasures and pains
according to a set of criteria







1.
Intensity – How deep
is the pleasure or pain?
2. Duration – How long it
lasts
3. Certainty – How sure
we are that it will happen?
4. Extent – How many
people will be affected?
5. Remoteness - Is it in
the near or distant future?
6. Richness – How much it
will lead to more pleasure
7. Purity – How free from
pain it is
Application

Bentham thought all types of
pleasure and pain could be
weighed on the same scale.
They could be compared
quantitively because there
was no difference
qualitatively.

He once said that ‘quantity
of pleasure being equal,
push-pin (a child’s game) is
as good as poetry.’
Mill’s Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
was the son of James Mill, a
friend of Bentham’s
Mill took Bentham’s
Utilitarianism and made two
major changes:
1. He emphasized the greatest
good for the greatest number
2. Rejected Bentham’s calculus,
saying that quality of
pleasures is crucial in deciding
what is right, not mere
quantity.
Mill rejects Bentham’s view that there is
no qualitative difference between
pleasures and pains, and argues for a
distinction between “higher” and “lower”
pleasures.
Mill’s Utilitarianism
What justifies the distinction between “higher” and “lower”
pleasures?
Mill provides 2 reasons
1. He famously says, “it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied”
2. He also says that the only competent judge of two things is
someone with experience of both, and: “If one of the two
[pleasures] is … placed [by such competent person] so far
above the other that they prefer it …, and would not resign it
for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is
capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred
enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity
as to render it, in comparison, of small account.”
Two Types of Utilitarianism

Act: An Action is
right if and only if
it produces the
greatest balance of
pleasure over pain
for the greatest
number. (Jeremy
Bentham)

Rule: An action is
right if and only if it
conforms to a set of
rules the general
acceptance of which
would produce the
greatest balance of
pleasure over pain for
the greatest number.
(John Stuart Mill)
Act Utilitarianism – Look at the
consequences of each individual act and
calculate utility each time the act is
performed
 Rule Utilitarianism – Look at the
consequences of having everyone follow a
particular rule, and calculate the overall
utility of accepting or rejecting the rule

Criticisms of Bentham
It is perfectly reasonable,
according to Bentham's
theory, for one to commit an
act for wrong reasons, or
even commit a wrong act, yet
still be considered to be
acting correctly if the
consequences produce a long
term pleasure people
concerned.
Can we ever accurately
predict the consequences of
an act? Not unless we have a
time machine!!


Could Utilitarianism involve
causing some people misery
for the sake of great
benefits for many others?
Bentham was an ‘Act’
Utilitarian-would it really be
possible or feasible to work
out the consequences of
EVERY scenario in real life?
(compare with J.S Mill-’Rule’
Utilitarian
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Bernard Williams (1929–2003) criticizes
the implied “doctrine of negative
responsibility” in Utilitarianism. For
example, a thug breaks into my home
and holds six people hostage, telling us
he will kill all of us. “However,” the
thug says, “if you will kill two of your
family, I will let you and the other three
live.”
 With Utilitarianism, the good thing to
do is to kill two members of my family.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism
If I am to bring the greatest happiness to the
greatest number, not putting my own
happiness above others, that may lead to a
dilemma. I live in a neighbourhood where
83% of my neighbours use drugs. I could
make them most happy by helping supply
them with cheap drugs, but I feel
uncomfortable doing that. Utilitarianism
could be used to justify an act that common
morality would find abhorrent.
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Does Utilitarianism do justice to Justice?
Imagine this scenario: The Marshall is chasing a man and his girl heading to
the Mexico border. The man was desperate for money and shot the teller at
the bank while robbing it. He is 50 yards from the border and the Marshall
has to decide whether to let him go or shoot him from a distance. If the
Marshall lets the man go, let’s suppose the man will live a good life, raise a
family, and be a good husband. The killing was out of character, and the
money will allow him to live well with his neighbors. What should the
Marshall do?
According to Utilitarianism, the act with the best consequences seems to be
letting the man go. Everyone will be happy: the Marshall doesn’t enjoy
killing, the man wants to live, the woman loves him, the Teller had no
family, no one much liked him anyway.
Is it right to let the man go? What of Justice for the Teller?
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism seems to require that we violate people’s
rights on occasion.
If a car crash sends five Nobel Prize winners to the
emergency room, each needing a different vital organ
to survive, and the doctor looks at you or me, in for a
hangnail, should he or she put us under and remove
our organs for the Prize winners?
That action, if it can be done in secrecy, seems to
clearly be the best option in terms of producing the
most good for the greatest number.
BUT in response:
 Mill’s harm principle

I regard utility as the
ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest
sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.
Those interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity
to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the
interest of other people.” (‘On Liberty’ Ch 6)

In other words, Mill made it clear that
while he supported the rights of the
individual to pursue his or her own
happiness, this was only insofar as the
pursuit of this happiness did not interfere
with the rights and happiness of others.
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Since the consequences of any action are
unknowable, Utilitarianism is inconsistent with the
view that we do, on occasion, know what is right.
For example, we pay back a debt to a friend who
takes the money, buys a gun, and shoots a cop.
On the view that consequences make an action
right or wrong, our paying back that debt was
wrong. We might want to say, however, that
paying back the debt was right, and a case of
moral knowledge. If so, Utilitarianism is false.
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Criticisms of Utilitarianism
Critic’s response:
Consider another case: While viewing the suffering in Darfur, a
psychopath offers you this deal:
“Put a bullet in this revolver, spin the chamber, aim at some passing kid,
and fire. If the kid survives, I’ll donate a playground in your home
town to help underprivileged kids.”
Since accepting the offer will probably have good consequences (the
action has a tendency to produce good consequences), the Principle
of Utility says the action is right. Surely, however, the action is
morally wrong: we are not justified in risking the life of the kid in
the example even if it probably will result in improving other kid’s
lives.
The Principle of Utility, even focused on tendencies of actions rather
than their actual consequences, seems false.