b

UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism
• It is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and the
determination of right behavior based on the usefulness of the action’s
consequences.
• It comes from the word “utility” which refers to the usefulness of the
consequences of one’s action and behavior.
• It is consequentialist which means that the moral value of actions and
decisions is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their
consequences or the usefulness of results that determines whether the
action or behavior is good or bad.
• It understands happiness as the experience of pleasure for the greatest
number of persons, even at the expense of some individual rights.
Jeremy Bentham (1748 –
1832)
• The teacher of James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill.
• He first wrote about the greatest happiness principles of
ethics.
• Economic freedom, women’s rights, Church-State
separation, animal rights, the abolition of slavery, the
death penalty, and corporal punishment of children.
• He denied individual legal rights nor agreed with natural
law.
• He donated his corpse to the University College London.
John Stuart Mill
(1806 – 1873)
• Son of James Mill, a friend and a
disciple of Jeremy Bentham.
• He studied Greek at the age of 3
and Latin at the age of 8.
• He wrote a history of Roman
Law at age 11.
• His ethical theory and his
defense of utilitarian views are
found in his long essay.
The Principle of Utility
• According to Bentham, our actions are governed by two “sovereign
masters” – pleasure and pain. These “masters” are given to us by nature
to help us determine what is good and bad and what ought to be done
and not.
• The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters.
• On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as
guided by our avoidance of pain and desire for pleasure.
• On the other hand, the principle also refers to pleasure if, and only if, they
produce more happiness than unhappiness.
• Bentham equates happiness with pleasure.
The Principle of Utility
• Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility.
• Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is intended pleasure and
what makes us unhappy is the privation of pleasure.
• The things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas those
that produce unhappiness and pain are bad.
• If we find our actions pleasurable, Mill explains, it is because they are
inherently pleasurable in themselves or they eventually lead to the
promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
• Bentham and Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it
as whatever produced happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
The Principle of Utility
• What Bentham identified as the natural moral preferability of pleasure,
Mill refers to as a theory of life.
• For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of
pain are not only important principles – they are in fact the only
principle in assessing an action’s morality.
• In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a
framework for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called felicific
calculus.
• Felicific calculus is a common currency framework that calculates the
pleasure that some actions can produce.
The Principle of Utility
The Principle of Utility
• Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the
principle of utility must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not mere
quatitatively.
• We, as moral agents, are capable of searching and desiring higher
intellectual pleasures more than animals are capable of.
• Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than
quantity. An excessive quantity of what is otherwise might result in pain.
• In deciding over two comparable pleasures, it is important to experience
both and to discover which one is actually preferred than the others.
The Principle of Utility
• Mill said, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if
the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know
their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison
knows both sides.”
• It is easy to compare extreme types of pleasures as in the case of pigs
and humans, but it is difficult to compare pleasures deeply integrated in
our way of life.
Principle of the Greatest Number
• Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the
utilitarian moral agent alone and independently from others. This is not
only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high, intellectual,
or in other ways it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest
number affected by the consequences of our action.
• Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. If we are the only ones satisfied
by our actions, it does not constitute a moral good.
• Utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure happiness for
others.
• Utilitarianism is interested in everyone’s happiness, in fact, the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.
Principle of the Greatest Number
• Utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure
for the greatest number.
• Utilitarianism is interested in the best consequence for the highest
number of people. It is not interested in the intention of the agent.
• Moral value cannot be discernible in the intention or motivation of the
person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively on the difference
it makes on the world’s total amount of pleasure and pain.
Justice and Moral Rights
• Mill understands justice as respect for rights directed toward society’s
pursuit of the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Rights are a
valid claim on society and are justified by the utility.
• The right to due process, the right to free speech or religion, and others
are justified because they contribute to the general good. This means
society is made happier if its citizen are able to live their lives knowing
that their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends
it.
• A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles inasmuch as they produce
an overall happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting
from their implementation.
Justice and Moral Rights
• Utilitarians argue that the issues of justice carry a very strong
emotional import because the category of rights is directly associated
with the individual’s most vital interests.
• Mill understands that legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but
rights are subject for some exceptions.
• Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He
points out that when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance
to the greatest happiness principle, then these rights need neither be
observed, nor be respected. This is like saying that there are instances
when the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even
objectionable.
Justice and Moral Rights
• Mill seems to be suggesting that it is morally permissible to not follow,
even violate, unjust law.
• Conflict between moral and legal rights, Mill points out that moral
rights take precedence over legal rights.
• Mill provides some extenuating circumstances in which some moral
rights can be overridden for the sake of the greater general happiness.
This means that moral rights are only justifiable by consideration of
greater overall happiness.
Justice and Moral Rights
• So, is it okay to steal if it is for the greatest number of people?
• While there is no such thing as a laudable and praiseworthy injustice,
Mill appeals to the utilitarian understanding of justice as an act justified
by the greatest happiness principle. There is no right to violate where
utility is not served by the social protection of individual interests.
While he recognizes how utilitarian principles can sometimes obligate
us to perform acts that would regularly be understood as disregarding
individual rights, he argues that this is only possible if it is judged to
produce more happiness than unhappiness.