UTILITARIANISM natural law, and the will of God.

But humanist
philosophers of the renaissance revised Epicarus’s
Utilitarianism is the moral theory that an action is theory, and by the eighteenth century, several
morally right if it serves the greatest happiness for philosophers were defending the pleasure criterion
the greatest number of people. of morality.

Utilitarianism believes that the sole factor in EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CONTRIBUTIONS

determining an action’s morality is the balance of
social good versus social evil. Scotch-Irish philosopher Francis Hutcheson (1694-
1747) offered this systematic formula linking
Appeals to moral intuitions, social traditions, or morality with happiness:
God’s wishes are not relevant.
That action is best, which procures the greatest
happiness for the greatest numbers; and that worst,
HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM which, in like manner, occasions misery.
by: JEREMY BENTHAM and JOHN MILL
Here and in his other ethical writings, we find most
Hedonism involves pleasure seeking, and of the key elements of utilitarianism. First, in
hedonistic utilitarians argue that morality is Hutcheson’s words, we are to compute the
determined according to how much pleasure or consequences of our actions. Second, Hutcheson
pain is produced from a course of action. identifies the standard of moral evaluation as the
greatest amount of happiness or pleasure that
results for all people affected. Third, he provides
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF details about the range of consequences that
UTILITARIANISM count; long term, short term, direct, and indirect
consequences all enter into the computation.
Utilitarianism is not the invention of any single Finally, he provides details about what counts as
philosopher, and the general theory is as old as an happiness or pleasure: Higher intellectual
ancient Greece. The Greek philosopher Epicarus pleasures and lower bodily pleasures are relevant,
(341-270 BCE) gives a clear statement of the role but with varying degrees of intensity and duration.
of pleasure in moral judgements;
Influenced by Hutcheson, David Hume (1711-1776)
We affirm that pleasure is the beginning and end of further developed this theory, Hume argues that,
the good life. We recognize pleasure as the first when we survey what people commonly consider to
good, being natural to us, and it is from pleasure be moral conduct, we must conclude that morally
that we begin every choice and avoidance. It is also right actions are those that produce useful or
to pleasure that we return, using it as the standard immediately pleasing consequences for ourselves
by which we judge every good. or others. Hume uses the term utility in reference to
the useful consequences, and It is Hume’s
Pleasure is clearly important motivator in our lives, expression that later commentators coined the term
and most moral philosophers find at least some utilitarianism. Two features are unique to Hume’s
place for pleasure within their theories. What is theory. First, as criteria of moral evolution, the
distinct about Epicarus’s theory of hedonism useful longer-term consequences of actions are as
though, is that the gaining of pleasure and the important as the immediately pleasing
avoidance of pain is the single standard by which consequences of actions. Sexual chastity, for
we determine happiness and thereby judge our example, is morally proper primarily because it has
actions. Ultimately, Epicarus’s theory did not take useful long-term consequences in holding together
hold, and in the centuries following Epicarus’s, the family unit. The second unique feature of
moral philosophers emphasized the roles of virtue, Hume’s theory is that some actions are useful only
when followed as a rule. Again, with sexual TWO FEATURES OF BENTHAM’S THEORY
chastity, isolated instances of sexual fidelity will not
have the consequence of holding together family First, Bentham offers a bare-bones moral theory
units. Hume believes that, to have useful consisting of only one factor: the pleasing or painful
consequences, chastity needs to be followed as a consequences of action.
rule, even by single women who are past
childbearing age. In Hume’s words: The second and most important feature of
Bentham’s theory is his method for precisely
A single act of justice or chastity, considered in quantifying pleasures and pains, better known as
itself, may often be contrary to the public good; and the utilitarian calculus.
it is only the occurrence of mankind, in general
scheme or system of action, which is 1. Intensity
advantageous. 2. Duration
3. Certainty
Hume’s reasoning here is the foundation of what 4. Remoteness
was later called rule-utilitarianism, that is, morality 5. Fecundity
involves examining the pleasurable and painful 6. Purity
consequences of the moral rules that we adopt. By 7. Extent
the end of the eighteenth century, dozens of
prominent moral theorists, influenced by Hume’s
theory of utility, proposed similar views. The most MIL’S UTILITARIANISM
important of these theorists was British philosopher
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), who acknowledged Bentham was John Stuart Mil’s godfather and
Hume as his immediate source of inspiration. teacher, and the young Mill was strongly influenced
by his mentor’s account of utilitarianism. In early
adulthood, Mill suffered an emotional breakdown,
BENTHAMS UTILITARIAN CALCULUS which he attributed to his heavily analytic
education. When Bentham died shortly thereafter,
Bentham presents his theory of utility in his Mill felt free to re evaluate the ideas of his
introduction to the Principles of Morals and upbringing. Mill’s writings show a growing
Legislation, which he wrote as a kind of moral disenchantment with Bentham’s overly technical
guidebook for legislators as they make public utilitarian calculus.
policy. Although the bulk of this work focuses on
issues of criminal conduct, the opening chapters RULE-UTILITARIANISM
systematically describe how utility is the ultimate The second feature of Mill’s theory that is distinct
moral standard for all actions. Bentham states his from Bentham’s concerns the place of moral rules
principle of utility here: in moral decision making. Bentham is what
scholars today call an act-utilitarian, whereas Mill is
By the principle of utility is meant that principle a rule-utilitarian. The two approaches may be
which approves or disapproves of every action defined this way:
whatsoever, according to the tendency which it
appears to have to augment or diminish the Act-utilitarianism: morality involves examining the
happiness of the party whose interest is in pleasurable and painful consequences of our
question: or, what is the same thing in other words, individual actions.
to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of Rule-utilitarianism: morality involves examining the
every action whatsoever; and therefore not only of pleasurable and painful consequences of the moral
every action of a private individual, but of every rules that we adopt.
measure of government.
Act-utilitarianism involves a two-tiered system of form o conclusion about the overall happiness or
moral evaluation: unhappiness that results. He offers a picturesque
analogy for this point:
- Selecting a particular action, and
- Evaluating that action by appealing to the As well might a fisherman infer, that his line, which
criterion of general happiness. has reached the bottom of the creek in which he
exercises his trade, is therefore capable of
Rule-utilitarianism, though, involves an intermediary fathoming the depths of the Atlantic. He, who has
step and so is a three-tiered system of moral had sufficient humility to be convinced… how few
evaluation: are the consequences which he can foresee,
compared with those which are wrapped in
- Selecting a particular action. obscurity, will be the most ready to confess his
- Evaluating that action by appealing to moral ignorance of the universal effects of his actions.
rules, and
- Evaluating moral rules by appealing to the BRADLEY’S CRITICISM: UTILITARIANISM
criterion of general happiness. CONFLICTS WITH ORDINARY MORAL
JUDGEMENTS

To summarize, these are the main points of Mill’s A second criticism of utilitarianism, presented by
utilitarianism: British philosopher F. H. Bradley (1846-1942), is
that utilitarian moral judgements often conflict with
General happiness is the sole criterion of morality, our ordinary conceptions of moral obligation. For
and “happiness” is defines as pleasure. example, it is theoretically possible that you
cheating on your spouse will maximize general
Higher intellectual pleasures are more valuable happiness. It may make you and your lover happy,
than lower bodily pleasures. and as long as you keep it a secret, your spouse
will not be unhappy. But even in this situation our
We cannot quantifiably calculate which rules ordinary moral judgement is that adultery is wrong:
produce the greatest pleasure, although we can
objectively determine whether one pleasure is Let us take the precept, do not commit adultery.
higher than another. How are we to prove that no possible adultery can
increase the overplus of pleasurable feeling? To
We appeal to the principle of greatest happiness put the whole matter in to words; the precepts of
only when evaluating rules of conduct, and not Hedonism are only rules, and rules may always
individual actions. have exceptions: they are not, and, so far as I see.
They cannot be made out to be laws.

CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM According to Bradley, there are morally proper

behaviors that “we should choose even if no
GISBORNE’S CRITICISM: WE CANNOT KNOW pleasure came from them,” such as being faithful to
ALL OF THE CONSEQUENCES one’s spouse. Thus, utilitarianism fails as guideline
of proper conduct.
One of the first criticisms of the utilitarian theory
was presented by English clergyman Thomas GROTE’S CRITICISM: UTILITARIANISM ONLY
Gisborne (1758-1846). According to Gisborne, we PERPETUATES THE STATUS QUO
are incapable of knowing all of the consequences
of our actions. As we attempt to hunt down the Suppose we wanted to determine whether an
various consequences, we will never be in a action like the execution of Karla Faye Tucker is
position to discover all of the relevant effects and morally permissible. According to utilitarianism, we
 ALBEE’S
find this out by looking at how much pleasure and
pain result from an actually putting people to death.
This involves an experiential inspection of the
various consequences- an approach that, in
essence, grounds morality in our factual
observations. In his posthumously published an

CRITICIS
isolated village described above, moral visionaries
seeking to reform the status quo would only be
troublemakers who would risk disrupting the
efficient traditions of that past. In spite of their good
intention, their efforts at reform might produce more
unhappiness than happiness. Again, in this village

M:
Grote is correct: utilitarianism has no room for the
moral visionary. However, when we turn to
societies that are ever-changing with constant
social clashes, there is an important role for
utilitarian moral visionaries.

ALBEE’S CRITICISM: HIGHER PLEASURES ARE

INCONSISTENT WITH HEDONISM

A final criticism focuses specifically on Mill’s version

HIGHER
of utilitarianism. We saw that the most distinctive

PLEASUR
feature of his theory is that happiness consists of
both higher and lower pleasures, and that higher
pleasures are qualitatively superior to lower ones.
The problem is that Mill appears to offer two
separate standards of general happiness. (1)

ES ARE
pleasure and (2) dignity. If we see pleasure as the
sole criterion, then we must deemphasize dignity; if
we see dignity as the principal criterion, then we
must deemphasize pleasure. American philosopher
Ernest Albee concisely states the central issue
here:

The inconsistency, in truth, may be expressed in a

word: if all good things are in good proportion as
they bring pleasure to oneself or others, one cannot
add to his statement that pleasure itself, the
INCONSI
STENT
assumed criterion, is more or less desirable in
terms of something else (ex: human dignity) which
is not pleasure.

The problem here is a serious one, and it appears

that Mill simply cannot hold up both pleasure and
dignity as the principal standard of happiness.