You have probably heard someone justify their actions as being for the greater good. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory behind such justifications.

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. It is the opposite of deontological ethical theories that are based on moral rules, on whether the action itself is right or wrong. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences – the results of an action – to decide whether it is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory.

The theory of utilitarianism began with Jeremy Bentham as a way of working out how good or bad the consequence of an action would be.

Utilitarianism gets its name from Bentham’s test question: ‘What is the use of it?’ He thought of the idea when he came across the words ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ in Joseph Priestley’s An Essay on the First Principles of Government, on the nature of political, civil and religious liberty (1768). Bentham was very concerned with social and legal reform and he wanted to develop an ethical theory which established whether something was good or bad according to its benefit for the majority of people.

Bentham called this the principle of utility. Utility here means the usefulness of the results of actions. The principle of utility is often expressed as ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’. ‘Good’ is defined in terms of pleasure or happiness – so an act is right or wrong according to the good or bad that results from the act and the good act is the most pleasurable. Since it focuses on the greatest number, Bentham’s theory is quantitative.

Principle of utility

The theory of usefulness – the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

Consequentialist

Someone who decides whether an action is good or bad by its consequences.

Teleological

Moral actions are right or wrong according to their outcome or telos (end).

Hedonism

The view that pleasure is the chief ‘good’.

The origins of hedonism

The idea that ‘good’ is defined in terms of pleasure and happiness makes utilitarianism a hedonistic theory. The Greek philosophers who thought along similar lines introduced the term eudaimonia, which is probably best translated as ‘well-being’. Both Plato and Aristotle agreed that ‘good’ equated with the greatest happiness, while the Epicureans stressed ‘pleasure’ as the main aim of life. The ultimate end of human desires and actions, according to Aristotle, is happiness, and although pleasure sometimes accompanies this, it is not the chief aim of life. Pleasure is not the same as happiness, as happiness results from the use of reason and cultivating the virtues. It is only if we take pleasure in good activities that pleasure itself is good. This idea of Aristotle’s is taken up by John Stuart Mill, as we will see later.

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)

Jeremy Bentham was born in London on 15 February 1748. He could read scholarly works at age 3, played the violin at 5 and studied Latin and French at 6. At age 12 he went to Oxford and trained as a lawyer. Bentham was the leader of the Philosophical Radicals, who founded the Westminster Review. He died in London on 6 June 1832. His body was dissected and his clothed skeleton is in a glass case in University College, London. Bentham advanced his theory of utilitarianism as the basis for general political and legal reform.

Jeremy Bentham’s approach

Jeremy Bentham developed his ethical system around the idea of pleasure, and it is based on ancient hedonism, which pursued physical pleasure and avoided physical pain. There is, therefore, no consideration of the natural rights of humans, which Bentham rejected as ‘nonsense on stilts’. An individual’s right to life or to freedom is granted by society and is the result of legislation, and logically for a utilitarian, such as Bentham, it could be removed if the result was greater social utility and greater pleasure and well-being for the majority.

According to Bentham, the most moral acts are those that maximise pleasure and minimise pain. This has sometimes been called the ‘utilitarian calculus’. An act would be moral if it brings the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain.

Pain versus pleasure

Bentham said,

The principle of utility aims to promote happiness which is the supreme ethical value. Nature has placed us under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. An act is right if it delivers more pleasure than pain and wrong if it brings about more pain than pleasure.

By adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act we should be able to choose the good thing to do.

Happiness = pleasure minus pain

Hedonic calculus

Bentham’s method for measuring the good and bad effects of an action.

The hedonic calculus

To help us choose the good thing to do and work out the possible consequences of an action, Bentham provided a way of measuring. This is the hedonic calculus.

It has seven elements:

1 the intensity of the pleasure (how deep)
2 the duration of the pleasure caused (how long)
3 the certainty of the pleasure (how certain or uncertain)
4 the propinquity (remoteness) of the pleasure (how near or far is the pleasure)
5 the fecundity of the pleasure – chance of a succession of pleasures (how fertile will it be in producing other pleasures?)
6 the purity of the pleasure (how secure – or will it lead to pain for others?)
7 the extent of the pleasure (how universal – how many will be affected?).

The quantity of happiness

Jordi Clave Garsot/Alamy

This calculus gave Bentham a method of testing whether an action is morally right, in that if it was good it would result in the most pleasurable outcome, all the elements having been weighed up. Whatever is good or bad can be measured in a quantitative way. Bentham’s utilitarianism stresses that each person’s pleasures count equally – so public interest is more important than the individual’s own happiness or pleasure. Sentience – the ability to feel pleasure and pain – is also important for Bentham: ‘The question is not, Can they reason? Nor Can they talk? But Can they suffer?’ (Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation). Overleaf there is an example of how the hedonic calculus might be applied to a young totally paralysed man who is deciding whether to have euthanasia.

It is actually quite difficult to decide which decision would bring the most pleasure and the least pain, and this is one of the problems when using the hedonic calculus as it is not possible for us to see into the future; we can only make educated guesses, and these are often clouded by our emotional state at the time.

Quantitative

Looking at the quantity of the happiness.

Act utilitarianism

A teleological theory that uses the outcome of an action to determine whether it is good or bad.

Hedonism

Bentham’s utilitarianism is a universal hedonism – the highest good is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Actions are judged as a means to an end. What is right is that which is calculated to bring about the greatest balance of good over evil, where good is defined as pleasure or happiness.

Bentham’s view is described as act utilitarianism.

Hedonic calculus	Have euthanasia	Do not have euthanasia
Intensity	He could be at peace and his family would not have to devote their lives to caring for him. However, his death could bring intense feelings of pain to his family and friends.	His continuing existence gives intense feelings of joy to his family and friends, but may also lead to resentment in those who care for him.
Duration	Death is permanent but the grieving of family and friends might last a long time.	The young man will need looking after for a lifetime.
Certainty	The freedom from the pain of his situation is certain.	It is uncertain what pleasures continuing to live totally paralysed will bring.
Remoteness	The relief from his situation is immediate.	Any possibility of a cure or of learning to live successfully with his situation is a long way off.
Succession	There will be no more choices. The relief that he is no longer suffering may help his family and friends to accept his death.	Pleasure that he is still living but pain that he is still suffering will cancel each other out.
Purity	If he regrets his decision it will be too late.	May live a miserable life stuck on a bed or in a wheelchair, totally dependent on others.
Extent	The young man and his family and friends are the most directly affected.	His continuing existence will bring both pain and pleasure for a lifetime.

Bentham argued that we should be guided by the principle of utility and not by rules. However, it may be necessary to use rules of thumb based on past experience, especially if there is no time to work out the consequences. However, it is the consequences that are the most important for Bentham as they can be easily predicted.

Thought point

1 What would be the problems if everyone acted as an act utilitarian all the time?
2 Are all actions good only because they have good results?
3 Suppose a rape is committed that is thought to be racially motivated. Riots are brewing that may result in many deaths and long-term racial antagonism. You are the police chief and have recently taken a man into custody. Why not frame him? He will be imprisoned if found guilty and this will result in peace and safety. Only you, the innocent man and the real rapist (who will keep quiet), will know the truth. What is the morally right thing to do? Look at all the consequences of any action.
4 Suppose a surgeon could use the organs of one healthy patient to save the lives of several others. Would the surgeon be justified in killing the healthy patient for the sake of the others?
5 You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy soldier who knows where a secret time bomb is planted. If it explodes it will kill thousands. Will it be morally permissible to torture the soldier so that he reveals the bomb’s location? If you knew where the soldier’s children were, would it also be permissible to torture them to get him to reveal the bomb’s whereabouts?

John Stuart Mill’s approach

Mill was also a hedonist and accepted that happiness is of the greatest importance. He stressed happiness rather than pleasure.

The greatest happiness principle

Mill said,

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. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.

Happiness for Mill is more than just pleasure and also includes having goals and virtues.

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)

John Stuart Mill was born on 20 May 1806, the son of James Mill, who had a significant influence on nineteenth-century British thought in philosophy, economics, politics and ethics. From 1822 he worked for his father in India House and stayed there until 1858, when the company closed and he retired. Mill then lived in St Véran, France, until 1865, when he became a member of Parliament. He went back to France in 1868, and lived there until his death on 8 May 1873. He is most famous for his essay On Liberty (1859).

The quality of pleasure

Having affirmed his agreement with the principle of utility, Mill then modifies Bentham’s approach, especially the quantitative emphasis. He says, ‘Some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others, it would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is not also considered as well as quantity.’

According to Mill, quality of pleasure employs the use of the higher faculties. Here he is answering the objection to Bentham’s approach that utilitarians are just pleasure-seekers. For example consider the case of the Christians and the Romans: many Romans got a lot of pleasure from seeing a few Christians eaten by lions – here the greatest happiness (that of the Romans) was produced by an act (Christians being eaten by lions) that is surely quite wrong. Mill says that the quality of pleasure that satisfies a human is different from that which satisfies an animal. People are capable of more than animals, so it takes more to make a human happy. Therefore, a person will always choose higher-quality human pleasures and reject all the merely animal pleasures. As Mill puts it,

Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest allowance of the beast’s pleasures … 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 are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their side of the question.

(On Virtue and Happiness, 1863)

The quality of happiness

Darren Robb/Getty

So since the Romans are enjoying only ‘animal’ pleasure, it does not matter that they are getting a lot more of it than the Christians – it is the quality and not the quantity of the pleasure that really counts. For Mill, it is intellectual pleasures (e.g. reading poetry or listening to music) that really count and are more important than such pleasures as eating, drinking or having sex.

Happiness, he argues, is something that people desire for its own sake, but we need to look at human life as a whole – happiness is not just adding up the units of pleasure but rather the fulfilment of higher ideals. In order to distinguish between these higher and lower pleasures Mill proposed the idea of competent judges who had experienced both higher and lower pleasures and so were able to say with authority that the higher pleasures were to be preferred.

Universalisability

Mill next develops the argument that in order to derive the principle of the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number we need the principle of universalisability. He says, ‘Each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, is a good to the aggregate of all persons.’

As you can see, the last proposition does not follow logically from the previous one. To move from each person to everyone is a fallacy. Mill makes this move because he wants to justify ‘the greatest number’. This can mean that utilitarianism demands that people put the interests of the group before their own interests, and Mill compares this to ‘the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth’. Mill has a positive view of human nature and thinks that people have powerful feelings of empathy for others, which can be cultivated by education and so on.

Mill also separates the question of the motive and the morality of the action. There is nothing wrong with self-interest if it produces the right action.

Happiness

Mint Images Limited/Alamy

Universalisability

If an act is right or wrong for one person in a situation, then it is right or wrong for anyone in that situation.

Rule utilitarianism

Establishing a general rule that follows utilitarian principles.

Rule utilitarianism

Another aspect of Mill’s approach is the idea that there need to be some moral rules in order to establish social order and justice – but the rules should be those which, if followed universally, would most likely produce the greatest happiness. Mill has been seen as a rule utilitarian in contrast to Bentham’s act utilitarianism – although Mill never discussed act or rule utilitarianism in these terms. Also, like many philosophers, Mill’s approach was not consistent throughout his writings – at first Mill appears to be an act utilitarian, saying that pleasures can be described as either higher or lower, and later he writes that rights and rules are principles of utility. He argues that some rights need to be guaranteed in order to ensure general happiness and the greater good. Mill considers that people have interests that ought to be defended, such as protection from harm, so rule utilitarianism can protect human rights if they make everyone’s lives happier. He seems to assert that when one is uncertain as to which action to take, the rules of justice and rights (life, liberty and property) must be considered as most important.

As Mill’s position is unclear it is perhaps better to describe him as a weak rule utilitarian, as when a strong utilitarian reason exists to break the rule, the rule should be disregarded. This is also the case when two utilitarian rules conflict – for example should Robin Hood break the rule ‘do not steal’ or the rule ‘help the poor’? In this dilemma the only possible solution is to consider which action will maximise utility. However, this still leaves the possibility of injustice, lack of consideration for minorities and so forth, which rule utilitarianism was designed to avoid.

Comparing Bentham and Mill
Bentham	Mill
‘The greatest good [pleasure] for the greatest number’	‘The greatest happiness for the greatest number’
Focused on the individual alone	We should protect the common good, universalistic
Quantitative – hedonic calculus	Qualitative – higher/lower pleasure
Act utilitarianism	Rule utilitarianism
In search of maximisation of happiness
Consequentialist	Consequentialist

Jeremy Bentham

World History Archive/Alamy

John Stuart Mill

Everett Collection Historical/Alamy

Act and rule utilitarianism

The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is to do with what the principle of utility is applied to.

According to act utilitarianism the principle is applied directly to a particular action in a particular circumstance.
According to rule utilitarianism the principle is applied to a selection of a set of rules which are in turn used to determine what to do in particular situations.

Act utilitarianism

You must decide what action will lead to the greatest good in the particular situation you are facing and apply the principle of utility directly. You need to look at the consequences of a particular act and what will bring about the greatest happiness.

Flexibility

Since the same act might in some situations produce the greatest good for the greatest number, but in other situations not, utilitarianism allows moral rules to change from age to age, from situation to situation.

There are no necessary moral rules except one: that we should always seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number in all situations.

Act utilitarianism is linked to Bentham’s form of utilitarianism.

Weaknesses of act utilitarianism

It is difficult to predict the consequences.
There is potential to justify any act.
There is difficulty in defining pleasure.
There is no defence for the minorities.
It is impractical to say that we should calculate the morality of each choice.
Teleological – aims for a maximisation of pleasure for the majority. It has an end aim or goal.
Relative – no notion of absolute right/wrong. No external source of truth. Nothing in itself is right or wrong.
Consequential – the consequences of an act alone determine its rightness/wrongness.

Rule utilitarianism

Rule utilitarians believe that rules should be formed using utilitarian principles for the benefit of society. Your action is judged right or wrong by the goodness or badness of the consequences of a rule that everyone should follow in similar circumstances. Rule utilitarianism enables us to establish universal rules that will promote the happiness of humanity and will generally be right in most circumstances (e.g. telling the truth, keeping your promises). This avoids the difficulty of the negative consequences which could result if act utilitarianism were to be universalised – if everyone acted according to their own personal knowledge of the situation without considering general rules or excepted behaviour, the result could lead to injustice, disorder and unpredictable actions. So for a rule utilitarian it is better to follow general rules based on the principle of utility than try to work out the best action to take in every situation. This can also protect human rights as in general having rights makes everyone’s lives happier.

Strong rule utilitarians believe that these derived rules should never be disobeyed.

Weak rule utilitarians say that although there should be generally accepted rules or guidelines, they should not always be adhered to indefinitely. There may be situations where the better consequence might be achieved by disregarding the rule (e.g. where it might be better to tell a lie).

Weak rule utilitarianism is commonly linked with Mill; however, it is not clear whether Mill was an act or a rule utilitarian. For Mill it seems that experience teaches us the best consequences of our actions, so in utilitarianism he advocates that it could be a duty to steal medicine or food in order to save a life.

Weaknesses of rule utilitarianism

It is difficult to predict the consequences.
It is difficult to define what constitutes happiness.
There is no defence for the minorities.
To invoke rules means that the approach becomes deontological, not teleological.
Followers of rule utilitarianism can be either strict rule-followers or rule-modifiers, but neither seems satisfactory. Strict rule-followers can be irrational: obeying the rule even when disobeying it will produce more happiness. Rule-modifiers can end up being no different from act utilitarians.
Deontological – rules take priority.
Relative – what is right/wrong is established as the maximisation of pleasure for the particular community/society within which it operates.
Consequential – the overall consequences determine its rightness/ wrongness.

Thought point

1 Suppose that you were God, and because you are omnibenevolent, you want your creatures to be as happy as possible across time (i.e. you believe in utilitarianism). If you were choosing a moral code to teach your created people that would make them all happy, what code would you teach them?
2 Explain the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism and why rule utilitarianism came about.
3 The country is threatened with drought, so people are urged to conserve water, and hose-pipe bans are in force. Joe lives in an isolated part of the country and nobody ever drives past his house. The water company has forgotten Joe exists and so he is never billed for his water. Joe knows about the hose-pipe ban, but he really wants a green lawn. His lawn is tiny, so he knows he will not be harming anyone if he waters it and the small amount he uses will not affect the drought. Joe continues to use water. What would an act utilitarian say about this? What would a rule utilitarian say? Give reasons.

Preference utilitarianism

Moral actions are right or wrong according to how they fit the preferences of those involved.

Some more modern approaches to utilitarianism – stretch and challenge

Preference utilitarianism

Preference utilitarianism is a more recent form of utilitarianism and is associated with R.M. Hare, Peter Singer and Richard Brandt.

An act utilitarian judges right or wrong according to the maximising of pleasure and minimising of pain, a rule utilitarian judges right or wrong according to the keeping of rules derived from utility, but a preference utilitarian judges moral actions according to whether they fit in with the preferences of the individuals involved. This approach to utilitarianism asks, ‘What is in my own interest? What would I prefer in this situation? Which outcome would I prefer?’ However, because utilitarianism aims to create the greatest good for the greatest number, it is necessary to consider the preferences of others in order to achieve this. This requires an equal consideration of the interests of everyone else affected by an ethical decision.

R.M. Hare’s approach

Hare argues that in moral decision making we need to consider our own preferences and those of others. He says that ‘equal preferences count equally, whatever their content’. People are happy when they get what they prefer, but what we prefer may clash with the preferences of others. Hare says we need to ‘stand in someone else’s shoes’ and try to imagine what someone else might prefer. We should treat everyone, including ourselves, with impartiality – he also argues for universalisability.

Peter Singer (1946–)

Peter Singer was born on 6 July 1946 in Melbourne. He studied at Melbourne and Oxford. In 1999 he was appointed DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer’s system is based on reason and not on self-interest or social conditioning. His work deals with issues such as embryo experimentation, genetic engineering, surrogacy, abortion and euthanasia. Singer’s best-known work is Animal Liberation (1975). He is a vegetarian and donates the royalties from his books to international aid and animal liberation. He gives between 10% and 20% of his income to the poor.

Peter Singer’s approach

Singer also defends preference utilitarianism and suggests that we should take the viewpoint of an impartial spectator combined with a broadly utilitarian approach. He says that ‘our own preferences cannot count any more than the preferences of others’ and so, in acting morally, we should take account of all the people affected by our actions. Ethical judgements must be made from a universal point of view. This view accepts that our own wants, needs and desires cannot count for more than those of anyone else. Singer uses the example of sharing the abundance of nature’s fruits – everyone is entitled to an equal share. These have to be weighed and balanced, and then we must choose the action that gives the best possible consequences for those affected. Singer says society is made up of a collection of individuals, each with their own preferences; trade-offs, however, have to be made for the general welfare – in other words some preferences have to be accepted and others rejected so that the good of all may be achieved.

For Singer, the ‘best possible consequences’ means what is in the best interests of the individuals concerned – this is different from Bentham and Mill, as he is not considering what increases pleasure but what diminishes pain. In Practical Ethics (1993) Singer wrote that ‘an action contrary to the preference of any being is wrong, unless this preference is outweighed by contrary preferences’ The more preferences satisfied in the world, the better – so killing someone like Hitler, which would save the lives of many others and lead to many preferences being fulfilled, would be the right thing to do.

This principle of equal consideration of preferences or interests acts like a pair of scales – everyone’s preferences or interests are weighed equally. So, in Singer’s view, killing a person who prefers to go on living would be wrong and not killing a person who prefers to die would also be wrong. Racism is wrong, as it goes against the principle of acknowledging other people’s interests or preferences and gives greater value to the preferences of one’s own race.

If Singer’s principles were put into practice, they would prove radical – for example he argued that since $1,000 can keep several children alive for years, each of us is obligated not to spend it but to donate it to Oxfam or the Red Cross. Singer’s principle is ‘If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it’ (‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’).

A moment’s reflection on the implications of this principle should convince you of its radicalness. If we were to follow it, we would be left just slightly better off than the worst off people in the world (who would be much better off). People would have to turn in their second cars and second homes and share the ones they already have.

(Pojman, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 2002)

There are always going to be issues with this as one could argue that it is not always possible to know people’s true preferences, as these change over time as our knowledge and understanding change, and according to Singer’s principle of equal consideration this shows that the ties of love and kinship do not count.

Some of Singer’s approaches seem difficult to accept for many people – he argues that some animals have a higher moral status than some humans. He begins this argument by observing that many animals prefer to avoid pain and enjoy pleasure. Singer argues that causing animals pain by killing them for food, caging them, separating them from their mates and families and so forth is against their preferences and is therefore wrong. He does not consider humans to be above animals and states that an intelligent adult ape has more conscious preferences than a newborn infant. To think otherwise is to be guilty of speciesism. He approves of Bentham’s dictum ‘the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?’, and follows Mill’s idea when he talks of extending ‘the standard of morality so far as the nature of things permits, to the whole of sentient creation’ (utilitarianism). Singer accords animals rights as sentient (feeling) beings; they have valid interests. So according to Singer’s preference utilitarianism, it is preferences rather than human life that we should value.

This view obviously brings out the problem of those people who are unable to express preferences – the newborn, the severely mentally disabled and those who have no rational self-consciousness, such as people suffering from Alzheimer’s. Also, according to Singer, an early foetus would have no preferences as it cannot feel pain, and even a late foetus would have its limited preferences outweighed by those of the parents: for Singer the worth of human life varies. The same philosophy applies to the dying or those with Alzheimer’s – they may have no preferences left, but the family and friends who love them do.

Richard Brandt’s approach

Richard Brandt was one of the leading utilitarian philosophers of the twentieth century. He defended a version of rule utilitarianism, but later, in his book A Theory of the Right and the Good (1979), he talks about the preferences you would have if you had gone through a process of cognitive psychotherapy, explored all the reasons for your preferences and rejected any you felt were not true to your real values. He argued that the morality you would then accept would be a form of utilitarianism – with your preferences free from any psychological blocks and you in full possession of all the facts. Such a person would not, therefore, be influenced by advertising.

Bernard Williams (1929–2003)

Bernard Williams was born in Southend-on-Sea and studied at Balliol College, Oxford. In 1967 he was made Knightsbridge Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge. In 1988 he moved to the USA. He was a professor at Berkeley, California, and White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford until his retirement in 1996. He was very interested in politics and sat on several government committees, including those on gambling, drugs and pornography.

Strengths of utilitarianism

It is straightforward and based on the single principle of minimising pain and maximising pleasure and happiness. A system which aims to create a happier life for individuals and groups is attractive.
It relates to actions that can be observed in the real world (e.g. giving to charity promotes happiness for poor people and is seen to be good, whereas an act of cruelty is condemned as bad).
Its consequentialism is also a strength, as when we act it is only natural to weigh up the consequences.
Utilitarianism’s acceptance of the universal principle is essential for any ethical system. It is important to go beyond your own personal point of view.
The idea of promoting the ‘well-being’ of the greatest number is also important – this is the basis of the healthcare system: care is provided to improve the health of the population and if more money is spent on the health service, people are healthier and therefore happier.
Preference utilitarianism also gives us the valuable principle of being an impartial observer or, as Hare puts it, ‘standing in someone else’s shoes’. It is important to think about others’ interests or preferences as long as one also includes behaving justly.

Weaknesses of utilitarianism

It is good to consider the consequences of our actions, but these are difficult to predict with any accuracy.
Utilitarianism can also be criticised because it seems to ignore the importance of duty. An act may be right or wrong for reasons other than the amount of good or evil it produces. The case of the dying millionaire illustrates this. The millionaire asks his friend to swear that on his death he will give all his assets to his local football club. The millionaire dies and his friend sets about fulfilling his last wishes, but he sees an advertisement to save a million people who are dying of starvation. Should he keep his promise or save a million people? However, some promises may be bad and should not be kept. Duty does not stem from self-interest and is non-consequential – is motive more important than outcomes? Should promises be kept, the truth told and obligations honoured? W.D. Ross thought that the role of duty had some importance and advocated prima facie duties as more acceptable.
Utilitarianism can also advocate injustice, as in the foregoing case where the innocent man is unjustly framed for rape to prevent riots.
Another weakness is the emphasis on pleasure or happiness. If I seek my own happiness it is impossible for me to seek general happiness and to do what I ought to do. The qualitative and quantitative approaches also pose problems, as all we can really do is guess the units of pleasure – how do we measure one pleasure against another? Should we try to maximise the average happiness or the total happiness (e.g. should the government give tax cuts for the minority with the lowest income or spread the cuts more thinly across all tax payers?). Bentham would allow an evil majority to prevail over a good minority and the exploitation of minority groups – does this not go against what we would consider ethical behaviour?
Utilitarianism does not consider motives and intentions and so rejects the principle of treating people with intrinsic value. Utilitarianism does not take any notice of personal commitments but considers only the consequences of an action. Bernard Williams said that we should not ignore integrity and personal responsibility for moral actions, and he uses the story of Jim and the Indians, where Jim is asked to choose between killing 1 Indian and letting 19 go free, or refusing and having all 20 shot, to illustrate this and argues that people need to retain their integrity even if this leads to unwelcome consequences.
John Rawls also argues that utilitarianism is too impersonal and does not consider the rights of individuals in its attempt to look for the ‘greater good’.

John Rawls (1921–2002)

John Rawls was known for his theory of ‘justice as fairness’. He taught at Cornell University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and then moved to Harvard. He is known for A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993).

Utilitarianism has some major weaknesses as far as duty, justice, motives, intentions and consequences are concerned, and the principles of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ and ‘treating people as a means to an end’ are rather dubious moral principles. The principles of seeking to act in a benevolent way and trying to apply universality and a consideration of consequences (even if only estimated) are principles that may be used with other, more deontological principles, such as duty and integrity. Perhaps we need to combine the best principles from both the teleological and deontological approaches to ethics.

Review questions

Look back over the chapter and check that you can answer the following questions:

1 Explain the main principle of utilitarianism.
2 Explain the utilitarianism of Bentham.
3 Explain the utilitarianism of Mill.
4 Explain the differences between act and rule utilitarianism.
5 Complete the following diagram:

Terminology

Do you know your terminology?

Try to explain the following key ideas without looking at your books and notes:

Consequentialist
Teleological ethics
Act utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism
Preference utilitarianism.

Summary

Utilitarianism is teleological – the consequences determine whether an action is good.
The principle of utility – the greatest good for the greatest number – will show if an action is good or not. A good action is shown by the amount of pleasure or happiness which results from the action.
Bentham’s utilitarianism is quantitative and uses the hedonic calculus to check if an action is the right one to take. The hedonic calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure using the following criteria:
- Intensity
- Duration
- Certainty
- Propinquity
- Fecundity
- Purity
- Extent.
Mill focused on qualitative pleasures and divided pleasures into higher pleasures (intellectual) and lower pleasures (bodily). Higher pleasures are to be preferred and competent judges will know the difference.
Act utilitarianism says that good actions are those which lead to the greatest good and produce the most pleasure in a given situation.
Act utilitarianism seems flexible as it takes account of different circumstances, but it can potentially justify any action if it benefits the majority. The minority are ignored.
Rule utilitarianism aims to apply general rules that are based on the principle of utility and will give the best result for all. However, it still does not protect the minority.
The modern version of preference utilitarianism considers the preference of all involved and aims to minimise pain. However, this could lead to a popular decision rather than a moral one.

Examination questions practice

When writing answers to questions on utilitarianism, make sure you can explain clearly the different types, as utilitarianism is more a family of theories than one simple theory.

Sample exam-style question

‘Utilitarianism will always lead to wrong ethical decisions.’ Discuss.

AO1 (15 marks)

• You will need to begin by giving an explanation of utilitarianism – the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its ‘utility’ or usefulness, which is the amount of pleasure or happiness caused by the action. An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
• You could also consider the different approaches of Bentham and Mill, act and rule utilitarianism.
• It would be a good to illustrate this with specific examples.

AO2 (15 marks)

• You could consider the fact that we cannot accurately predict the future, and can, therefore, make mistakes. You could discuss that there is potential to justify any act and so there is no defence for minorities.
• You could consider that it is impractical to calculate the morality of each choice, and so people simply will not bother. You might argue that having general rules based on the principle of utility would be a better approach.
• On the other hand, you might consider that utilitarianism is democratic and practical, and so can deal with most moral situations. You might consider Mill’s ideas about defending rights and the application of general rules based on the principle of utility.
• Use examples of practical ethical decisions to support your arguments and make sure that you justify the points that you make.

Further possible questions

• Assess the main differences between act and rule utilitarianism.
• To what extent is utilitarianism a useful method of making ethical decisions?
• ‘Utilitarianism is not a good guide for resolving ethical dilemmas.’ Discuss.

Normative ethical theories

13 Utilitarianism

What you will learn about in this chapter

The OCR checklist

What is utilitarianism?

The origins of hedonism

Jeremy Bentham’s approach

Pain versus pleasure

The hedonic calculus

Hedonism

Thought point

John Stuart Mill’s approach

The greatest happiness principle

The quality of pleasure

Universalisability

Rule utilitarianism

Act and rule utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism

Flexibility

Weaknesses of act utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism

Weaknesses of rule utilitarianism

Thought point

Some more modern approaches to utilitarianism – stretch and challenge

Preference utilitarianism

R.M. Hare’s approach

Peter Singer’s approach

Richard Brandt’s approach

Strengths of utilitarianism

Weaknesses of utilitarianism

Review questions

Terminology

Do you know your terminology?

Summary

Examination questions practice

Sample exam-style question

Further possible questions

Further reading