Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism
- 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.
- This means that pleasure is good and that the goodness of an action is determined by its
usefulness.
- It claims that one’s actions and behavior are good inasmuch as they are directed toward
the experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for the greatest number of persons.

Utilitarianism came from the root word: UTILITY

Utility
- Refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s action and behavior.
- E.g.
- When we argue that wiretapping is permissible because doing so results in better public
safety, then we are arguing in a utilitarian way.

- It is considered utilitarian because we argue that some individual rights can be

sacrificed for the sake of the greater happiness of the many.

Utilitarian Thinkers:
Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832)
- He was born on Feb 15, 1748 in London, England.
- He was the teacher of James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill.
- He first wrote about the greatest happiness principle of ethics and was known for a
system of penal management called PANOPTICON.
- He was an advocate of economic freedom, women’s rights and the separation of church
and state, among others.
- He was also an advocate of animal rights and the abolition of slavery, death penalty and
corporal punishment for children.
- He denied individual legal rights nor agreed with the natural law.
- On his death on June 6, 1832, he donated his corpse to the University College London,
where his auto - icon is in public display up to this day to serve as his memorial.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

- He was born on May 20, 1806 in Pentonville, London, UK.
- He was the son of James Mill, a friend and disciple of Jeremy Bentham.
- He was home-schooled.
- He studied Greek at the age of 3 and Latin at the age of 8.
- He wrote a history of Roman Law at age of 11 and suffered a nervous breakdown at age
of 20.
- He was married to Harriet Taylor after 21 years of friendship.
- His ethical theory and his defense of utilitarian views are found in his long essay entitled
Utilitarianism (1861).
- He died on May 8, 1873 in Avignon, France from Erysipelas.
Their system of ethics emphasized the consequences of actions.
Utilitarianism is Consequentialist.

*NOTE that not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian.

For Bentham and Mill,

UTILITY
- Refers to a way of understanding the results of people’s actions.
- Specifically, they are interested on whether these actions contribute or not to the total amount
of resulting happiness in the world.
- They value pleasure and happiness, this means that the usefulness of actions is based on its
promotion of happiness.
*Happiness as the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons even at the
expense of some individual’s rights.

The Principles of Utility

Jeremy Bentham wrote the book “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
(1789), he argued that our actions are governed by two “sovereign masters” —- which he calls
pleasure and pain.
These masters are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good and what ought to be
done and not; they fasten our choices to their throne.

- It is about our subjection to these sovereign masters: pleasure and pain.

- The principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by our avoidance of pain
and our desire for pleasure.
*It is like saying in our everyday actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is
painful.

- The principle also refers to pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce more happiness
than unhappiness.
*This means that it is not enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things
we do make us happier.

*Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of utility,
BENTHAM then equates happiness with pleasure.

Mill supports Bentham’s principle of utility.

- He reiterates moral good as happiness, and, consequently, happiness as pleasure.
- He 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.
*Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid doing
things because they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable, it is because they are
inherently pleasurable in themselves or they eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and
the avoidance of pain.
They both characterized moral value as utility and understood it as whatever produced
happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

We need to understand the nature of pleasure and pain to identify a criterion for distinguishing
pleasures and to calculate the resultant pleasure or pain.

What Bentham identified as the natural moral preferability of pleasure, Mill refers to as a theory
of life.
E.g.
If we consider what moral agents do and how they assess their actions, then it is hard to deny
the pursuit for happiness and the avoidance of pain.

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.
Why is it justifiable to wiretap private conversations in instances of treason, rebellion,
espionage and sedition?
Why is it preferable to alleviate poverty or eliminate criminality?
Why is it noble to build schools and hospitals?
Why is it good to improve the quality of life and the like?
- The only answer is the principle of utility — to increase happiness and decrease pain.

What kind of pleasure is morally preferable and valuable?

Are all pleasures necessarily and ethically good?
E.g.
In the context of eating or exercising, it is morally acceptable to eat or exercise excessively since
eating and exercising is “good”?

*While utilitarian supporters do not condone excessive pleasures while others are suffering, it
cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds why some persons indulge in extravagant pleasures at
the expense of others.
Suppose nobody is suffering, is it morally permissible on utilitarian principles to maximize
pleasure by wanton intemperance?
Bentham and Mill do not have the same view on these questions.

- In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for

evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called “felicific calculus.”
- What is felicific calculus?
Felicific Calculus
- Is a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can
produce.
- In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of
pleasure; duration or length of the experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty or the
likelihood that pleasure will occur; and propinquity, remoteness or how soon there will
be pleasure.
- However, when we are to evaluate our tendency to choose these actions, we need to
consider two or more dimensions:
 - fecundity — or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind, and
- purity — or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
- Lastly, when considering the number of persons who are affected by pleasure or pain,
another dimension is to be considered —- extent.
- Felicific Calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their resultant pleasure.
- Pleasure and pain can only quantitatively differ but not qualitatively differ from other
experiences of pleasure and pain accordingly.

- Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure.

- He thinks that the principle of utility must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not
merely quantitatively.
- For him, utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to
any other animals.
- He thinks that there are higher intellectual and lower base pleasures.
- We are capable of searching and desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than pigs
are capable of.
- We undermine ourselves if we only and primarily desire sensuality.
- Crude Bestial Pleasures, which are appropriate for animals are degrading to us because
we are by nature not easily satisfied by pleasures only for pigs.
- Human pleasures are qualitatively different from animal pleasures.
- It is unfair to assume that we merely pursue pleasures appropriate for beasts even if
there are instances when we choose to pursue such base pleasures.

- He also argues that quality is more preferable than quantity (in contrary to Bentham).
- An excessive quantity of what is otherwise pleasurable might result in pain.
- We can consider our experience of excessive eating or exercising.
- E.g.
- Eating the right amount of food can be pleasurable, excessive eating may not be.
- In deciding over two comparable pleasures, it is important to experience both and to
discover which one is actually more preferred than the other.
- There is no other way of determining which of the two pleasures is preferable except by
appealing to the actual preferences and experiences.
- Actual choices of knowledgeable persons point that higher intellectual pleasures are
preferable than purely sensual appetites.

*Another comparison between intellectual and bestial pleasures, Mill offers an imaginative
thought experiment. He asks whether a human person would prefer to accept the highly
pleasurable life of an animal while at the same time being denied of everything that makes him a
person.

As human beings, we prefer the pleasures that are actually within our grasp. 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.
E.g.
Some people prefer puto to bibingka OR
Liking of Moira than of KZ Tandigan
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 individual pleasures, regardless of how high, intellectual, or in other ways
noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected by the consequences
of our actions.
- Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts.
- It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone, it cannot be all about us.
- If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a moral good.
- If we are the only ones who are made happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally
good.
- In this sense, it is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
- It is interested with everyone’s happiness.
- E.g.
- Eradication of a disease using technology

- It is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people.
- It is not interested with the intention of the agent.
- It is based solely and exclusively on the difference it makes on the world’s total amount
of pleasure and pain.
*If actions are based only on the greatest happiness of the greatest number, is it justifiable to let
go of some rights for the sake of the benefit of the majority?

Justice and Moral Rights

Justice
- A respect for rights directed toward society’s pursuit for the greatest happiness of the
greatest number.

Rights
- A valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
- It is referred to the interests that serve general happiness.
- E.g.
- The right to due process
- The right to free speech or religion
- These rights are justified because they contribute to the general good.
- (which means that society is made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives
knowing that their interests are protected and that society (as a whole) defends it.)
- It is justifiable on utilitarian principles inasmuch as they produce an overall happiness
that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation.

- Utilitarian argues that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the
category of rights is directly associated with the individual’s most vital interests. All of
these rights are predicated on the person’s right to life.

- Mill associates utilitarianism with the possession of legal and moral rights.
- We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected.
 - 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.

- Mill seems to be suggesting that it is morally permissible to not follow, even violate an
unjust law.
- The implication is that those who protest over political policies of a morally
objectionable government act in a morally obligatory way. While this is not always
preferred, he thinks that it is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil
disobedience for the sake of promoting a higher moral good. At an instance of conflict
between moral and legal rights, he points out that moral rights take precedence over
legal rights.
- While it can be justified why others violate legal rights, it is an act of injustice to violate
an individual’s moral rights. BUT he provides some extenuating circumstances in which
some moral rights can be overridden for the sake of the greater general happiness.
- E.g.
- Wiretapping case —- it seems that one’s right to privacy can be sacrificed for the sake of
the common good. This means that moral rights are only justifiable by considerations of
greater overall happiness.

- In this sense, the principle of utility can theoretically obligate us to steal, kill, and the
like.

- While there is no such thing as a laudible 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.

*Mill’s moral rights and considerations of justice are not absolute, but are only justified by their
consequences to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.
Justice can be interpreted in terms of moral rights because justice promotes the greater social
good.