Ethics of Utilitarianism

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. discuss the basic and significant features of the ethics of utilitarianism;
2. identify and describe the various elements of the hedonic calculus;
3. distinguish between two types of pleasures;
4. assess critically the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarian ethics; and
5. apply the utilitarian concepts and principles to the analysis of various ethical issues in
contemporary Philippine situation.
A Consequentialist Morality
By Apolinar Henry Fernandez

Utilitarianism belongs to a theory in morality that can be labeled as consequentialist. An ethical

theory is consequentialist when it puts primary consideration and emphasis on the effects or results that an
act or conduct brings rather than on the motive or intention that the agent may have.
Here, unlike in natural law ethics, utilitarianism plainly disregards the act itself as the basis of
morality. In assessing whether an act is good or bad, a consequentialist looks into the outcome of the act or
conduct. What solely matters is the result of the deed, not the deed itself
More specifically, a consequentialist ethical theory essentially asks questions such as: "What
good will come from doing this?"
"What benefit can one get in performing such an act?" "What harm would come if a particular
action is done?" "Who will stand to gain if this action is performed?"
The above questions obviously share one thing in common they are all concerned, above all, with
the possible or projected consequences of actions. The primary concern with the consequences of actions
has distinguished utilitarianism from other ethical theories such as Natural Law and Deontological ethics.
In utilitarian ethical theory, no action in itself (the act per se) can be considered or called as good
or bad, right or wrong, apart from its outcome or end. Utilitarian claim that there is nothing that we can say
in terms of the moral worth of the act that is not dependent, in one way or the other, to its consequences.
Actions, for them, do not have intrinsic moral value.
Furthermore, as a consequentialist ethical theory, utilitarianism believes that actions are morally
significant and valuable only inasmuch as they produce what is desired or expected from them. Here, an
act is always viewed as a mere instrument to achieve something.
Thus, morality has only an instrumental value. It is merely a means to an end. It is not an end in
itself, as contrasted to nonconsequentialist (deontologist) theories, which believe that morality is good for its
own sake.
Ethical Hedonism
Another significant characteristic of utilitarianism as an ethical theory is its emphasis on the
pleasure and happiness/contentment that one can get from doing an act or from a particular course of
action.
This element in utilitarianism would also show that it abhors pain or unhappiness as possible
effects in the performance of certain actions. For the utilitarian’s in general, pain and suffering should be
avoided when one is thinking about doing something. If a proposed act results to unhappiness than
happiness, pain than pleasure, harm than good, then it has to be rejected or avoided.
In the An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Chapter l, Section l), Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832), one of the most prominent advocates and founders of utilitarianism (the other one
being John Stuart Mill, more of his ideas later) writes:
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters,
pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to
determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the
other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all
we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection,
will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it.
Hence for utilitarianism, right and wrong, are dependent on the pleasure or pain that an act will
bring or result to. If an act produces pleasure, it is considered right or good; if it results to pain, it is
considered wrong or bad. Everything else is viewed as insignificant or unimportant in assessing the act's
moral worth or value.
The emphasis on pleasure as the primary, if not the sole criterion whether an act is good or bad,
though sounds too hedonistic (pleasure—oriented), has a great and enormous appeal to common sense.
Anyone who decides to do something, more often than not, and whether one acknowledges it or
not, is motivated by the Pleasure principle (this also brings to mind the famous Freudian idea of the "id").
Nobody in his right mind (a masochist excluded) will do something to inflict pain and suffering upon himself.
Pain or Unhappiness is something that we all avoid, in one way or the other. We simply do not want it. Pain
and suffering is something that is simply repugnant to human nature.
This, in a way, echoes a very old but still a very influential ethical school of thought that has its
origin in ancient Greek philosophy the theory of Ethical Hedonism. This theory advocates a philosophy that
holds that the primary reason for living is to seek for pleasure or happiness and to avoid pain and suffering
as much as possible. More specifically, it claims that the good life is one that is spent for the pursuit of
bodily pleasures. In fact, goodness is equated with pleasure of sensual nature.

The Principle of Utility

Although the central features of utilitarianism as a philosophical movement were already
systematically expounded and articulated in the 18th century by a number of leading European
philosophers (most notably David Hume), those who are highly recognized to be its true founders or
originators are Jeremy Bentham and his brilliant and remarkable pupil and disciple (and a much greater
thinker) John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
It was Bentham who specifically coined the now famous phrase "principle of utility" (thus, the term
Utilitarianism) to denote that the essentially determining element whether an act can be good or right is its
utility or usefulness (value) — to bring about desirable results or consequences (understood as pleasure or
happiness).
In the exact words of Bentham (1976:34):
By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, good or happiness...or...to prevent the happening of mischief; pain,
evil, or unhappiness to the party, whose interest is
Again, here, as we mentioned, the term "utility" is usually equated with pleasure or happiness,
which the utilitarians consider as the only objective moral standard. The claim that there is one and only
one moral principle - that of utility, makes utilitarianism an ethical theory that can be considered, in a way,
absolutist and a believer in objective morality. Some critics though, would, in their objections to it, argue
otherwise (more on this later in the critical evaluation of the theory).
Normally, to elaborate further, when we speak of something having utility we usually mean that it
serves some purpose or function. Thus, for instance, a ball pen is useful because it serves a particular
purpose or function, that of writing. In the same respect, actions are useful because they can be utilized to
attain certain goals or purposes, here understood to mean good and beneficial purposes or consequences.
But to aim at good and desirable consequences or results does not make one automatically as a
utilitarian. There are other views that are not necessarily ethical in nature, that also aim at some "good"
purposes or consequences and yet they are not utilitarians (See Ellin 1995:231-232).
Utilitarianism, as expounded by Mill and Bentham, aims at consequences, which are good, that
everybody (or the general public) wants, and this is happiness or pleasure. As such, utilitarianism has also
come to be known as a "happiness theory."
Utilitarianism then, particularly the one that is developed by Bentham, becomes an ethical
principle that measures the amount of happiness over unhappiness of a certain act. In fact, a table of
measurement was invented by Bentham himself to arrive at an exact calculation of the amount of pleasure
that an act may bring. This particular moral mechanism or ethical method has come to be known as the
"Hedonic Calculus" (more of this later).

The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

What makes utilitarianism so appealing to a lot of people is Its Special emphasis on the social
dimension of morality. In fact, this is where the theory becomes so influential. Personally I would like to
think, in spite of its varied objections, both theoretical and Practical, that utilitarianism offers a more
practicable alternative than the other ethical theories. Our political system is so dominated by selfish
interest of few individuals that the pursuit of the general welfare has been neglected.
But it was not in Mill or in Bentham that this emphasis on the social dimension of happiness,
where morality has its meaning, had originated but the honor belongs to the Scottish philosopher Francis
Hutcheson (1694-1746). It was he who first formulated the now famous, though controversial utilitarian
phrase—The greatest good for the greatest number.
Utilitarianism in one sense goes back to the earliest beginning of the history of ethical thought. In
fact, Mill insists that it has been presupposed by practically all ethical philosophers starting from the ancient
Greeks, particularly Epicurus (341-270 B.C.E.) and Aristippus (430-350 B.C.E.) whose ethical schools were
popular for their supreme emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure or happiness as the central meaning and
reason of human existence (Ethical Hedonism).

Bentham's Hedonic Calculus (Cost-Benefit Analysis)

In a bold and remarkable attempt to anchor morality on a more stable ground (having been
traditionally built on the speculative and metaphysical discipline of philosophy and of religion), Bentham
cleverly devised a specific tool or method for ethical analysis. Bentham considered this method as
scientific, as it employs the exact science of mathematical calculation. Its aim is to arrive at a definite basis
of when to say that an act or conduct is right or wrong, good and bad.
More specifically, the main goal of Bentham in formulating the hedonic calculus is to "help
individuals as well as lawmakers and legislators decide what ought to be done in any given set of
circumstances" (Falikowski 2004:301)
In ethical or moral decision-making, Bentham claims that what truly matters in the end is the
maximization of pleasure or happiness and the minimization if not the total eradication of pain or suffering.
This particular scheme which Bentham called the "Hedonic Calculus" ( hedons is a Greek term
means pleasure, calculus is a science of calculation), is used for determining morality by measuring the
exact amount of pleasure and pain, happiness and unhappiness.
The Hedonic Calculus
(Bentham 1976:64-67)
1. Intensity — the more intense the pleasure, the better. One is morally bound to do an act that
offers stronger degree of happiness or contentment. Not all pleasures are the same. Some
pleasures are stronger or are more intense than others.
2. Duration — the longer the pleasure lasts, the better. One is morally obliged to perform those
actions that provide longer experience of pleasure. Pleasures also vary as to how long they
last. There are long-term pleasures and there are also pleasures that are short- lived.
3. Certainty — the more certain the pleasure, the better. One should pursue those actions where
their expected pleasures are more probable. One should ask how likely or unlikely it is that the
expected pleasure will actually result.
 4. Propinquity — the nearer, closer or more often that pleasures occur, the better. One is ethically
mandated to do an act that brings immediate pleasure than one that brings pleasure only at a
farther point in time. Why wait for something that will happen in the far distant future when you
can have a pleasure that is readily available in the moment? The soonest the expected
pleasure will occur, the better.
5. Fecundity — the greater the possibility that the pleasure that one can derive from an act will be
followed by more pleasures, the better. One is morally required to perform actions that lead to
a series of pleasures down the road. Ask how likely it is that the action will result to more
pleasure in the future.
6. Purity — the purer the pleasure, the better. If you can have pleasure only in conjunction with
pain, better not pursue the act. Do an act that is not tainted by pain. If there is an
accompanying pain or discomfort in the process, look for an alternative act that will bring about
unadulterated kind of pleasure.

7. Extent — the greater the number of people who can experience pleasure, the better. One is
morally bound to do only those actions that will make a lot of people happy. Between personal
or individual happiness and the happiness of the many, one should prioritize the greater
number and sacrifice his or her own. Here, one should consider how many other individuals
would be affected by the act.
For Bentham then, when we are confronted with a certain act or course of conduct, the proper
ethical approach is to calculate carefully the amount of pleasure and the amount of pain that any act will
bring.
In the hedonic calculus (giving a fixed numerical value to each of the seven elements, say from
one to ten; one signifies the lowest while ten the highest) the amount of pleasure is deducted from the
amount of pain to arrive at the balance.
If the total net amount or the balance is more on pleasure or happiness, then the act is morally
good or right and has to be pursued and performed. On the other hand, if the balance is more on the side
of pain or suffering, then the act is considered bad or wrong, and hence must be avoided.
By grounding ethics on a strictly scientific foundation, Bentham's hedonic calculus, as a
methodical way of weighing the amount of pleasures over pain in a plus and minus scheme, provides a
clearer and simpler way for us to determine what we ought to do under certain situations. This is especially
true in those circumstances where there is a dilemma as to our course of action. This is something
revolutionary at that time when ethical approaches were dominated by religious and metaphysical
speculations.
Today, we find similar models that in a way have adopted Bentham's hedonic calculation
whenever anyone does a cost benefit analysis, in which the cost are pains or suffering and the benefits are
pleasures or happiness.
Take for instance when deciding to go abroad to work as a nurse, one weighs the gains (primarily
economic benefits) of working overseas and the cost it entails (such as leaving one's family behind).
Moreover, when deciding to commit oneself to marriage, one tries to balance the pleasure of marital bliss
that the act brings and the loss of having a carefree lifestyle devoid of any responsibility and commitment.

Two Types of Pleasures: Quantity vs. Quality

Bentham's formulation of the hedonic calculus to provide a quantitative calculation of the value of
different pleasures where decisions are made into a simple exercise of addition and deduction at arriving at
the final balance put him (rightly or wrongly) under the level of a psychological hedonist.
But unlike the ethical egoist, who only pursued his or her own personal desire and happiness,
Bentham insists that we should not only pursue our own self-interest but also that of the group or the
majority. The greatest happiness of the greatest number is for Bentham the top priority over individual
happiness.
As Bentham maintains a quantitative position in evaluating the amount of pleasure that we can get
in doing an act, his genius of a pupil—John Stuart Mill—develops his own version that enables his view to
deviate from that of his master.
Mill introduces a way of determining pleasure that is not just confined to quantity or amount but
more on its quality. Thus he claims that pleasures are of two types: quantity and quality. Pleasures differ
not just in amount but also in quality. He says that pleasures of the mind or the spirit higher than pleasures
of flesh and of the
Accordingly tor Mill, persons should seek the higher pleasure than just pursue the kind that is
associated with mere sensual satisfaction or fulfillment. He sums this up with this famous and unforgettable
line: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied: better to be Socrates dissatisfied than
a fool satisfied?'
Though in complete agreement with Bentham that only pleasure or happiness is the only good in
itself, Mill values not so much the amount of pleasures that one can get out from one's action but the
particular type of pleasure that follows front it – its quality. How much pleasure is not as valuable to Mill as
to what kind of pleasure one gets.
A concrete and simple example would help clarify the preceding point. Let us say you received an
allowance of thousand pesos from your parents for the week. Are you going to spend the of it for food,
drinks and other physical vices (such as cigarettes and the like) or you would rather spend part Of it to
enrich yourself mentally and spiritually by buying an ethics
Following Mill's prescription, one should spend part of it to feed one's mind and soul and not just
to satisfy one's bodily needs and physical cravings. As one contemporary author aptly puts it:
A life with only bodily pleasures is not as good as containing pleasures of the mind
and spirit. The pleasure one gets from acquiring love, having knowledge, being morally
good, securing freedom, knowing God, and so makes life much more worth living than a life
that wallows the mire of bodily pleasures alone. (Wall 2003:32)
 The basic presumption of the above remarks is that humans belong to a higher level of creatures
whose concerns are limited to the pursuit of brute satisfaction but also have that capacity to discriminate
the kind of pleasure that is worthy of their own dignity as thinking and rational beings. (Although this
emphasis gives rise to the allegation that Mill is an elitist in his thinking, him being a man of high intellect.)

Critical Assessment of Utilitarian Ethics

Strengths of Utilitarianism
1. With its general emphasis on the greatest good for the greatest number, utilitarianism is able
to transcend the narrow view of morality that only confines itself to the interest of the
individual (Ethical Egoism). This altruistic attitude makes the theory admirable.
2. The utilitarian view that claims that humans by nature seek what is pleasurable has been
empirically observed and tested, thus, anchoring its basic philosophy on a scientific ground
rather than on highly speculative and very abstract and controversial religious and
metaphysical assumptions. A sound ethical theory should include hard findings from the other
disciplines.
3. The utilitarian ethical theory somehow provides a system with a single and absolute moral
principle with a potential answer for every particular situation that anyone finds himself or
herself in. One element of a good ethical theory is its capacity to have universal application.
4. The categorization of pleasures into higher and lower (quantitative and qualitative) escapes
the simplistic view that looks at pleasure only in terms of sensual gratification and fulfilment.
This is also consistent with our intuitive experience of what pleasure is all about.
5. The Hedonic Calculus allows us to really go into the nitty gritty of how to determine which
course of action gives more Pleasure and happiness. This also allows us to really see and
discover for ourselves how moral decisions are specifically derived in actual and real life
setting.
6. The primary consideration of the consequences of actions as the sole basis of morality affirms
the common sense belief that all our actions do have consequences and that, more
importantly, they matter. It also leads us to reflect even more on our actions before we do
them. Knowing that our actions do have an effect, for better or for worse, not just on ourselves
but to a lot of people around us, we can avoid going into rush actions that we will regret later.
7. Utilitarianism to a large extent provides every ordinary man and woman in the street a
practical, simple and clear-cut procedure for making ethical decisions. This simplicity makes
the theory easy to apply and thus renders it relevant to concrete human life.
8. Since utilitarian ethics does not judge any action as good or bad right away (for it looks into
every action's possible effects), "it allows for a great deal of flexibility and sensitivity to the
particular circumstances surrounding an action" (Lawhead 2003:467). An ethical theory that
does not seriously consider the particularities and uniqueness of the situations where actions
are performed is a theory that operates in a vacuum, and thus useless in the practical sense •
9. Utilitarianism finds various practical and specific applications not just in the field of morality
and ethics but also in the area of politics, economics and business, among others. This wide-
 ranging application across various fields and disciplines speaks well of utilitarianism as a valid
and solidly grounded intellectual philosophy worthy of serious consideration.
10. A philosophy that considers one's well-being of equal value with everyone else (one's own
happiness is neither more nor less important than that of anyone else) easily makes
utilitarianism very endearing and attractive to a kind of democratic system that gives everyone
equal treatment in its rules and policies. No wonder why utilitarianism becomes one of the
most powerful and persuasive ethical traditions that is embraced by many in the world today,
particularly those who value freedom and equality for all humanity (Utilitarianism is arguably
the basic ethical philosophy of most humanists in contemporary time).
Weaknesses of Utilitarianism

1. The most common objection against the ethics of utilitarianism is the obvious difficulty and
problem of knowing the exact consequences of our actions. How can we really predict the
outcome of our conduct? The effects of our actions are not for any of us to know for certain in
advance. Besides, things turn out the way they are and not in the way we expect. Enormous
data from real life experiences attest to this inherent difficulty of predicting the future.
2. Is it justified to do an act just because many find or obtain pleasure or satisfaction from it? It
appears that utilitarianism justifies the doing of something that is intrinsically wrong such as
murder or stealing (think of Robin Hood's loot from the rich few that is given to the poor
majority) as long as many will be made happy by the act. But we know that the end does not
justify the means. An inherently bad act remains as such regardless of its positive
consequences.
3. If we apply the theory of utilitarianism in all our actions, it would be impractical since we
simply do not have enough time in all situations to weigh the pleasure or the pain that an act
brings. One of the criteria of a sound ethical theory is its practicability. It seems that
utilitarianism requires too much from people. It is a fact that it is not always easy to figure out
which of our actions would result to total happiness over Unhappiness. Concrete situations in
human life are more complex that, in most instances, we simply don't have that much time to
decide as to what we ought to do or not to do.
4. The principle of the greatest good of the greatest number does not give justice to the rights of
the minority as it clearly adheres to the tyranny of numbers. But we all know that the majority
can be wrong. History is replete with lessons where the minority was proven to be right.
5. With its sole emphasis on the consequences of actions, utilitarianism simply ignores the role
of motive or intention, which oftentimes alters radically the overall morality of the act. How
would you feel with someone's conduct, though it produces positive effects, if done in bad
faith? The motive of the act is as important, if not more important than its results. Here,
utilitarianism, by confining itself only to the effects in assessing the moral value of the act, is
guilty of simplistic reductionism.
6. Utilitarianism rejects all forms of moral duties that we usually accept, such as the duty to tell
the truth, the duty to help those in need, the duty to protect the innocent, etc. Hence, if
applied, it will make a universe devoid of any moral duties to consider and inevitably ruins any
worthwhile human value there may be.
7. Is an act good or right because it is pleasurable or it is pleasurable because it is good or
right? Utilitarianism seems to make goodness a matter of individual taste and personal
preference. This can easily lead to mere subjectivism which would lead to moral chaos in
society.
8. What is happiness or pleasurable for one may not be for the other. Hence, at the outset,
utilitarian theory, claiming to be absolutist in its ethical prescription - which is to do what tends
to promote pleasure has fallen unwittingly into the Pit of relativism — an antithesis of the
belief in absolute morality
9. It is said that utilitarianism, which only values actions that produce good consequences, is a
"heartless" ethical philosophy. This is so because it has no place for love as a motive of acting
in determining and in assessing the moral worth of our action. The place and role of love (in
the finest sense of the term) cannot be simply ignored and in favor of a sort of a cavalier
approach to human conduct that basically characterizes the ethics of utilitarianism
10. 10. The utilitarian fundamental but subtle assumption that all of man's actions are purposive
(being it a teleological or consequentialist theory) is based on false psychology, Actual
experience empirically testifies that many of our actions arc driven by impulse or instinct, thus
without any clear and conscious definite goal in sight. A theory whose basic major
presupposition is at the start flawed cannot claim any real authority and adherence.

Review Questions
1. What makes utilitarianism a consequentialist theory of morality?
2. Why utilitarianism is considered a hedonistic philosophy?
3. What is the principle of utility?
4. What is Bentham's basic assumption regarding human nature? How does this translate into
his moral philosophy?
5. How does Bentham ground morality scientifically?
6. How does Mill's utilitarianism differ with that of Bentham's? Which do you think is better?
7. How does Mill characterize the "higher" pleasure? Do you agree with him or not? Why?
8. "A Socrates dissatisfied is better than a fool satisfied, a human being dissatisfied is better
than a pig satisfied." Explain.
9. Do you agree with the utilitarian view that the consequence of an action is the only thing that
matters in assessing its moral
10. Do you think that pleasure or happiness is the supreme goal of life? Why or why not?
11. Are bodily pleasures inferior to intellectual pleasures? Why or why not?
12. Do you think Mill is correct in saying that pleasures vary in quality and not just in quantity?
Why or why not?
13. Do you think Bentham's ethics is egoistic? Why or why not?
14. Is utilitarian ethics anti-Christian? Why or why not?
15. What do you think is the greatest contribution of utilitarian thinking to the history of moral
philosophy?