General Ethics 2021

Teacher’s Notes The Utilitarian Ethics of Bentham & Mill

Source: Jay Cordero and Ryan Calica, “Utilitarianism: Consequences and Happiness as the Bases of Morality,” General Ethics: An
Introduction (Bulacan, Philippines: Subverso Publishing House, 2018), 165-192.

A. On Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher, lawyer, and political radical known as
the founder of Utilitarianism, which evaluates actions as moral or immoral based upon
their good or bad consequences. Influenced by many enlightenment thinkers, he
developed an ethical theory grounded on the account of human nature that values
pleasure that causes happiness in the individual and despises pain as it lessens or
removes one’s happiness. Thus, happiness, for him, is what determines the morality of the act.

I. Basis of Bentham’s Utilitarian Ethics

In his 1970 Introduction of the Principles of Moral and Legislation, Bentham speaks of the primacy of
pains and pleasures in utilitarian theory:
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... the standard of right and wrong....
They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.... (1970, 11).

He argues that all human persons motive for acting is grounded on two factors:
(1) psychological, in which we are motivated to do things when there is element of pleasure or
activities are avoided when it bring some feeling of pain; and
(2) ethical, in which actions are considered right or moral when they tend to produce pleasure and
bad or immoral when it results to some pain or harm to the individual, as Bentham expresses:
“...pleasure is “the only good”, and pain “without exception, the only evil” (1970, 100).

Hence, in Bentham’s utilitarian theory, the morality of an act –goodness or badness - lies not on the
intention of the doer (Kant) or the circumstances of the situation (Aquinas) but determined solely by its
consequences. Bentham’s ethical theory is called utilitarian since the act must necessarily produce benefit,
advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness while avoiding the occurrence of injury, pain, evil, or
unhappiness. It is clear that for Bentham, happiness should be the ultimate criterion of morality. He gained
such idea from the ancient Greece philosophical belief (Epicurus, Aristotle, Socrates) that a good and
meaningful life is achieved through a life of pleasure or happiness free from any form of physical and
bodily pain. Thus even when people commit evil things, such act was done not because it is bad but because
one believes that it would cause happiness or pleasure.

II Maximization of Happiness
Peculiar in Bentham’s ethical theory is its advocacy on acts that produce greater forms of
pleasure/happiness. If we are confronted with more than one alternative acts, we have to select that which
will makes us happier. Bentham argues that that value of pleasure and pain will be according to its
“intensity”, “duration”, “certainty or uncertainty”, and its “extent”.

1 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

 General Ethics 2021

1. Intensity: Some acts bring more intense pleasure than others: playing computer games vs. bonding with
friends; reading your favorite books vs. browsing your facebook. Although both acts produce happiness, one
act could produce a more intense pleasure than the other.
2. Duration: Some acts produce happiness that is fleeting, while some are long lasting: having relationship
with someone only for “affection” sake vs. someone you truly love; working on a job with high salary but stressful
vs. doing something that your heart truly desires. The longer one feels happy, the better it is. Thus, how
long does one gains happiness from doing an act is what matters most.
3. Certainty: Some acts will certainly produce the expected happiness, while some may not: doing one’s
assignment or project on time vs. procrastination; prioritizing your study vs. prioritizing the love of your life. The
more we are certain that our act will produce happiness, the better it is.
4. Extent: Some acts produce happiness at the extent that more people also become happy: coastal clean-
up vs. community immersion; waste management information vs. waste-livelihood program. Any act that
produces happiness to greater number of people must be preferred.

When confronted with two or more alternative acts or conflicting moral principles, it is obviously right
and moral to choose an act that brings greater happiness and lesser pain or harm. Ex: To lie or be honest: If
one lies in order to save someone’s life or not to hurt someone’s feelings that acts seems to be more
acceptable compared to lying in order to take advantage of someone. Bentham recognizes that the
unhappiness created by absolute following of one’s duty “not to lie” will have greater harm on the person
than the happiness it brings.

III. Universal Interest of the Greater Majority

Bentham is also aware that when the members of the society gave more attention on their own specific
happiness, it will surely bring chaos and conflict. Thus, when society is divided into which happiness
matters most “Is it the minority or the majority?” he proposes a utilitarian ethics in which the “greatest
happiness of the greatest number” should be the basis. For it is only logical that the happiness of the society
is ensured when more members of the community are happy rather than the happiness of the few. This is
the point of universal interest which guarantees the life of the whole society. Bentham was emphatic on
this score:
“If it is a good thing to sacrifice the fortune of one individual to augment that of others, it will be
yet better to sacrifice a second, a third, a hundred, a thousand…; for whatever may be the number
of those you have sacrificed, you will always have the same reason to add one more. In one word,
the interest of everybody is sacred, or the interest of nobody” (1840, I, 144).

To justify the sacrifice of the few, Bentham argued that the pain/harm experienced by the few/minority
is reduced to the minimum. Only on this basis may pleasures be summed up and pains subtracted in order
to produce the rationale to justify the utilitarian Ethics.

2 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

 General Ethics 2021

B. On John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian Version

John Stuart Mill (1806–73) was the most influential English language philosopher of the
nineteenth century. He was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a liberal. He had internalized the
radical and utilitarian creed of Bentham during his education but did some modification
when he realized its limitation as an ethical theory that ensure the life of the people. For
Mill, Bentham’s utilitarianism failed to distinguish the notion of happiness with mere
sensual pleasure ignoring the emotional or spiritual aspects of human nature. Thus, Mill,
instead of focusing on the pleasure gain by human body, he gave more attention to the excellence
of human character and, as a result, gave more value to human dignity and individual rights.

I. Hierarchy of Pleasures
Mill redefines Bentham’s notion of happiness saying: “a being [human] of higher faculties requires
more than pleasure to make him happy.” He distinguishes two types of pleasures:
Lower Pleasure is associated with physical desires such as eating, drinking, sex, resting, etc. Here, the
happiness that one gains is temporary.
Higher Pleasure is associated with intellectual, moral, culture, scientific knowledge, aesthetics, and
social enjoyment. Here, the happiness is more enduring, continuous, and long-lasting.

Mill famously says: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” But how do we
determine the morality of an act or what is the basis for our moral action?

II. The Greatest Happiness Principle

Mill argues that actions are right as they tend to promote authentic happiness or wrong if they promote
the opposite, that is, inauthentic happiness. Authentic happiness, for Mill, does not mean mere physical
enjoyment or contentment but that which promote a sense of dignity for the individual or a genuine
character that is impartial and self-disinterested. Mill’s utilitarian version is focused on altruistic attitude
in which the welfare of others is given more value than oneself. He argues that the act of self-sacrifice as an
expression of renunciation of one’s own happiness is the measurement of one’s perfect character. Such is
the behavior of heroes and martyrs that their personal sacrifices enliven the life of the others in a way that
people now enjoy living in a more humane world.
While Bentham sacrifices the few for the sake of the majority, Mill sees the few willingly sacrificing
their life so that the majority will have a better future. Ex: The Elders of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

III. Act Utilitarianism vs. Rule Utilitarianism

Bentham and Mill’s theory of utilitarianism resulted to the emergence of two types of utilitarian
ethics: rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is the belief that the moral correctness
of an action depends on the correctness of the rules that allows it to achieve the greatest good. Act
utilitarianism is the belief that an action becomes morally right when it produces the greatest good for the
greatest number of people. Making Distinction: The “Torture Strategy”; The “Robinhood Case”.
Mill’s rule utilitarianism requires an evaluation of the consequences of the act as if it is to be regarded
as a “general practice/principle” to be followed consistently. Mill’s rule utilitarianism does not simply aim

3 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

 General Ethics 2021

for the maximization of happiness but the long-term effects and consequences of the act to the greater
majority and by doing so avoids the problem of violating individual human rights.

The Case of Cheating: The Atlanta Schools’ Scandal based on Rachel Aviv article entitled, “Wrong
answer: In an era of high-stakes testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice,” that appeared in The
New Yorker on July 21, 2014.
Parks Middle School and other Atlanta Schools whose students did not make appropriate progress toward
the standardized test goals will receive sanctions such as stopping the financial assistance, replacement of
the faculty and staff, and restructuring or closing of the school unless 58 percent of students passed the
math portion of the standardized test and 67 percent passed the language arts portion. Losing the school
also means losing the community that developed within it, so to avoid such thing to occur faculty and staff
manipulated together the result of the standardized test. As a result the school continues to function. A
former student at Parks at the time, recalled, “Everyone was jumping up and down,” after a teacher
announced the school had met the goals of No Child Left Behind for the first time. Jackson continued, “We
had heard what everyone was saying: ‘Y’all aren’t good enough.’ Now we could finally go to school with
our heads held high.”
From 2006 – 2010, they continued such form of cheating until in October 2010, 50 agents of the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation visited Parks and other Atlanta schools. The investigators concluded that teachers
and administrators at 44 schools had cheated and in July of 2012, 110 teachers who had confessed or been
accused of cheating were placed on administrative leave.

For the act utilitarianism, such cheating is acceptable as it brings happiness for many people – the
students, parents, faculty, staff, and local community. For the rule utilitarianism, however, such cheating
is immoral as it will result to the breakdown of quality education and, instead, promote the proliferation
of a dishonest people in the society. Thus, in the long run, such cheating will bring more harm than benefits
to the society.

4 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University