THE IDEA OF MAJORITY RULE AS

WHAT DETERMINES RIGHT OR

WRONG (Utilitarianism) in
EDUCATION

1
 IT’S ORIGINS AND NATURE

• This is a Teleological / consequentialist position that believes in:

• Goals /ends / consequences as key determinants of rightness.
• What matters in moral evaluation of behavior is not the action as much
but the consequences of the action
• Utilitarianism sits in between ethical egoism and altruism
• Ethical egoism: I should always act in such a way that I bring about the best
overall state of affairs for myself.
• Altruism: act out of concern for the interests of others
2
 THE PRINCIPLE UNDERSTANDING OF
UTILITARIANISM
Proposes:
• I should not only act in my own self-interest nor should I
only act in the interests of others.
• I should take the interests of all involved, including myself,
into account.
• Main Proponents: Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill
• Position: largely considered as an attempt to separate
morality from religion
3
 THREE CENTRAL BELIEFS IN
CLASSICAL UTILITARIANISM
1. Actions to be judged by virtue of their consequences, and nothing else.
Right actions have the best consequences.
2. The only thing that matters in assessing consequences is the amount of
happiness or unhappiness that an action causes. Everything else is
irrelevant. Right action produce the greatest possible balance of happiness
over unhappiness.
3. In calculating the balance of happiness over unhappiness, no one’s
happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone else’s. Each
individual’s welfare is equally important. Right actions are those that
produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness, with each
individual’s happiness counted as equally important. 4
WHY IS THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
ATTRACTIVE TO MOST PEOPLE?
• Up until this proposal (19th C) moral rules were considered inviolable
because they were associated with the will of God/Allah/Yahweh.
• In the utilitarian position: moral rules are not ‘inviolable’. They can
be violated if beneficence is absent. (if they do not serve anyone’s
interest in a context)
• Everyone who can feel pain or pleasure is a moral subject. Everything
that can produce pain or pleasure in a moral subject is itself a moral
issue, and also a basis for laws and moral consideration.
5
• The principle of utility introduced moral regard for non-humans. If
animals can suffer pain and experience pleasure, they ought to be
included in moral deliberations and considerations.
• Consequences determine the theory of punishment:
• Utilitarianism does not accept backward reasons for punishment.
• What good consequences can punishment have then?
• Prevent further pain and suffering? The place of restorative justice.

6
 A SHIFT IN FOCUS – Modern critics

• Agree: - That consequences matter

- That equal importance for everyone is considered
• Disagree with the greatest happiness
• The idea that happiness is the single ultimate good is hedonism
• We value things for their own sake. They may not be good because they make us happy
• Modern thinkers replace happiness with interest and welfare
• Hedonistic (happiness) approach is abandoned
• They propose moving towards maximizing satisfaction of preferences or interests of the
greatest number. 7
THE NEW FOCUS ON INTERESTS
• No one’s interests count more than anyone’s . Therefore there
should be equal consideration of the interests of everyone.
• Similarly, since not all interests can be considered at the same
time and 0in the same way, then it is the interests of the greatest
number of people in any context that ought to be considered.
• The theory argues that this leads to the principles of impartiality.
But is this really impartiality???
8
 OBJECTIONS TO BOTH CLASSICAL AND
MODERN UTILITARIANISM
• CONFLICT WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE:
• Argument: Utility may demand sacrificing an innocent
individual for the greatest good of the greatest number.
• But justice demands that individuals be treated fairly
according to their needs, interests and merits.
• Therefore majoritanism in establishing what is right or
wrong is wrong 9
• CONFLICT WITH INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS:
Argument:
• Utility may demand violation of individual rights merely
because one anticipates good results
• But rights are not a utilitarian idea, i.e. Rights do not
exist because a majority agree to them!
• Moral rights limit how individuals may be treated
regardless of good overall results (case: Unions)
10
• AVOID BACK-WARD LOOKING MORAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Argument:
• By including only forward looking considerations, utilitarianism
makes the past actions irrelevant for moral judgement.
• This creates other moral problems. E.g., What will happen if
you work hard for a promotion? Or you made a promise? Or you
have never committed a crime? Are these background issues
really irrelevant to our moral evaluations in a context?

11
 THE MODERN UTILITARIAN’S
DEFENCE
• If past injustice, violation of rights, and failure to take past
commitments into account has bad consequences, their effects on
current life is the only consideration that has a utility value – their
disutility outweighs their utility.
• So, the idea that actions are right or good in themselves , or that
individuals have rights and duties unconnected with any benefits
derived from acknowledging these rights and duties, is unintelligible
and mysterious, according to utiliarianism.
12
 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

• Trace the ways in which majoritan/utilitarian thinking is prevalent in

the South Africa Schooling systems.
• In what ways or contexts is majoritan moral thinking most evoked?
And Why?
• Are there any dangers to Educational practice if majoritan thinking
become the order of the day? Why?

13
Next Unit: Duty for the sake of duty in teaching
practice (Kant)
Before you move to the next section, please make sure you are familiar
with all the arguments in this position, otherwise you would be doing
yourself a huge disfavor.

14