UTILITARIANISM

•In western ethics, there are two schools of

theory of conduct: consequentialism and
deontology; The former focuses on
the consequences of an action, while the latter
focuses on the motive of an
action. Utilitarianism is a well-known branch
of consequentialism.

• According to the principle of

consequentialism, our judgement of right or
wrong depends on the goodness or badness
UTILITARIANISM of the consequences of an action. An action is
moral if it can produce good consequences.
•The consequences that utilitarianism is concerned with
is “happiness”. Whether an action is ethical or not
depends on whether the act can maximize the happiness
of all affected persons (while minimizing the overall pain).

•It should be emphasized that utilitarianism treats each

person's happiness equally. If one of my actions makes
myself happy but bring greater pain to another person,
utilitarianism will judge my behaviour as immoral.
 BATMAN
VS.
THE JOKER
ROBINHOOD
 IS THERE A HIERARCHY
OF HAPPINESS?

•It seems that “the greatest happiness for all the

affected persons” is a reasonable principle of judging
whether an action is ethical or not. However, what is
“happiness”?
• Is the happiness of enjoying food after being hungry
equal to the happiness of winning the Nobel Prize? How
to measure the strength of happiness? There is a clear
difference between what Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832) and his student John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
say about being happy.
 • Happiness is simply the
absence of pain.
• All kinds of happiness in the
world are the same and have
no difference in nature. The
only difference lies in the
JEREMY magnitude of different kinds of
happiness. We can only say that
BENTHAM’S a certain action brings more
THEORY happiness and another action
less happiness.
 • In determining the moral preferability of actions,
Bentham provides a framework for evaluating pleasure
or happiness and pain.

FELICIFIC
CALCULUS
Measures the degree of
happiness or pleasure that a
specific action may produce.

It includes intensity, duration,

certainty, propinquity, fecundity,
purity, and extent.
 The intense(intensity) the pleasure, the better;

The longer (duration) it lasts, the better;

The more certain (certainty) that it will happen, the better;

INDICATORS: The sooner (propinquity) that it will occur, the better;

The greater the possibility (fecundity) that it will be

followed by another pleasure, the better;

The greater the possiblity (purity) that it will not be

followed by sensations of the opposite kind, the better;

The greater the number of people it benefits (extent), the

better.
Example:Imagine a government is contemplating
whether to implement a new policy to increase taxes. To
assess the morality or desirability of this decision, they
might apply the felicific calculus:
• Intensity of pleasure or pain: Increasing taxes might cause
some pain for individuals who have to pay more. However, this
could lead to greater pleasure for society if the additional
revenue improves public services like healthcare, education,
and infrastructure.
• Duration: The effects of increased taxes could be long-term. If
the additional funds are used effectively, the benefits in
improved services could last for many years, benefiting society
in the long run.
• Certainty or uncertainty: The government needs to ensure that the
increased taxes will indeed be allocated to public services. If this is certain,
the likelihood of increased pleasure is higher.
• Propinquity or remoteness: The effects might not be immediate. It may take
some time before the improvements in public services are noticeable.
• Fecundity: If this policy is successful and the increased revenue improves
services, it might set a precedent for future policies that enhance public
welfare, potentially increasing overall societal happiness.
• Purity: If the taxes are implemented transparently, with a clear plan for where
the funds will be allocated, the overall impact could be more on the side of
pleasure despite the initial pain of increased taxation.
• Extent: The policy change affects a large number of people in the society.
Depending on how the taxes are structured, it could impact various socio-
economic groups differently.
 • Mill argues that quality is
more preferable than
quantity.
• For Mill, utilitarianism
cannot promote the kind
of pleasures appropriate
JOHN STUART to pigs or to any other
MILL'S THEORY animals.
• He thinks that there are
higher intellectual and
lower base pleasures.
• Mill thinks that happiness varies not only in terms of
magnitude but also in terms of levels. He divides
happiness into two categories: lower (including diet,
sex, rest, sensual pleasure and so on) and higher
(including friendship, higher culture, scientific
knowledge, intellectual thinking and creativity).
“It is better to be a human dissatisfied than
a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
• Although the lower kind of happiness is more
intensely gratifying, they also lead to pain when
overindulged in. The higher happiness tends to
be more refined, gradual and long lasting.
• Mill thinks that all those who have wide
experience in both types of happiness will agree
that happiness of the higher type has a better
quality and give people true happiness.
• Equating happiness with pleasure
does not aim to describe the utilitarian
moral agent alone and independently
from others.
• This is not only about our 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 is interested with
everyone's happiness, in fact the
greatest happiness of the
greatest number.
 • There are two forms of
utilitarianism. The first is called act
utilitarianism and the second is
called rule utilitarianism.
• Act utilitarians and rule utilitarians
agree that the overall aim in
ACT UTILITARIANISM evaluating actions should be to
AND create the best results possible,
RULE UTILITARIANISM i.e. the greatest good for the
greatest number, but they differ in
their approaches.
ACT UTILITARIANISM
• Act utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their
consequences in specific situations.
• It assesses each individual action separately and
determines whether it produces the greatest amount
of happiness or utility for the greatest number of
people.
• The moral worth of an action is judged by its
immediate outcome in a particular circumstance.
RULE UTILITARIANISM
• Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, focuses on
following rules or principles that, when consistently
applied, tend to lead to the greatest overall happiness.
• It looks at the consequences of adopting certain rules or
principles as guides for behavior rather than evaluating
individual actions on a case-by-case basis.
• The moral worth of an action is determined by whether it
adheres to the rules or principles that, when followed,
generally maximize happiness.
EXAMPLE:
• You are a doctor who have seen and examined a
patient who did not know yet that he is having
an incurable terminal illness. The
dilemma you’ll face is if you’re going to inform
this person that he is dying or not.
 EXAMPLE:
• If you observe the principles of the act utilitarian theory, you are going to lie
and not tell your patient about his sickness. This is the right thing to do
because telling the truth will immediately cause more pain and depression,
not only to the patient but also to his family. Lying will give him more time to
enjoy life until the symptoms become more and more noticeable.
• However, if you are a believer of rule utilitarianism then you will not have any
reservations in telling the patient immediately about his sickness. The rule
utilitarian would need to consider what would the long-term consequences
be if doctors were to lie to those who come to them and have life
threatening, incurable illnesses. The rule utilitarian might calculate that
people would no longer be able to trust their doctors and this would break
down the confidence they need for their therapies to be effective. The RULE
utilitarian might calculate that there is far more harm in lying and so the
GOOD is to tell the truth.
 •Simple and easy to understand
Utilitarianism uses only a simple principle to
make moral judgement of right and wrong:
“Do things that increase happiness and
reduce pain.” This principle of judgment is
easy to understand. Most people agree that
we should increase the happiness and reduce
STRENGTHS OF the pain of the world.

UTILITARIANISM •Utilitarianism is more flexible

Utilitarianism is neither fixed nor restrained by
conventions. It can make moral judgments for
different situations and different factors. Under
the consideration of utilitarianism, there is no
fixed moral answer in the world. Theft can be
immoral, but it can also be moral, such as
chivalrous thieves.
 •Ignoring justice and right
The most criticized aspect of utilitarianism is
that it encourages people to judge moral
issues purely based on results, ignoring
whether the act itself is right or wrong, and
ignoring justice and rights. For example, in
WEAKNESSES order to maintain social order, the
OF government abuses lynches to examine
people suspected of committing crimes,
UTILITARIANISM claiming that it will bring happiness to most
of the public. Utilitarianism can support this
practice because of the happiness of the
majority, while ignoring the basic rights of
the suspects themselves.
•Too demanding
Utilitarianism requires that in making every decision of action, it is
necessary to judge whether the action can create the greatest
happiness for the affected people. Most people will agree that
our actions are to be based on moral considerations. For
example, giving out my wealth to the needy. According to the
principle of utilitarianism, my suffering alone can make a lot of
beneficiaries happy. If I do not give out my money, it is immoral.
However, the principle of “sacrificing oneself for the good of a
large number of people” is too demanding for ordinary people
and contrary to common sense.
•Difficult to accurately predict the consequences of action
Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it is difficult for us to accurately predict all the
possible consequences of an action. We cannot predict the future. It is therefore difficult
to compare the different possible consequences and to make accurate moral judgments.
Suppose I chose to lie and hide an innocent person in order to save that person from
being hunted down by a gangster. Yet, unexpectedly, the gangster became enraged and
later killed that person’s family and friends. Then, my moral judgment is wrong.
To solve this weakness, utilitarian classify the consequences into two categories: the
expected and the actual. A rational person can only make moral judgments based on the
expected outcomes and cannot be blamed for the actual result being worse than
expected.
•Contrary to personal belief Utilitarianism only focuses on the result of an act and
sometimes it requires us to violate our personal beliefs. Suppose you are a doctor facing
a dying patient. If you give up treatment for him, several other patients will be able to
transplant his organs after his death and have a chance to recover. Utilitarianism will
support you in doing so because it can produce more happiness. However, it may be
contrary to your personal belief as a doctor to save everyone’s live