UTILITARIANISM
is to promote the greatest good for the greatest
Utilitarianism has influenced reforms, sparked debates, and
continues to offer a framework for ethical decision-making. Its
core principle is deceptively simple: the rightness or wrongness
of an action is determined solely on its consequences,
specifically the amount of happiness or well-being it creates.
Good outcomes make it right, bad outcomes make it wrong. It
proposes a seemingly impartial viewpoint for evaluating policies,
judging actions, and striving towards a society where the
greatest good for the greatest number reigns supreme.
Utilitarianism is woven by many hands, before Bentham, there
were Epicureans, seeking pleasure and minimizing pain, who
laid the groundwork for utilitarianism's focus on happiness and
well-being. Stoics, with their emphasis on reason, duty, and
virtue, added a layer of concern for justice and the social good.
Jeremy Bentham developed the concept of "utility" as the
measure of good and advocated for maximizing it for the
greatest number. Bentham believed that pleasure and pain were
the ultimate measures of good and bad, and that actions should
be judged based on how much pleasure they produce and how
much pain they avoid.
Brief Background of Jeremy Bentham
Born in London in 1748, Jeremy Bentham was no ordinary child.
He devoured knowledge at an alarming rate, mastering Latin by
age 3 and tackling legal times shortly after. Age 8, a precocious
mind devouring Latin and Greek, thrived at Westminster School.
He entered Queens College in Oxford at the age of 12. Despite
its prestige, it felt restrictive to his inquisitive mind. The law, in
his eyes, requires a revolution, not blindly adhering to tradition.
He craved logic, reason, and a focus on maximizing happiness
for the greatest number. The seeds of his utilitarianism were
sown.
Other than formal education, his self-directed learning allowed
him to acquire diverse knowledge and sharpen his critical
thinking, building his unique intellectual framework. The
Panopticon, his radical prison design, was a tangible
manifestation of his utilitarian ideal: using system design to
nudge individuals towards reform and maximize happiness.
John Stuart Mill became a crucial collaborator, helping refine
utilitarianism by addressing issues such as the "tyranny of the
majority" and incorporating the complexities of human nature.
Bentham didn't just theorize; he actively applied his philosophy
to social reforms, advocating for prison improvements, women's
rights, and codified laws, demonstrating its practical potential.
Bentham's utilitarianism wasn't a static doctrine, but a dynamic
process. He continuously questioned, refined, and adapted his
ideas based on new knowledge and experiences.
Two Levels of Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of individual
actions. It means that an action is considered right if it produces
more happiness or well-being than any other alternative, and it
is considered wrong if it produces less happiness or well-being.
Rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of following
general rules. Rather than evaluating each action on its own
merits, rule utilitarianism judges the morality of an action based
on whether it follows a general rule that, if followed by everyone,
would produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
• The goal of both act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism
number.
PRINCIPLE OF UTILITARIANISM
Principle of Utility
-actions are good insofar as they tend to promote happiness or
benefits, bad as they tend to produce unhappiness or harm.
Situation:
A government is deciding on a policy regarding healthcare.
*The principle of utility would guide them to choose a policy that
maximizes the health benefits for the largest portion of the
population, even if it means some individuals might not receive
as extensive healthcare benefits as others.
Principle of the Greatest Number
-an alternative formulation of the principle of utility
-the primary consideration was the happiness not of one person
but one of the greatest number of people.
Situation:
You have a choice between providing medical aid to a small
group with severe health issues or to a larger group with milder
health problems
*Applying the principle of the greatest number might prioritize
helping the larger group due to the greater number of people
benefiting, even if their individual needs might be less severe.
Principle of Equity
-implied in the alternative formulation
-an action is good if it provides equal benefits or happiness for
the greatest number of individuals concerned.
Situation:
There are two groups: one wealthy and another struggling
financially
*Applying the principle of equity under utilitarianism might
suggest redistributing resources from the wealthier group to the
struggling group to achieve a more equitable distribution of
happiness or well-being among everyone, even if this action
doesn't maximize overall happiness in the immediate sense, it
aims to create a fairer and more balanced society in the long
run.
THE HEDONiSTIC CALCULUS
Benthham rejected Kant’s view of duty or conscience as the
criterion of moral value and of good and evil. He held that only
pleasures and pains give us the real value of actions.
Pleasure-pain calculus or the hedonistic calculus, is a
method of determining which of alternative actions would be
preferable because of the amount of pleasure to be anticipated.
Hedonistic calculus consist of:
Intensity- An action is considered good or moral if it is more
intense.
Duration- the longer the happiness of a particular action
lasts;the better.
Certainty- The more certain and sure we are that happiness will
happen, the better.
Propinquity- the nearer or closer, or more often it occurs; the
better.
Fecundity- The greater chance of possibility that it will be
followed by more pleasure, the better the action will be.
Purity- the purer the pleasure; the better
Extent- The greater the number of people benefited, the better
the action will be.
In order to know the whether the action is morally acceptable by
Bentham; calculate carefully the amount of pleasure and the
amount of pain that any act will bring. After calculating both, the
amount of pain should be subtracted from the amount of
pleasure in order to determine the balance. In this case, the
higher the difference will be, the more moral should the action
be considered.
“It would be better to be a happy pig than a miserable human
being, because pig can sense physical pleasure”
The Benevolent-Spectator Principle
Mill disagreed with hedonistic calculus because he believed that
it is impossible to calculate the amount of pleasure and pain in
a certain action.
-greater the importance on the happiness of all rather than on
one’s own happiness. He held that the happiness of all should
always be taken into consideration before making moral
decision.
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;
better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
(Sahakian,220)
Act Utilitarianism vs. Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
- also known as classical Utilitarianism
- focuses on the consequences of individual actions
- an action is morally right if it maximizes overall happiness or
utility for the greatest number of people.
- This means that in each specific situation, an individual must
consider the potential outcomes and choose the action that will
produce the greatest amount of happiness or utility for the
greatest number of people involved.
- does not rely on fixed rules or principles, but rather evaluates
each action on a case-by-case basis.
Ex.
1. Telling a white lie
Imagine a scenario where a friend asks you if they look good
in an outfit that they clearly don't. According to Act Utilitarianism,
you would consider the consequences of your actions. If telling
a white lie would spare your friend's feelings and prevent them
from feeling embarrassed or hurt, it might be seen as the morally
right action since it maximizes overall happiness in that
particular situation.
2. Breaking a promise
Suppose you promised a friend that you would help them
move on a specific day, but on that day, you receive an urgent
call from another friend who is in a state of emotional distress
and needs your immediate support. In this case, Act
Utilitarianism would require you to weigh the potential
consequences of breaking your promise versus providing
emotional support to your distressed friend. If breaking the
promise would result in significant harm to your distressed
friend, it might be considered morally right to break the promise
and prioritize the well-being of the person in immediate need.
3. Organ donation
Imagine you have the opportunity to save multiple lives by
donating your organs after your death. According to Act
Utilitarianism, if the benefits of donating your organs, such as
saving lives and improving overall happiness, outweigh any
negative impact on yourself or your loved ones, it would be seen
as morally right to donate your organs.
These examples highlight how Act Utilitarianism evaluates
the consequences of individual actions to determine their moral
value based on the principle of maximizing overall happiness or
utility.
Rule Utilitarianism
- emphasizes the importance of following general rules or
principles that, when consistently applied, lead to the greatest
overall happiness or utility.
- argues that certain rules or principles have been established
through experience and analysis, and following these rules will
generally produce the best outcomes for society as a whole.
- Instead of evaluating each individual action separately, Rule
Utilitarianism focuses on the moral value of adhering to the rules
that have proven to maximize overall happiness or utility.
Ex.
1. Honesty
Rule Utilitarianism would argue that honesty is a general rule
that should be followed because it generally leads to positive
outcomes and maximizes overall happiness or utility. Even if
telling a lie in a particular situation might seem to produce more
immediate happiness, Rule Utilitarianism would advocate for
honesty as a rule because, in the long run, a society built on trust
and honesty tends to be happier and more productive.
2. Respect for others' autonomy
Rule Utilitarianism would support the principle of respecting
others' autonomy as a general rule. This means allowing
individuals to make their own decisions and choices, as long as
they do not harm others. By respecting others' autonomy, Rule
Utilitarianism aims to create a society where individuals have the
freedom to pursue their own happiness, leading to overall utility
maximization.
3. Punishment for crimes
Rule Utilitarianism would argue for the establishment and
enforcement of laws as general rules to deter criminal behavior
and maintain social order. By punishing those who commit
crimes, Rule Utilitarianism aims to create a society where people
feel safe and protected, leading to overall happiness and utility
for the majority.
4. Fair distribution of resources
Rule Utilitarianism would advocate for principles of fairness
and equality in the distribution of resources. This might involve
rules that ensure everyone has access to basic needs such as
food, shelter, and healthcare. By promoting fairness, Rule
Utilitarianism aims to create a society where everyone has an
equal opportunity to flourish, leading to overall utility
maximization.
These are just a few examples to illustrate how Rule
Utilitarianism would guide decision-making in specific situations.
The key idea is that following general rules or principles, which
have been determined to maximize overall happiness or utility,
is the primary focus of Rule Utilitarianism.
Difference Between Act Utilitarianism and Rule
Utilitarianism
- The main difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule
Utilitarianism lies in their approach to decision-making.
• Act Utilitarianism
- evaluates each action individually based on its
consequences
- allows for flexibility and adaptability in decision-
making
• Rule Utilitarianism
- relies on following general rules that have been
determined to maximize overall happiness or utility
- provides a more structured and consistent approach
Critique on Utilitarianism
The upholding of the happiness of the greatest number
had always been an important consideration in moral
philosophy. No moral principle would say that the
upholding of the happiness of the greatest number
would not become the basis of morality. The utilitarian
would consider the society as a compendium of
individual people, (compendium is a comprehensive
collection of something) therefore, the basis of morality
is the members of the society as a collective, not an
individual. The basis of morality is the happiness of the
greater number. (ex. It will be alright to sacrifice the few
if it is for the betterment of the greater majority)
This idea would lead to the problem of justice, it seems
to say that it can be morally acceptable to impose
discomforts or suffering on the few if it is for the sake
of the many. It will appear that some individuals are
inherently more important than the others. Perhaps the
greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails to take
into account considerations of justice. (ex. The
happiness of the majority counts more than the
happiness of the ordinary or impoverished person) to
this, there will be a question “what about the rights of
the minority?”]
Example: Robin Hood, Robin Hood is a thief whose
goal is to steal from the rich and give it to the poor. The
action of stealing may be considered morally
acceptable if it is for the sake of the many.
The motives behind actions are ignored - (example, A
and B are part of the charity. A donates 1,000 pesos
and B donates 10,000 pesos. A donated the money
because he wanted to help the charity and B made the
donation because he wanted to improve his own
standing in the society. Utilitarianism would consider
B’s donation more than A, despite the fact it was made
with an ulterior and less noble motive. It means that a
society in which everybody acts from evil motives but
nonetheless produces desirable outcomes is a good
society.
The fault of utilitarianism is that they did not give
enough consideration to the responsibilities of every
individual as well as the rights of the minority.