MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

CHAPTER 8 - UTILITARIANISM: THE CONSEQUENTIALIST ETHICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Articulate what is ethical based on utilitarianism or the consequentialist's

ethical framework
B. Critique utilitarianism

Origin and Nature of the Utilitarianism Framework

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... By the principle of utility is meant that principle which
approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to
augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing
in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever, and therefore
not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, Original advocates of utilitarianism, former being considered
the founder. Bentham (1789),

Utilitarianism

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals "utility" or the "greatest happiness principle holds
that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness,
pain and the privation of pleasure.- John Stuart (1861) Mill

1
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

In brief, utilitarianism as a moral principle is "the principle of utility or the greatest happiness
principle." It is also phrased as the principle of "the greatest good of the greatest number." This is the
quality (greatest good) and quantity (greatest number) criteria. Among various options, that which is
objectively good in quality and most like by a majority is possibly the greatest good for the greatest
number. An illustration may be the passage of a minimum wage law. The quality of the law, its
determination as the greatest good, the best among other bills, is arrived through the debates and
discussions in Congress. Once the best version of the law is forged, it is put into a vote. The vote may
reflect whether or not it will be accepted and will benefit the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a "form
of consequentialism," focusing "on the consequences of action." in contrast with deontology.

Two versions

 Act utilitarianism -consider the consequences of some particular act such as keeping or breaking
one's promise.
 Rule utilitarianism.- consider the consequences of some practice or rule behavior- for example,
the practice of promise-keeping or promise-breaking

Simply put, what is ethical according to the consequentialist, utilitarianism ethical framework? That
which is ethical is that which gives pleasure and happiness as a consequence. That is what the song
“In heaven there is no beer; that's why we drink beer here" implies. That which is unethical is that which
gives pain and unhappiness. That which is ethical is that which produces the greatest good (happiness)
for the greatest number.

The Consequentialist Framework

In the Consequentialist framework, we focus on the future effects of the possible courses of
action, considering the people who will be directly or indirectly affected. We ask about what outcomes
are desirable in a given situation, and consider ethical conduct to be whatever will achieve the best
consequences. The person using the Consequences framework desires to produce the most good. For
Bentham and Mill, avoid pain, pursue pleasure. That is what it means to be ethical. What kind of
pleasure is morally preferred? Mill asserts intellectual pleasure. So it is not physical pleasure as
expressed by the song of the alcoholic "In heaven, there is no beer; that's why we drink beer here."

2
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than
a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig is, of a different opinion, it is because they only know their
own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. (Mill, 1907)

The Love and Justice Framework

The principle of love

Three well-known concepts of love originating from the Greeks

 AGAPE or charity
 EROTIC or passionate sexual encounter,
 PHILIA, the affection between friends.

Love as a moral framework is the agapeic. Agape is the love principle preached by Jesus
Christ. What Christ did as narrated in the New Testament are all acts of love. Feeding the hungry,
giving drinks to the thirsty, healing the sick, rendering service to those in need. In general, as St.
Thomas defined it, agape is "willing the good of another." It is the act of sharing, or giving more than
what is just because justice is just the minimum of love. In the language of contemporary thinkers, this
is love as "affirmation of the other's being," "being-with-others," "being conscious of the other's
presence."

In Joseph Fletcher's situation ethics, agapeic love is absolute norm, the absolute framework
for the determination of the right thing to do or wrong to avoid. In moral reasoning, it is asked, is it an
act of loving? Fr. Bernard Haring, the advocate of ethics of personalism, was also quoted as saying,
"(t) his heart of moral life is charity to one's neighbor.

Justice and Fairness: Promoting the Common Good as a Moral Framework

A. Social Justice

Is equal access to wealth, opportunities, and privileges within society. Hence, promotion of social justice
is equivalent to promotion of the common good. It may also be said that promotion of the common good
is promotion of social justice.

3
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

Common good- In ordinary political discourse, the "common good" refers to those facilities-whether
material, cultural or institutional that the members of a community provide to all members in order to
fulfill a relational obligation they all have to care for certain interests that they have in common. Some
canonical examples of the common good in a modern liberal democracy include: the road system;
public parks; police protection and public safety; courts and the judicial system; public schools;
museums and cultural institutions; public transportation; civil liberties, such as the freedom of speech
and the freedom of association; the system of property; clean air and clean water; and national defense.
The term itself may refer either to the interests that members have in common or to the facilities that
serve common interests.

For example, people may say, "the new public library will serve the common good" or "the public library
is part of the common good."

B. Justice as the Minimum Demand of Love

William Luijpen, referred to justice as "the minimum demand of love." To do justice is already
an act of love, the minimum demand of love. Which means that love is more, gives more than what is
just. Mathematically, if love is 100 percent of being for others, then justice may just be only 10 percent.
A just employer pays the minimum wage to employees, a loving employer, pays more than the minimum
wage, even when it hurts. If there are two people lost in the cold and one has two jackets and the other
has none, justice demands that one should share the other his other jacket, the least that he can do,
bet that is just the minimum demand of love.

C. Distributive Justice

"Justice that is concerned with the distribution or allotment of goods, duties, and privileges in concert
with the merits of individuals, and the best interests of society."

FEATURES OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

A. Egalitarianism is the doctrine of political and social equality. "No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the law." This is not equalization in terms of quantity; it is equalization in terms of
entitlement to due process of law and equal protection of the law.

4
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

B. Capitalist and free-market systems let the law of demand and supply follow its course. Ideally it
is a self-regulation process. It lets any excess of demand be regulated by the limits of supply,
and lets any excess of supply be regulated by the limits of demand. This means no artificial
control or regulations. It is supposed to arrive naturally at its own equilibrium. Free market is
supposed to be an equalizer. During waiting time for natural course of things, public necessities
or utilities may demand immediate intervention which should be more of an exception than the
rule.

C. Socialists follow the rule, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
This requires collective ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange with
the aim of operating for use rather than for profit. Possible downside of this system is there is no
motivation for expansion and growth.

D. Taxation is government's getting a part of what its people earn in order have money to spend for
public services, operating and maintaining public places or properties, for people's use. It is
practically demanding from taxpayers a minimum of justice, to make the enjoyment of the wealth
at least more equitable although not equalizer. It is a government interference with private
property, more or less compelling people to give a share from the fruits of their labor, a way of
compelling diffusion of wealth.

E. Protection and Preservation of Public Welfare The government has constitution-granted power
to govern, to make, adopt and enforce laws for the protection and preservation of public health,
justice, morals, order, safety and security and welfare. The Constitution also gives a government
the right to take private property for public use under the doctrine of eminent domain.

F. Property for Public Use-The government has a Constitution- granted power to take private
property for public use with just compensation. Citizen's ownership of property is not absolute.

5
 MODULE: VAL02 – ETHICS

For the sake of the public, the government exercises this power to equitably distribute
opportunity for the use enjoyment of wealth or property.

JUSTICE AS MORAL FRAMEWORK, BE IT SOCIAL OR DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, STATES THAT

WHATEVER PROMOTES JUSTICE IS THE MORALLY RIGHT THING TO DO.

The Better Moral Framework: Garner and Rosen's Synthesis

Richard T. Garner and Bernard Rosen (1967) tried to identify the most acceptable criterion of the
rightness or wrongness of action, the goodness or badness of character or of personal life. For these
authors, the best framework is a synthesis of the teleological and deontological framework. Th e
rightness or wrongness of action and the goodness or badness of character or trait is a function of
(meaning it depends on) not only the end, object, or consequences of applying a rule (rule utilitarianism)
or doing an act (act utilitarianism), but also other bases like one's sense of duty and good will (rule or
act deontology). This means one arrives at an assessment of the rightness or wrongness of an act,
goodness or badness of a character or trait by considering not only the consequences (affecting not
only the self but also others) of applying a rule or doing an act, but also considering other factors like
the situation or conditions involved.

ETHICS book
Ruben A. Corpuz, AB English-Philo, LIB, PhD
Brenda B. Corpuz, BSE, MAED, PhD