UTILITARIANISM

ALQUIZA, YZZA JULIANNA

ARGALLON, CARL DENBRIX
BAYLE, MARK DAVE
BAUTISTA, XIEVER PAUL
UTILITARIANISM
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE MORAL THEORIES OF
JOHN STUART MILL AND JEREMY BENTHAM
 WHAT IS
UTILITARIANISM ?
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong
by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will
produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
 ETHICAL
JUDGEMENTS
Ethical judgments are attempts to assess the appropriateness
of past actions and our current responses to them, remaining
mindful of present values and sensibilities and considering
fully the norms of the time.
 ETHICAL
JUDGEMENTS
AREAS OF EMPHASIS IN MAKING MORAL JUDGEMENTS

PURPOSE/MOTIVE RESULT/
ACT, RULE/MAXIM
CONCEQUENCES

MORAL Moral judgment refers to a decision about what

one should do in a morally problematic situation,

JUDGEMENTS what is right and what is wrong when deciding

what to do.
F O U R T H E S E S O F U T I L I TA R I A N I S M

CONSEQUENTIALISM

W E L FA R I S M

I M PA RT I A L I T Y

A G G R E G AT I O N I S M
FOUR THESES OF CONSEQUENTIALISM
U T I L I TA R I A N I S M
Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges
whether or not something is right by what its
consequences are. For instance, most people
would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a
lie would help save a person’s life,
consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.
W E L FA R I S M
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because
it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know
I M PA RT I A L I T Y what the result of an action will be ahead of time.
Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty.
Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can
A G G R E G AT I O N I S M lead to decisions that are objectionable, even
though the consequences are arguably good.
FOUR THESES OF W E L FA R I S M
U T I L I TA R I A N I S M
Welfarism is the view that the value of an
outcome is wholly determined by the well-being
CONSEQUENTIALISM of the individuals in it.

Specifically, welfarism holds that positive well-

being is the only intrinsic good, and negative
well-being is the only intrinsic bad. Philosophers
use the term “well-being” to describe everything
that is in itself good for someone, as opposed to
I M PA RT I A L I T Y
things that are merely instrumentally good. For
example, money can buy many useful things and
is thus instrumentally good for you, but having
A G G R E G AT I O N I S M money does not in itself constitute well-being.
FOUR THESES OF I M PA R T I A L I T Y
U T I L I TA R I A N I S M

CONSEQUENTIALISM
Impartiality is the view that a given quantity of
well-being is equally valuable no
matter whose well-being it is.
HEDONISM
Utilitarian endorse the view that "all persons are
moral equals and should be treated impartially.
They treat persons impartially because identical
benefits count the same no matter who is the
beneficiary: a benefit to a stranger counts as much
A G G R E G AT I O N I S M as a benefit to a family member, or even to you.
FOUR THESES OF A G G R E G AT I O N I S M
U T I L I TA R I A N I S M

Aggregationism is the 'combination of morally

CONSEQUENTIALISM relevant factors such as well-being, happiness,
pleasure, desire-satisfaction, claims, reasons, and
so on, into an objective value.
HEDONISM When combined with welfarism and impartiality,
this implies that we can meaningfully “add up”
the well-being of different individuals, and use
I M PA RT I A L I T Y this total to determine which trade-offs are worth
making. For example, utilitarianism claims that
improving five lives by some amount is five times
better than improving one life by the same
amount.
F O R M U L AT I O N O F
U T I L I TA R I A N
T H E O RY
 F O R M U L AT I O N O F U T I L I T A R I A N T H E O R Y

ACT
Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory
of ethics that states that a person's act
is morally right if and only if it
produces the best possible results in
that specific situation.
RULE
Rule utilitarianism is a form of
utilitarianism that says an action is
right as it conforms to a rule that leads
to the greatest good, or that "the
rightness or wrongness of a particular
action is a function of the correctness
of the rule of which it is an instance".
 APPLI CATI O N OF
UTI L I TA RI AN THEO RY
Utilitarian reasoning can be used for many different
purposes. It can be used both for moral reasoning and
for any type of rational decision-making. In addition
to applying in different contexts, it can also be used
for deliberations about the interests of different
persons and groups.
 UTILITARIAN THEORY
The most popular proponents of utilitarianism are Jeremy
Bentham and John Stewart Mill. While both of them hold
the same utilitarian principle, their ethical views are
distinct from each other. Bentham’s version emphasizes
the quantitative differences among types of pleasures
while Mill’s version focuses on the qualitative
differences. While Bentham claims that there is no
significant difference between physical and mental
pleasures, Mill holds otherwise.

JOHN STUART MILL JEREMY BENTHAM

JEREMY BENTHAM
U T I L I TA R I A N T H E O RY

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) was a British philosopher and social

reformer. He is regarded as the founder of utilitarianism – a
philosophy advocating the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Bentham was a social activist arguing for the abolition of slavery and
an early advocate of animal rights.

He wrote numerous treatises and works arguing for equality between

the sexes, legal reform, ending corporal punishment and abolishing
the death penalty. Bentham played an influential role in English
radicalism and liberalism of the
Nineteenth Century. For his support of extending education to people
of all classes and religion, he is also considered the ‘spiritual father’
of University College London (UCL).
JEREMY BENTHAM
U T I L I TA R I A N T H E O RY

QUANTITATIVE HEDONISTIC
UTILITARIANISM
In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a
framework
for evaluating pleasure and pain common called as hedonistic
calculus or calculus of
felicity.
JEREMY BENTHAM
U T I L I TA R I A N T H E O RY
HEDONISTIC CALCULUS

1. DURATION – how long it lasts…

2. INTENSITY – how intense is it?
3. PROPINQUITY – how near/remote?
4. EXTENT – how widely it covers
5. CERTAINTY – how probable is it?
6. PURITY – how free from pain is it?
7. FECUNDITY – lead to further pleasure?
JOHN STUART MILL U T I L I TA R I A N T H E O RY

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), was a leading political philosopher of the Nineteenth
Century. He held radical views for the time, advocating universal suffrage and equality for
women. He was also a Utilitarian philosopher, a philosophy which seeks to maximize the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. Mill refined the original Utilitarianism of
Jeremy Bentham. J.S Mill is perhaps best remembered for his short exposition of the theory
of individual liberty and the right to freedom of speech.

Mill was born in London, May 20th, 1806. His father James Mill was a Scottish
philosopher and Economist, who moved in important intellectual circles. The
young Mill was educated by his father and Jeremy Bentham – the leading
exponent of Utilitarian philosophy. His father hoped that John would become a
leading intellect to advance the course of Utilitarianism, and the precious John
exceeded his father’s hopes and expectations. By the age of eight, he was making
strides to becoming fluent in Latin and Greek and becoming very widely read.
JOHN STUART MILL
U T I L I TA R I A N T H E O RY

QUALITATIVE HEDONISTIC
UTILITARIANISM
Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than
quantity. An excessive quantity of what is otherwise pleasurable might
result in pain. We can consider for example, our experience of excessive
eating or exercising. Whereas eating the right amount of food can be
pleasurable, excessive eating may not be. If the quality of pleasure is
sometimes more important than quantity, the it is important to consider
the standards whereby differences of pleasure can be judged. Mill
suggests that in deciding over two comparable pleasures, it is important
to experience both and to discover which one is actually more preferred
than the other.
Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the
greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can
be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to
moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for
costs and benefits.

However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with
certainty whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is
one of the limitations of utilitarianism.
 Utilitarianism isn’t necessarily a godless theory
of ethics.

Utilitarianism seems to take God out of the picture. Ultimate intrinsic

value is not found in God’s commands, divine law as revealed in
Scripture, or any other religious thing. Instead, the capacity to
experience pleasure and pain, sentience, is the foundation for the
ultimate thing of moral value, namely happiness, and maximizing
that is what makes acts morally right. There’s no need for God.
Utilitarianism isn’t necessarily a godless theory
of ethics.

Mill didn’t necessarily think that

utilitarianism is a godless doctrine.
Perhaps he would say that atheists
have hijacked a theory that is not,
of necessity, godless.
 Utilitarianism isn’t necessarily a godless theory
of ethics.
Mill didn’t necessarily think that
utilitarianism is a godless doctrine.
Perhaps he would say that atheists
have hijacked a theory that is not,
of necessity, godless.
Mill thinks whether the existence of God is
compatible with utilitarianism depends on your
view of God. If you think God’s ultimate desire for
people is that they be happy, then utilitarianism is
not Godless. God’s will for humanity is compatible
with the principle of utility. God commands things
because they are good—because they lead his
creatures to happiness and away from pain and
suffering.
Utilitarianism isn’t necessarily a godless theory
of ethics.

What is the nature of God?

Except for some Unitarian Christians, the belief in

the Triune nature of God remains central to the
Christian faith. According to the Bible, God the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are all called
God. They are also referred to as Creator,
Redeemer, and Counselor.
 Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values
such as justice and individual rights

Perhaps the greatest difficulty with utilitarianism is that it fails

to take into account considerations of justice. We can imagine
instances where a certain course of action would produce great
benefits for society, but they would be clearly unjust. For
example, telling a lies is an offence if it will result in to evil, but
it is beneficial if the lies will result in to a benefit.
Mill’s “rule” utilitarianism

Rule utilitarians, in whose camp we can place Mill, adopt a

different moral decision-procedure. Their view is that we should
create a set of rules that, if followed, would produce the greatest
amount of total happiness. In the transplant case, killing the
healthy man would not seem to be part of the best set of
utilitarian-justified rules since a rule allowing the killing of
healthy patients would not seem to promote total happiness; one
outcome, for example, would be that people would very likely
stop coming to hospitals for fear for their life! Therefore, if a rule
permitting killing was allowed then the maximization of total
happiness would not be promoted overall. It is through Rule
Utilitarianism that we can make sense of Mill’s “harm principle”.
Mill’s “rule” utilitarianism
According to Mill, there is:
…one very simple principle, as entitled to govern
absolutely the dealings of society with the individual
in the way of compulsion and control.

That principle is:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully

exercised over any member of a civilized community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
warrant.
 SYNTHESIS

• Meanwhile, utilitarianism is the most influential form of consequentialism. It can be

considered a hedonistic, agent-neutral form of consequentialism.

• Although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right

and wrong, it has obvious limitations.

• Bentham’s version emphasizes the quantitative differences among types of pleasures. In

determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for
evaluating pleasure and pain common called as hedonistic calculus or calculus of felicity.

• Mill’s version focuses on the qualitative differences among types of pleasures.

 SYNTHESIS

END OF PRESENTATION
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!