MODULE 3: UTILITARIANISM

TOPICS:

 Classical Version of the Theory

 Principle of Utility
 Principle of the Greatest Number
 Are all Consequences all that Matters?
 Justice and Moral Rights
 Impartiality

1
 Learning objectives:
1. Discuss the basic principles utilitarianism.
2. Apply the concepts of agency and
autonomy to one’s moral experience.
3. Evaluate actions using the universability
test.

I. Classical Version of the Theory

Classical Utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions: (a) The morality of

an action depends solely on the consequences of the action; nothing else matters. (b)
An action’s consequences matter only insofar as they involve the greater or lesser
happiness of individuals. (c) In the assessment of consequences, each individual’s
happiness gets equal consideration. This means that equal amounts of happiness always
count equally; nobody’s well-being matters more just because he is rich, let’s say, or
powerful, or handsome, or a man rather than a woman. Morally, everyone counts the
same.
According to Classical Utilitarianism, an action is right if it produces the greatest
overall balance of happiness over unhappiness. Classical Utilitarianism was developed
and defended by three of the greatest philosophers in 19th-century England: Jeremy
Bentham (1748–1832), John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), and Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900).
Thanks in part to their work, Utilitarianism has had a profound influence on modern
thinking. Most moral philosophers, however, reject the theory.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory developed by Jeremy Bentham and popularized by
John Stuart Mill, which claims that an act is good or morally right if it promotes happiness,
and bad or immoral if it tends to produce pain. In other words, actions are morally
permissible if and only if it produces at least as much net happiness as any other available
action.
2
 I. Principle of Utility and Principe of Greatest Number

The key principle in utilitarianism is happiness. Hence, an action is morally right if

it produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of people and bad or immoral
if it produces more harm or pain than benefits or happiness to the greatest number of
people. This explains why the utilitarian would not care whether the action is done out
of deception lie or manipulation as long as it produces maximum benefits to many
people.
Example #1:
The act of condemning a terrorist to death is morally right for the utilitarian
because this action produces equal benefits or greatest happiness to the greatest
number of people affected by grave action of the terrorist.
Example #2:
Another example is the case of Robinhood where he steals from the wealthy in
order to give to the poor. Looking at the point of view of Christian Ethics, Robin Hood’s
action is sinful and immoral. However, in the utilitarianism point of view, it is moral since it
benefits the majority of the people.

JEREMY BENTHAM’S MODEL OF UTILITARIANISM (1748-1832)

(Happiness is simply the absence of pain)

Bentham defines happiness as the absence of pain.

Thus, introducing the calculus to measure the degree of
happiness or pleasure that a specific action may produce.
The philosophic calculus is also called the utility calculus or
the hedonistic calculus. It includes intensity, duration,
certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent.
So, for Bentham, the intense (intensity) the pleasure,
3
 the better; the longer (duration) it lasts, the better; the more certain (certainty) that it
will happen, the better; closer (propinquity) that it will occur, the better; the greater
the possibility (fecundity) that it will be followed by another pleasure, the better; the
purer (purity) the pleasure, the better; the greater the number of people (extent) that
benefits, the better.

Happiness- Pain= Balance

The felicific Calculus Formula of Bentham is happiness minus pain equals balance.
Balance is the basis the morality of an action, Bentham claims. In other words, if the balance
is in favor of the happiness, then the act is morally right. On the other hand, if it is in favor of
pain, then it is morally wrong. How exactly do we do this? DO you have any idea?
Well, Bentham said that we would just have to sum up all the pleasures and pains
produced by the action. If the balance in favor of good, then the act is morally right.
However, if the balance is in favor of pain, then it is morally wrong.
Take a look at this example put in a mathematical equation:
a. 12 pleasures-6 pains= 6 in favor of pleasure or happiness. Therefore,
according to Bentham, this is morally right.
b. 20 pains- 5 pleasures= 15 pains. Therefore, the balance is 25 which is in favor
of pain, and is morally wrong.

JOHN STUART MILL’S MODEL OF UTILITARIANISM (1806-1973)

Before looking into Mill’s view of utilitarianism, it is

important to note that he disagrees with Bentham’s
view of utilitarianism. Mill argues that we cannot
calculate the amount of pleasure or pain that an act
produces. Thus, the philosophic calculus cannot be the
basis of morality but the majority of the people that
attains happiness. Thus, the famous utilitarian claim is
right when it claimed that an act is morally right if it
produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of
people and it is morally wrong if it produces more pain
than pleasure to the greatest number of people
concerned.
Compared to that of Bentham’s model, Mill’s model is
qualitative in nature as it does not make use of formulas
and numbers to measure happiness or pain. It
emphasizes more of intellectual pleasure and not
just sensual pleasure.

4
ACT UTILITARIANSIM and RULE UTILITARIANISM

Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian principle which claims that this utilitarian principle
should be applied to a particular situation or circumstance. It takes into account the
possible result of each act hence the basis of the morality of an action is the ACT itself.
Therefor, in act utilitarianism, we should perform those action that produces greatest
happiness to the greatest number of people concerned.
Rule utilitarianism hold that the principle at issue should be used to test moral rules,
and then such rules can be utilized in judging what is right and wrong under the
circumstance. In other words, an act is morally right if it conforms to a justified moral rule.
How will you know if a rule is justified? Again, if that rule produces greatest happiness to
greatest number of people.

Example:
Let’s take a look at the act of condemning a terrorist to death. So, an act utilitarian
would ask the question: What possible good or evil results from this act? If the majority of
the people are benefited by the act itself, then it is moral. A rule utilitarian on the other
hand would ask if there is a rule or law that would condemn terrorists to death and whether
this rule is based on the utilitarian principle. If this is the case, then it may be morally right to
sentence a terrorist to death.

II. Are consequences all that matter?

Justice

In 1965, writing in the racially charged climate

of the American civil rights movement, H. J.
McCloskey asks us to consider the following case:
Suppose a utilitarian were visiting an area in
which there was racial strife, and that, during his visit,
a Negro rapes a white woman, and that race riots
occur as a result of the crime. Suppose too that our

5
utilitarian is in the area of the crime when it is committed such that his
testimony would bring about the conviction of [whomever he
accuses]. If he knows that a quick arrest will stop the riots and
lynchings, surely, as a utilitarian, he must conclude that he has a duty
to bear false witness in order to bring about the punishment of an
innocent person.

Such an accusation would have bad consequences— the innocent man would be
convicted—but there would be enough good consequences to outweigh them: The riots
and lynchings would be stopped, and many lives would be saved. The best outcome would
thus be achieved by bearing false witness; therefore, according to Utilitarianism, lying is the
thing to do. But, the argument continues, it would be wrong to bring about the conviction of
an innocent person. Therefore, Utilitarianism must be incorrect. According to the critics of
Utilitarianism, this argument illustrates one of the theory’s most serious shortcomings, namely,
that it conflicts with the ideal of justice. Justice requires us to treat people fairly, according to
the merits of their particular situations. In McCloskey’s example, Utilitarianism requires that we
treat someone unfairly. Therefore, Utilitarianism cannot be right.

Moral Rights

Here is an example from the U.S. Court of Appeals. In the case of York v. Story (1963),
arising out of California:

In October, 1958, appellant [Ms. Angelynn York] went to the police department
of Chino for the purpose of filing charges in connection with an assault upon her
Appellee Ron Story, an officer of that police department, then acting under color of his
authority as such, advised appellant that it was necessary to take photographs of her.
Story then took appellant to a room in the police station, locked the door, and
directed her to undress, which she did. Story then directed appellant to assume
various indecent positions, and photographed her in those positions. These
photographs were not made for any lawful or legitimate purpose. Appellant objected
to undressing. She stated to Story that there was no need to take photographs of her in
the nude, or in the positions she was directed to take, because the bruises would not
show in any photograph. Later that month, Story advised appellant that the pictures
did not come out and that he had destroyed them. Instead, Story [made additional
prints and] circulated these photographs among the personnel of the Chino police
department.
Ms. York brought suit against Officer Story and won. Her legal rights had clearly been
violated. But what about the morality of Story’s behavior?
Utilitarianism says that actions are defensible if they produce a favorable balance of
happiness over unhappiness. This suggests that we compare the amount of unhappiness
caused to York with the amount of pleasure the photographs gave to Officer Story and the
others. And it is at least possible that more happiness than unhappiness was created. In that
case, the utilitarian would say that Story’s actions were morally acceptable. But this seems

6
perverse. Why should the pleasure of Story and his friends matter at all? They had no right to
treat York in this way, and the fact that they enjoyed doing so hardly seems relevant.

Consider a related case.

Suppose a Peeping Tom spied on a woman through her bedroom window and
secretly took pictures of her undressed. Suppose he is never caught, and he never shows the
pictures to anyone.
Under these circumstances, the only consequence of his action seems to be an
increase in his own happiness. No one else, including then woman, is caused any
unhappiness at all. How, then, could a utilitarian deny that the Peeping Tom’s actions are
right? Utilitarianism again appears to be unacceptable.
The key point is that Utilitarianism is at odds
with the idea that people have rights that may not
be trampled on merely because one anticipates
good results. In these examples, the woman’s right
to privacy is violated. But we could think of similar
cases in which other rights are at issue—the right to
worship freely, the right to speak one’s mind, or
even the right to live. On Utilitarianism, an
individual’s rights may always be trampled upon if
enough people benefit from the trampling.
Utilitarianism has thus been accused of
supporting the “tyranny of the majority”: if the
majority of people would take pleasure in
someone’s rights being abused, then those rights
should be abused, because the pleasure of the
majority outweighs the suffering of the one.
However, we do not think that our individual rights
should mean so little, morally.
The notion of an individual right is not a utilitarian notion. Quite the opposite: It is a notion
that places limits on how an individual may be treated, regardless of the good that might be
accomplished.

III. Impartiality
Almost every important moral theory includes a
commitment to impartiality. To be impartial is to treat
everyone alike; no one gets special treatment. By
contrast, to be partial is to show favoritism. Impartiality
also requires that we not treat the members of particular
groups as inferior. Thus, it condemns forms of
7
discrimination like sexism and racism.
Impartiality is closely related to the idea that moral judgments must be backed by
good reasons. Consider the racist who thinks that white people deserve all the good jobs. He
would like all the doctors, lawyers, business executives, and so on, to be white. Now we can
ask for reasons; we can ask why this is thought to be right. Is there something about white
people that makes them better fitted for the highest paying and most prestigious jobs? Are
they inherently brighter or harder working? Do they care more about themselves and their
families? Would they benefit more from such employment? In each case, the answer is no;
and if there is no good reason to treat people differently, then the discrimination is
unacceptably arbitrary.
The requirement of impartiality, then, is at bottom nothing more than a rule against
treating people arbitrarily. It forbids treating one person worse than another when there is no
good reason to do so. Yet if this explains why racism is wrong, it also explains why some cases
of unequal treatment are not racist. Suppose a movie director were making a film about
Fred Shuttlesworth (1922–2011), the heroic African-American civil rights leader. This director
would have a good reason not to cast Bryan Cranston in the starring role—namely, that
Cranston is white. Such “discrimination” would not be arbitrary or objectionable.

References:

Rachels, J & Rachels, S. 1941–2003. Elements of moral philosophy. Eighth edition. New
York. McGraw Hill Education. BJ1012.R29 2014