Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a teleological (goal-based) theory in that it judges the morality of actions or

rules according to the extent to which they serve the goal of maximizing utility. It is a
consequentialist theory, meaning that it judges the morality of actions or rules only by their
consequences, by their net effects on utility (that is, the sum of their good effects minus the
sum of their bad effects). Utilitarianism thus defines and relates the two basic concepts of
ethics, the good (states of affairs) and the right (actions, policies, rules or institutions) in the
following way. First, it defines the good independently of the right. It defines the good as
utility, that is, pleasure, happiness or satisfaction of wants or interests. It then defines the
right as whichever actions or rules would maximize utility for all affected. Thus in
utilitarianism the good is prior to, and determines, the right. Utilitarianism based on these
conceptions, has it's maxim as "the greatest happiness of the greatest number".
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, are considered as the main founders of utilitarianism.
Bentham claimed that humans are naturally governed by pain and pleasure. These alone
determine ‘all we do’, say and think. And these alone indicate ‘what we ought to do, ... the
standard of right and wrong’. This principle is called hedonism. And therefore Bentham and
Mill's theory is hedonistic. According to Hedonism, hedone or pleasure is the ultimate,
standard of morality. It is the highest good, the supreme end of life. It is based on two
assumptions, -a metaphysical assumption and a psychological assumption.

Hedonism is based upon the metaphysical assumption that the self is purely sensuous in
nature. It is a series of sensations, feelings, appetities, and instincts. It has reason, no doubt;
but it is not supreme in human nature, but a mere slave of passions. It simply points out the
best means for the realization of the end of passions. David Hume regards reason as
hand-maid of passions. Gratification of the lower self is the supreme good according to
Hedonism.

Hedonism is based on the psychological assumption that man naturally seeks pleasure and
avoids pain. Many Hedonists (eg Bentham, J. S. Mill and others) assume that we naturally
seek pleasure and avoid pain. Desire is primarily directed towards pleasure. We desire
pleasure as the ultimate end. We desire every thing else as a means to pleasure. Pleasure
is the normal object of desire.

Utility according to Bentham means producing ‘benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or

happiness’ or preventing ‘mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness’. The value of a pleasure or
pain depends on its intensity, duration and probability. It might be objected, Bentham notes,
that pleasure is not the only value – the arts and sciences, for example, are valuable too. He
replies that the value of all arts and sciences ‘is exactly in proportion to the pleasure they
yield’. If the game of pushpin gives more pleasure than music or poetry, ‘it is more valuable
than either’. For Bentham, then, utility (pleasure or happiness) defines what is good.

Bentham's Utilitarianism has been called quantitative Utilitarianism as he identifies

quantitative difference of different pleasure. Some pleasure are qualitatively more
pleasurable than others. Bentham holds that the only standard of valuation of pleasures is
quantitative. But quantity takes different forms. It has seven dimensions of value, viz., (1)
intensity, (2) duration, (3) proximity, (4) certainty, (5) purity (freedom from pain), (6) fecundity
(fruitfulness), and (7) extent i.e., the number of persons affected. One pleasure is more
intense than another. of pleasures otherwise equal, the more intense pleasure is prefer- able
to a less intense pleasure. One pleasure is more durable than another. Of pleasures
otherwise equal, the more durable pleasure is preferable to a less durable pleasure. A
proximate pleasure is preferable to a remote pleasure. A certain pleasure is preferable to an
uncertain pleasure. A pleasure is pure when it is free from pain; and it is impure when it is
mixed with pain. A pure pleasure is preferable to an impure pleasure. A pleasure is said to
have fecundity when it gives rise to a number of other pleasures. A fecund pleasure is
preferable to a barren pleasure which does not give rise to other pleasure. A pleasure may
be enjoyed by a small number of persons or a large number of persons. A pleasure of
greater extent is preferable to one of less extent. A pleasure enjoyed by a large number of
persons is preferable to pleasure enjoyed by a small number of persons. These are intensity,
duration, proximity or propinquity, certainty, purity, fecundity, and extent of pleasures.
Bentham believes in hedonistic calculus. He says, "Weigh pleasures and weight pains, and
as the balance stands, will stand the question of right and wrong". An action is right if it gives
pleasure or excess of pleasure over pain. An action is wrong if it gives pain or excess of pain
over pleasure.

J S Mill on the other hand recognises that some pleasures are qualitatively more preferable
than others. Hence he is known as Qualitative Utilitarian. Mill’s utilitarianism also has the
Utilitarian structure of Bentham in recognising "the greatest happiness of the greatest
number" as the utility maxim. He says that both utility and happiness mean ‘pleasure, and
the absence of pain’. Unhappiness is pain and the absence of pleasure. Pleasure and
freedom from pain ‘are the only things desirable as ends’. All desirable things are desirable
either for the pleasure inherent in them or as means to pleasure or prevention of pain.

However Mill differs from Bentham in the recognition of qualitative differencs amongst
pleasure. One of the criticism faced by Utilitarianism was that to consider that life has ‘no
higher end than pleasure’ is ‘a doctrine worthy only of swine’. Mill observes that humans
have higher mental faculties than animals and human happiness must include gratification of
those faculties. The pleasures of the intellect, feelings, imagination and moral sentiments are
more valuable than ‘those of mere sensation’. Compared to bodily pleasures, mental
pleasures are ‘more desirable and more valuable’. They are according to him of a higher
quality in that almost everyone who has experienced both kinds of pleasure prefers to use
their higher faculties. No intelligent, educated, sensitive or moral person would prefer to be
the opposite even if they would then be more satisfied. Hence, for example for Mill to answer
questions about which kinds of pleasure is more preferable, the pleasure afforded by
intoxication or the pleasure afforded by good food, one will have to rationally assess which is
rational and will gratify the higher self than just to compare which one gives us quantitatively
higher intensity of pleasure.

Contemporary distinction of Utilitarianism can be made on the basis of two things. Firstly on
the basis of evaluating the consequences of moral actions independently and secondly on
the basis of evaluating the consequences of following a moral rules. This way of
distinguishing Utilitarianism therefore gives rise to Rule Utilitarianism and Act
[Link] principle of utility can be applied to acts (act-utilitarianism) or to rules
(rule-utilitarianism).
Act-utilitarianism applies the utility principle to each possible act: the right action is that which
would maximize utility. In most circumstances, truth-telling, respecting property, keeping
promises and not harming others have the best consequences and so maximize utility.
However, in some circumstances, lying, stealing, breaking a promise, harming or even killing
would have better overall consequences than any alternative and so would be the right
action, according to act-utilitarianism, for which the end justifies the means. According to
act-utilitarianism, the right act is the one that will maximize utility.

Rule-utilitarianism on the other hand, applies the utility principle not to acts but to possible
moral rules, in order to work out the ideal set of rules for society to follow. The right rules are
those that, if generally followed, would maximize utility. In contrast to act-utilitarianism, the
principle of utility is not the criterion of the rightness of actions. Rather, right actions are
those that comply with the utility- maximizing rules. Lying, stealing, breaking promises and
killing generally have bad consequences, so rules prohibiting them may be justif i ed on
utilitarian grounds. Actions that comply with those utility-maximizing rules are right.
Rule-utilitarians argue, then, that the most effective way to maximize utility is to adhere to
rules that are chosen to maximize utility. Rules serve to maximize utility because they are
easier to communicate, inculcate, remember and apply than are act-by-act utility
calculations.

Rule-utilitarianism has been criticised on the ground that it leads to irrational "rule worship"
and therefore strays away from Utilitarianism. This is so because if actions were judged on
the basis of rules that maximise utility, then some actions will be impermissible regardless of
it's consequences even in circumstances in which breaking the rule would maximize utility.
For instance, Our society have rules against lying, which is adopted on sound ground that in
most situations lying leads to unhappiness and therefore it should be impermissible.
However, in some situations lying could lead to more happiness than being honest, say
when someone is asking whereabouts of a person you know with an intension to harm. In
such circumstances, should the rule be followed? If rule-utilitarianism says that the rule
should not be followed when doing so would not maximize utility, then it reverts to
act-utilitarianism. If it insists that the rule should be followed even when doing so would not
maximize utility, then, according to act-utilitarianism, it abandons utilitarianism for irrational
‘rule worship’.

Utilitarianism in general has been objected on the ground that it is too demanding to require
that people always act to promote the interests of everyone. This requires that we be
impartial or indifferent to our own happiness and desires when considering what actions are
good. The valuation of good or right action must be the greatest happiness of the greatest
number. For example, in considering a moral choice one has to abide by what is appreciated
as moral by the greater number of people. It has also been sometimes criticised as resulting
in a kind of morality which results in "mob rule". Mill's response is that humankind may
‘obtain a greater sum of happiness when each pursues his own, under the rules and
conditions required by the good of the rest, than when each makes the good of the rest his
only object’.

It has also been objected that there is not enough time to calculate and weigh the effects of
all possible actions before acting. Mill’s reply to this is that ‘there has been ample time’, the
past experience have taught us lesson about consequences of various of actions. We do not
need to work out anew whether murder or theft harms human happiness. The traditional
rules of morality are based on empirical beliefs about the effects of actions on human
happiness. We do not need to test each action against the principle of utility.