Utilitarianism

 from Encyclopædia Britannica

in normative ethics, a tradition stemming from the late 18th- and 19th-century
English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that an
action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it tends to produce the
reverse of happiness—not just the happiness of the performer of the action but also
that of everyone affected by it. Such a theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that
a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to
any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts as right or wrong
independently of their consequences. Utilitarianism also differs from ethical
theories that make the rightness or wrongness of an act dependent upon the motive
of the agent; for, according to the Utilitarian, it is possible for the right thing to be
done from a bad motive.

The nature of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought

a man to do?” Its answer is that he ought to act so as to produce the best
consequences possible.

Basic concepts

In the notion of consequences the Utilitarian includes all of the good and bad
produced by the act, whether arising after the act has been performed or during its
performance. If the difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not great,
some Utilitarians do not regard the choice between them as a moral issue. According
to Mill, acts should be classified as morally right or wrong only if the consequences
are of such significance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not
merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in the preferred manner.

In assessing the consequences of actions, Utilitarianism relies upon some theory of

intrinsic value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further
consequences, and all other values are believed to derive their worth from their
relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were
hedonists; i.e., they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and
believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue. Utilitarians also
assume that it is possible to compare the intrinsic values produced by two
alternative actions and to estimate which would have better consequences. Bentham
believed that a hedonic calculus is theoretically possible. A moralist, he maintained,
could sum up the units of pleasure and the units of pain for everyone likely to be
affected, immediately and in the future, and could take the balance as a measure of
the overall good or evil tendency of an action. Such precise measurement as
Bentham envisioned is perhaps not essential, but it is nonetheless necessary for the
Utilitarian to make some interpersonal comparisons of the values of the effects of
alternative courses of action.

Methodologies

As a normative system providing a standard by which an individual ought to act and

by which the existing practices of society, including its moral code, ought to be
evaluated and improved, Utilitarianism cannot be verified or confirmed in the way in
which a descriptive theory can; but it is not regarded by its exponents as simply
arbitrary. Bentham believed that only in terms of a Utilitarian interpretation do
words such as “ought,” “right,” and “wrong” have meaning and that whenever anyone
attempts to combat the principle of utility, he does so with reasons drawn from the
principle itself. Bentham and Mill both believed that human actions are motivated
entirely by pleasure and pain; and Mill saw that motivation as a basis for the
argument that, since happiness is the sole end of human action, the promotion of
happiness is the test by which to judge all human conduct.

One of the leading Utilitarians of the late 19th century, a Cambridge philosopher,
Henry Sidgwick, rejected their theories of motivation as well as Bentham's theory of
the meaning of moral terms and sought to support Utilitarianism by showing that it
follows from systematic reflection on the morality of “common sense.” Most of the
requirements of commonsense morality, he argued, could be based upon Utilitarian
considerations. In addition, he reasoned that Utilitarianism could solve the
difficulties and perplexities that arise from the vagueness and inconsistencies of
commonsense doctrines.

Most opponents of Utilitarianism have held that it has implications contrary to their
moral intuitions—that considerations of utility, for example, might sometimes
sanction the breaking of a promise. Much of the defense of Utilitarian ethics has
consisted in answering these objections, either by showing that Utilitarianism does
not have the implications that they claim it has or by arguing against the moral
intuitions of its opponents. Some Utilitarians, however, have sought to modify the
Utilitarian theory to account for the objections.

Criticisms

One such criticism is that, although the widespread practice of lying and stealing
would have bad consequences, resulting in a loss of trustworthiness and security, it
is not certain that an occasional lie to avoid embarrassment or an occasional theft
from a rich man would not have good consequences, and thus be permissible or even
required by Utilitarianism. But the Utilitarian readily answers that the widespread
practice of such acts would result in a loss of trustworthiness and security. To meet
the objection to not permitting an occasional lie or theft, some philosophers have
defended a modification labelled “rule” Utilitarianism. It permits a particular act on
a particular occasion to be adjudged right or wrong according to whether it is in
accordance with or in violation of a useful rule; and a rule is judged useful or not by
the consequences of its general practice. Mill has sometimes been interpreted as a
“rule” Utilitarian, whereas Bentham and Sidgwick were “act” Utilitarians.

Another objection, often posed against the hedonistic value theory held by Bentham,
holds that the value of life is more than a balance of pleasure over pain. Mill, in
contrast to Bentham, discerned differences in the quality of pleasures that made
some intrinsically preferable to others independently of intensity and duration (the
quantitative dimensions recognized by Bentham). Some philosophers in the
Utilitarian tradition have recognized certain wholly nonhedonistic values without
losing their Utilitarian credentials. A British philosopher, G.E. Moore, a pioneer of
20th-century Analysis, regarded many kinds of consciousness—including love,
knowledge, and the experience of beauty—as intrinsically valuable independently of
pleasure, a position labelled “ideal” Utilitarianism. Even in limiting the recognition of
intrinsic value and disvalue to happiness and unhappiness, some philosophers have
argued that those feelings cannot adequately be further broken down into terms of
pleasure and pain and have thus preferred to defend the theory in terms of
maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness. It is important to note,
however, that even for the hedonistic Utilitarians, pleasure and pain are not thought
of in purely sensual terms; pleasure and pain for them can be components of
experiences of all sorts. Their claim is that, if an experience is neither pleasurable
nor painful, then it is a matter of indifference and has no intrinsic value.

Another objection to Utilitarianism is that the prevention or elimination of suffering

should take precedence over any alternative act that would only increase the
happiness of someone already happy. Some recent Utilitarians have modified their
theory to require this focus or even to limit moral obligation to the prevention or
elimination of suffering—a view labelled “negative” Utilitarianism.

Historical survey

The ingredients of Utilitarianism are found in the history of thought long before
Bentham.

Antecedents of Utilitarianism among the ancients

A hedonistic theory of the value of life is found in the early 5th century BC in the
ethics of Aristippus of Cyrene, founder of the Cyrenaic school, and 100 years later in
that of Epicurus, founder of an ethic of retirement, and their followers in ancient
Greece. The seeds of ethical universalism are found in the doctrines of the rival
ethical school of Stoicism and in Christianity.
Growth of classical English Utilitarianism

In the history of English philosophy, some historians have identified Bishop Richard
Cumberland, a 17th-century moral philosopher, as the first to have a Utilitarian
philosophy. A generation later, however, Francis Hutcheson, a British “moral sense”
theorist, more clearly held a Utilitarian view. He not only analyzed that action as best
that “procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers” but proposed a form
of “moral arithmetic” for calculating the best consequences. The Skeptic David Hume,
Scotland's foremost philosopher and historian, attempted to analyze the origin of the
virtues in terms of their contribution to utility. Bentham himself said that he
discovered the principle of utility in the 18th-century writings of various thinkers: of
Joseph Priestley, a dissenting clergyman famous for his discovery of oxygen; of the
Frenchman Claude-Adrien Helvétius, author of a philosophy of mere sensation; of
Cesare Beccaria, an Italian legal theorist; and of Hume. Helvétius probably drew
from Hume, and Beccaria from Helvétius.

Another strand of Utilitarian thought took the form of a theological ethics. John Gay,
a biblical scholar and philosopher, held the will of God to be the criterion of virtue;
but from God's goodness he inferred that God willed that men promote human
happiness.

Bentham, who apparently believed that an individual in governing his own actions
would always seek to maximize his own pleasure and minimize his own pain, found
in pleasure and pain both the cause of human action and the basis for a normative
criterion of action. The art of governing one's own actions Bentham called “private
ethics.” The happiness of the agent is the determining factor; the happiness of others
governs only to the extent that the agent is motivated by sympathy, benevolence, or
interest in the good will and good opinion of others. For Bentham, the greatest
happiness of the greatest number would play a role primarily in the art of legislation,
in which the legislator would seek to maximize the happiness of the entire
community by creating an identity of interests between each individual and his
fellows. By laying down penalties for mischievous acts, the legislator would make it
unprofitable for a man to harm his neighbour. Bentham's major philosophical work,
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), was designed as an
introduction to a plan of a penal code.

With Bentham, Utilitarianism became the ideological foundation of a reform

movement, later known as “philosophical radicalism,” that would test all institutions
and policies by the principle of utility. Bentham attracted as his disciples a number
of younger (earlier 19th-century) men. They included David Ricardo, who gave
classical form to the science of economics; John Stuart Mill's father, James Mill; and
John Austin, a legal theorist. James Mill argued for representative government and
universal male suffrage on Utilitarian grounds; he and other followers of Bentham
were advocates of parliamentary reform in England in the early 19th century. John
Stuart Mill was a spokesman for women's suffrage, state-supported education for all,
and other proposals that were considered radical in their day. He argued on
Utilitarian grounds for freedom of speech and expression and for the
noninterference of government or society in individual behaviour that did not harm
anyone else. Mill's essay “Utilitarianism,” published in Fraser's Magazine (1861), is
an elegant defense of the general Utilitarian doctrine and perhaps remains the best
introduction to the subject. In it Utilitarianism is viewed as an ethics for ordinary
individual behaviour as well as for legislation.

Late 19th- and 20th-century Utilitarianism

By the time Sidgwick wrote, Utilitarianism had become one of the foremost ethical
theories of the day. His Methods of Ethics (1874), a comparative examination of
egoism, the ethics of common sense, and Utilitarianism, contains the most careful
discussion to be found of the implications of Utilitarianism as a principle of
individual moral action.

The 20th century has seen the development of various modifications and
complications of the Utilitarian theory. G.E. Moore argued for a set of ideals
extending beyond hedonism by proposing that one imaginatively compare universes
in which there are equal quantities of pleasure but different amounts of knowledge
and other such combinations. He felt that he could not be indifferent toward such
differences. The recognition of “act” Utilitarianism and “rule” Utilitarianism as
explicit alternatives was stimulated by the analysis of moral reasoning in “rule”
Utilitarian terms by Stephen Toulmin, a British philosopher of science and moralist,
and by Patrick Nowell-Smith, a moralist of the Oxford linguistic school; by the
interpretation of Mill as a “rule” Utilitarian by another Oxford Analyst, J.O. Urmson;
and by the analysis by John Rawls, a Harvard moral philosopher, of the significance
for Utilitarianism of two different conceptions of moral rules. “Act” Utilitarianism, on
the other hand, has been defended by J.J.C. Smart, a British-Australian philosopher.

Effects of Utilitarianism in other fields

The influence of Utilitarianism has been widespread, permeating the intellectual life
of the last two centuries. Its significance in law, politics, and economics is especially
notable.

The Utilitarian theory of the justification of punishment stands in opposition to the

“retributive” theory, according to which punishment is intended to make the
criminal “pay” for his crime. According to the Utilitarian, the rationale of punishment
is entirely to prevent further crime by either reforming the criminal or protecting
society from him and to deter others from crime through fear of punishment.

In its political philosophy Utilitarianism bases the authority of government and the
sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, thus providing an alternative to
theories of natural law, natural rights, or social contract. What kind of government is
best thus becomes a question of what kind of government has the best consequences
—an assessment that requires factual premises regarding human nature and
behaviour.

Generally, Utilitarians have supported democracy as a way of making the interest of

government coincide with the general interest; they have argued for the greatest
individual liberty compatible with an equal liberty for others on the ground that
each individual is generally the best judge of his own welfare; and they have believed
in the possibility and the desirability of progressive social change through peaceful
political processes.

With different factual assumptions, however, Utilitarian arguments can lead to

different conclusions. If the inquirer assumes that a strong government is required
to check man's basically selfish interests and that any change may threaten the
stability of the political order, he may be led by Utilitarian arguments to an
authoritarian or conservative position. On the other hand, William Godwin, an early
19th-century political philosopher, assumed the basic goodness of human nature
and argued that the greatest happiness would follow from a radical alteration of
society in the direction of anarchistic Communism.

Classical economics received some of its most important statements from Utilitarian
writers, especially Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Ironically, its theory of economic
value was framed primarily in terms of the cost of labour in production rather than
in terms of the use value, or utility, of commodities. Later developments more clearly
reflected the Utilitarian philosophy. William Jevons, one of the founders of the
marginal utility school of analysis, derived many of his ideas from Bentham; and
“welfare economics,” while substituting comparative preferences for comparative
utilities, reflected the basic spirit of the Utilitarian philosophy. In economic policy,
the early Utilitarians had tended to oppose governmental interference in trade and
industry on the assumption that the economy would regulate itself for the greatest
welfare if left alone; later Utilitarians, however, lost confidence in the social
efficiency of private enterprise and were willing to see governmental power and
administration used to correct its abuses.

As a movement for the reform of social institutions, 19th-century Utilitarianism was

remarkably successful in the long run. Most of their recommendations have since
been implemented unless abandoned by the reformers themselves; and, equally
important, Utilitarian arguments are now commonly employed to advocate
institutional or policy changes.

Summary and evaluation

As an abstract ethical doctrine, Utilitarianism has established itself as one of the

small number of live options that must be taken into account and either refuted or
accepted by any philosopher taking a position in normative ethics. In contemporary
discussion it has been divorced from adventitious involvements with the analysis of
ethical language and with the psychological theory with which it was presented by
Bentham. Utilitarianism now appears in various modified and complicated
formulations. Bentham's ideal of a hedonic calculus is usually considered a practical
if not a theoretical impossibility. Present-day philosophers have noticed further
problems in the Utilitarian procedures. One of them, for example, is with the process
of identifying the consequences of an act—a process that raises conceptual as well as
practical problems as to what are to be counted as consequences, even without
precisely quantifying the value of those consequences. The question may arise
whether the outcome of an election is a consequence of each and every vote cast for
the winning candidate if he receives more than the number necessary for election;
and in estimating the value of the consequences, one may ask whether the entire
value or only a part of the value of the outcome of the election is to be assigned to
each vote. There is also difficulty in the procedure of comparing alternative acts. If
one act requires a longer period of time for its performance than another, one may
ask whether they can be considered alternatives. Even what is to count as an act is
not a matter of philosophical consensus.

These problems, however, are common to almost all normative ethical theories since
most of them recognize the consequences—including the hedonic—of an act as being
relevant ethical considerations. The central insight of Utilitarianism, that one ought
to promote happiness and prevent unhappiness whenever possible, seems
undeniable. The critical question, however, is whether the whole of normative ethics
can be analyzed in terms of this simple formula.

Utilitarianism

INTRODUCTION

Utilitarianism began as a movement in ethics of the late eighteenth-century

primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham. The basic
principle of Utilitarianism involves a calculus of happiness, in which actions are
deemed to be good if they tend to produce happiness in the form of pleasure and evil
if they tend to promote pain. As such, the philosophy is said to derive from the
classical concept of hedonism, which values the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of
pain. The sophisticated system proposed by Bentham and later expanded by John
Stuart Mill and others regards not only the end product of happiness, or utility, in
actions, but also considers the motives of actions and the extent to which happiness
can be created not only for the individual, but also for the members of society as a
whole.

Both Bentham and Mill forwarded a belief in the intrinsic nature of value; thus good
or the lack thereof could be regarded as inherent in an act or thing—a concept that
allowed for the mathematical calculation of utility. Beginning from this view, the
Utilitarians created systems of moral behavior as standards for how an individual
ought to act in society. Bentham's principle of utility is frequently regarded as the
“greatest happiness principle,” the simple idea behind which is that individuals
should endeavor to maximize happiness for the greatest number of people. While
Bentham modified this concept over time, critics acknowledge that its essence
remains intact throughout his work. Bentham developed this principle throughout a
number of writings, including his most significant work of moral philosophy, An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). Ostensibly a plan for a
penal code, An Introduction contains Bentham's view that individuals in society
should act for the benefit of the community as a whole, and analyzes the means by
which legislation should enumerate the penalties for those who refuse to contribute
to the overall benefit of society. In this work, Bentham also sought to specifically
record the sources of pleasure and pain, as well as to create a scale upon which the
relative effects of individual acts in producing happiness or misery could be
examined.

Notable among the Utilitarians to follow Bentham, the philosopher and economist
John Stuart Mill made considerable contributions to Utilitarian philosophy,
beginning with his succinct apologia for the doctrine in Utilitarianism (1861). The
essay displays Mill's emphasis on rational calculation as the means by which human
beings strive toward personal happiness. Mill's remaining philosophical writings
elucidate his Utilitarianism, especially in regard to a number of related practical
issues, including women's suffrage, and legislative and educational reform.
Following his death, Mill's system was later expanded by his disciple Henry Sidgwick,
who in his Methods of Ethics (1874) discussed the means by which individuals may
endeavor to achieve moral action through reasoned behavior.

Numerous other individuals contributed to the Utilitarian movement in the

nineteenth century, including the British philosophers John Austin and James Mill (J.
S. Mill's father). In theory and in practice, Utilitarianism has continued to be
influential, with the work of Bentham and Mill proving to be of the greatest
importance and interest. Commentators on the writings of both men have continued
the process of analyzing and codifying their work in order to more clearly define the
doctrine. Among the principal interpretations have been a bifurcation of the
philosophy into so-called “rule” and “act” Utilitarianism, the former emphasizing the
importance of unbending codes of moral behavior that may not be violated, and the
latter allowing for a freer interpretation that permits the breaking of certain
Utilitarian rules under individual circumstances. Further criticism of Bentham's and
Mill's Utilitarianism has focused on the important concept of justice as it applies to
the principles of liberty and utility advocated by both. Additionally, critics have
suggested the significant limitations of an ethical system that attempts to reduce
human behavior and action to simple rational calculations of pleasure versus pain,
but at the same time they acknowledge its considerable impact on nineteenth- and
twentieth-century normative ethics.
The History of Utilitarianism
First published Fri Mar 27, 2009

Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative

ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century,
proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory.

Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally
held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most
good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that
the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in
terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has
to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought
to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's
own good.

The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good
with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we
ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the
greatest number’.

Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's

happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially
considered. My good counts for no more than anyone else's good. Further, the reason
I have to promote the overall good is the same reason anyone else has to so promote
the good. It is not peculiar to me.

All of these features of this approach to moral evaluation and/or moral decision-
making have proven to be somewhat controversial and subsequent controversies
have led to changes in the Classical version of the theory.

Consequentialist moral theories are teleological: they aim at some goal state and
evaluate the morality of actions in terms of progress toward that state. The best
known version of consequentialism is utilitarianism. This theory defines morality in
terms of the maximization of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a
decision or action. Although forms of utilitarianism have been put forward and
debated since ancient times, the modern theory is most often associated with the
British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873) who developed the theory from a
plain hedonistic version put forward by his mentor Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832).
As most clearly stated by Mill, the basic principle of utilitarianism is:

Actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for
the greatest number.
Of course, we are still unclear about what constitutes "the greatest good." For
Bentham, it was simply "the tendency to augment or diminish happiness or
pleasure," with no distinctions to be made between pleasures or persons--all
measures are strictly quantitative. For Mill, however, not all pleasures were equally
worthy. He defined "the good" in terms of well-being (Aristotle's eudaimonia), and
distinguished not just quantitatively but also qualitatively between various forms of
pleasure. In either case, the principle defines the moral right in terms of an objective,
material good. The point is to make the theory "scientific," and the utility principle is
an attempt to bridge the gap between empirical facts and a normative conclusion--a
simple cost/benefit analysis is proposed.

Both men insisted that "the greatest number" included all who were affected by the
action in question with "each to count as one, and no one as more than one." Any
theory that seeks to extend benefits not only to the self but also to others is a form of
altruism . (Another goal-directed theory is egoism, which promotes the greatest good
for the self alone.)

Utilitarianism is a simple theory and its results are easy to apply. It also allows for
degrees of right and wrong, and for every situation the choice between actions is
clear-cut: always choose that which has the greatest utility.

There are several objections, however--

1. It is not always clear what the outcome of an action will be, nor is it always
possible to determine who will be affected by it. Judging an action by the
outcome is therefore hard to do beforehand.

2. It is very difficult to quantify pleasures for cost/benefit analysis (but since

this only has to be done on a comparative scale, this may not be as serious an
objection as it at first seems).

3. The calculation required to determine the right is both complicated and

time consuming. Many occasions will not permit the time and many
individuals may not even be capable of the calculations.

4. Since the greatest good for the greatest number is described in aggregate
terms, that good may be achieved under conditions that are harmful to some,
so long as that harm is balanced by a greater good.

5. The theory fails to acknowledge any individual rights that could not be
violated for the sake of the greatest good. Indeed, even the murder of an
innocent person would seem to be condoned if it served the greater number.

In response to objections such as these, some proponents of utilitarianism have

proposed a modification of the theory. Let us call the original form:
 Act Utilitarianism-- each individual action is to be evaluated directly in terms
of the utility principle.
The proposed improvement is:
Rule Utilitarianism-- behavior is evaluated by rules that, if universally
followed would lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.
Thus, rule utilitarianism could address the fourth and fifth objections mentioned
above by using the utility principle to justify rules establishing human rights and the
universal prohibition of certain harms. But it may not be so simple. If the
justification of the rule is found in the utility principle, what about the case where
violating the rule leads to the achievement of the greatest good for the greatest
number? If the theory is to be truly utilitarian, it must maintain the utility principle
as its ultimate standard, and no intermediate rules or rights could stand against it.

A system of rules would help with the other objections, however, even if they only
serve as convenient advice. They would codify the wisdom of past experience, and
preclude the need for constant calculation. Indeed, some writers propose that the
theory of utilitarianism, although it correctly describes the ultimate sanction of
moral principles, is best preserved for the minority that are capable of applying it.
The greatest good is best served by the masses when they follow rules out of duty
and leave the difficult and subtle calculations to those in authority. This attitude,
along with the attempted qualitative distinctions among pleasures, and
utilitarianism's tendency to condone inequitable distributions or even the abuse of
minorities has led to frequent charges of elitism. It should be noted that this was far
from Mill's purpose. John Stuart Mill was a leader in the fight against the African
slave trade, and a pioneer for women's rights and individual liberties. It is a curious
fact that his own theory of ethics fails to serve those ideals any better than it does.