Chapter 10.

UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is one of the most prominent moral law theories developed within the last few
hundred years. It was invented by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1932), a peculiar man who was
influential and active within the British Parliament of his time. Aside from a highly unusual
biography, he founded London College and was the teacher of John Stewart Mill. Bentham is
most famous for his theory of Utilitarianism. The constituent components of the theory are not
particularly original. However, Bentham put the theory together in a unique way, devising an
original moral law theory that has enjoyed various levels of popularity over the years.

A moral law theorist believes that the universe contains a moral law (or laws) just as physicist
believes that the universe contains natural laws. The moral law theorist holds that such laws are
part and partial of the very fabric of reality. Just as a physicist’s job is to illuminate laws of
nature, so too the moral law theorist’s job is to illuminate the law (or laws) pertaining to the
fabric of moral reality. A moral law theorist emphasizes the rightness or wrongness of actions, as
opposed to a virtue ethicist that denies the existence of moral laws and focuses, instead, upon
human character development.

A moral law theorist proposes a “moral law” that anyone can follow so as to perform right
actions and forgo wrong actions. On this model, being “good” is a matter of performing “right
actions” that correspond with, or are in conformity to, the moral law. The moral law is, typically,
understood as utterly absolute and binding upon all agents. Moral law theorists are “Moral
Realists” and “Moral Absolutists.” A Moral Realist holds that the universe contains a real and
definite moral structure and that the job of an ethical philosopher is to uncover (or illuminate)
the moral structure of reality. A Moral Absolutistholds that the universe contains a very real
and absolute moral structure that is permanent, unchanging, and is a definitive aspect of the
universe as such; it is obliging to all agents, regardless of “location” within the universe and
regardless of the “customs” being practiced in any given local. While many cultures or societies
on earth (or elsewhere) might not act in conformity with the moral law, it nevertheless exists and
permeates the universe. Some cultures make laws and societies that conform to the moral law
while other cultures and societies do not. The same is true of any sentient beings or societies
existing in any other part of the universe, even if we human beings are unaware of them. In other
words, the moral law is binding and obliging to every sentient being in the universe. As an
absolute law, the moral law never changes. It is as “permanent” a fixture within reality as, say,
“gravity.” The laws of physics do not change, neither does the moral law. Both
are real andabsolute.

Consequentialism
Utilitarianism is a moral law theory that is a sub-branch of “Consequentialism.” The
consequentialist holds that the value of any action or policy is to be determined solely in terms of
its consequences. The moral worth of an action is assessed entirely in terms of itsconsequences.
Intentions and motives are not considered in any way (--including approbation and blame--).
Consider an example: Suppose that two individuals perform the same action—saving an
innocent child from drowning. Smith is walking on the beach and sees a child drowning. He
tosses off his shirt and saves the youngster. The next day Jones is walking on the same beach and
he too sees an innocent child drowning. Similarly, he too tosses off his shirt and saves the
innocent child. On the surface, both “rescuers” performed the same action, namely, each saved
an innocent child from drowning.

From the point of view of consequentialism, both agents should receive the same amount of
praise since both agents performed the same action with the same consequence—each saved an
innocent child. Let us suppose, however, that Smith rescued the innocent child in order to earn a
reward from the child’s rich parents; further, he desired to get his name in the local newspaper.
Smith explains that those are his only two reasons for saving the child, and if it were not for
those two reasons, he would not have rescued the innocent child. He does not care about
humanity in general or innocent children in particular. Further, he
doesnot perform altruistic acts. Let us consider Jones’ motives. When asked why he saved the
child, Jones explains that he loves humanity and altruistically seeks to benefit humanity and save
lives whenever possible. It seems clear that Jones has better motives than Smith and, therefore,
deserves more credit than smith. However, the consequentialist does not care anything at all
about Smith’s motives. They both deserve the same moral credit as both performed the same
action with the same consequences.

Hedonism and Classic Utilitarianism

There are two classic forms of Utilitarianism: “Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism” and “Hedonistic
Rule Utilitarianism.” In this chapter we shall explore both forms of classic Utilitarianism. Other
forms of Utilitarianism have developed over the years in order to deal with the problems
associated with the classic models. Derivative alterations of the theory are motivated entirely by
the problems that arise from the classic forms of Utilitarianism. If one obtains an understanding
of the classic articulations and their attendant problems, one can then investigate derivative
modifications that purport to “fix” the theory. Our aim in this chapter is solely to understand the
classic versions of the theory and their associated problems. All forms of Utilitarianism are forms
of Consequentialism. All of the classic forms of Utilitarianism are “Hedonistic.” This means that
“pleasure” is seen as the highest good and the only good with intrinsic value.

Something that is “intrinsically” good is good in and of itself, for its own sake, regardless of any
benefit or consequence that might result for it. Intrinsic goods have value in virtue of themselves
and nothing else. Any “use” value is irrelevant to their status as “goods.” Their value
is not derived from “use” or any other consequence. While philosophers argue adamantly about
what, exactly, constitutes an intrinsic good—a handful of potential examples may serve as an
illustration: Family, love, justice, knowledge, joy, happiness, and health. The opposite of an
intrinsic good is an instrumental good. Instrumental goods are valued strictly for
their consequences—most typically for what we can get out of them (or use them for). They
are not valued for their own sake, but for the sake of something else, such as “use” value. The list
of instrumental goods is typically quite long. Representative examples might include: Money,
Tables, Chairs, Tools, Phones, Computers, Cars, etc. Let us consider “money,” as it is always
deemed an instrumental good. Money is valued for what one can get out of it or how it can be
used to acquire power or possessions. Typically money can be used to buy “stuff.” It is a tool for
obtaining “things.” If “money” could not be “used” to obtain anything, then its use-value would
be mostly eliminated. The “money” would be reduced to scraps of paper. Scraps of
paper might be useful in some way, such as for doodling, making notes, book-markers, etc. But a
scrap of paper is, itself, just an instrumental good. Again, philosophers disagree substantially on
what constitutes the correct list of “Intrinsic Goods” and “Instrumental Goods.”

However, a classic “Hedonistic” Utilitarian is very specific and explicit about what constitutes an
“Intrinsic Good”—namely, “Pleasure” / “Happiness.” According to a classic Utilitarian,
pleasure is the  only thing in the universe with intrinsic value. All other “goods” are for the sake
of Pleasure / Happiness. (The classic Utilitarian treats “Pleasure” and “Happiness” as
synonyms.) “Pleasure” / “Happiness” is a very shallow and vacuous notion that seems to refer to
anything that gives one a positive sensation or feeling. On this view, “love” is
an instrumental good. It is valued for the “pleasure” that can be derived from loving
relationships. Likewise, “health” is also an instrumental good. It is valued for the sake of
pleasure. Every “good,” aside from Pleasure, is instrumentally valued for purposes of utility.
Pleasure is valued for its own sake and, hence, it is the onlyintrinsic good. For this reason, the
Utilitarian will always seek consequences that maximize pleasure.

The Experience Machine

Borrowing an example from Robert Nozick, one can perform a thought-experiment in order to
determine how much one actually believes that “Pleasure” is the only intrinsic good. Consider
the following through-experiment: Let us suppose that you are presented with two options:
(1) Option one allows you to live-out the rest of your life as a normal, ordinary human being.
Consider the trials and tributes of an average human life. Life is not always pleasant. In fact, an
average human life is very often filled with pain and suffering. Many people experience sadness,
unpleasant and other painful experiences. Often times one’s hopes, dreams, and aspirations are
not realized. The gossamer dreams of one’s youth fade to black as adulthood sets in. Most people
have to work for a living. Work can often be draining, leaving one unfulfilled. Work, for many
people, is merely a means for making money and surviving. Furthermore, most people will
experience health problems, including very serious illness—such as cancer, ACL, autoimmune
diseases, etc. Anything can happen at any time. Financial concerns are another source of
suffering for many people. One may encounter a financial disaster of one kind or another. One
may experience the death of one’s own children, in addition to the loss of parents, siblings,
friends, and relatives. If one thinks about it, many human lives are rife with pain and suffering.
However, there is a way to avoid this dismal picture.

Herein is lays option (2): Instead of living-out your life in an “ordinary” way, you can “plug-in”
to a supercomputer called “An Experience Machine.” This machine is capable of generating
endless amounts of pleasure and positive experiences for those who “plug-in.” The Experience
Machine is not like any computer currently in existence. It is capable of generating an endless
amount of experiences that are qualitatively identical to, or even super than, ordinary
experiences. When a subject “plugs-in” to the machine it is a life-commitment. In other words,
the subject will live out the rest of her life “plugged-in” to the machine. It is non-reversible. The
memory of being “plugged-in” will be erased so that the subject will not know that her world is
artificial. However, the experience machine can generate a life-time of perfect experiences.
When plugged in, an agent can become anything, can do anything. When plugged into the
Experience Machine a subject can become a super-rich tycoon, a world-traveler, a president, a
dictator, a superhero, a space captain, anything. Sky is the limit. One can generate any life-style
one desires. One can be surrounded by gorgeous, beautiful lovers that beacon to one’s every
desire and whim. There is no limit. One does not have to age in the Experience Machine. One
can enjoy youthfulnessand perfect health for as long as one lives. While life in the Experience
Machine is perfect and filled with any and every pleasure that one can imagine, one’s body (in
the “real world”) is at rest, dormant and “plugged-in” to the machine. One’s body will die a
natural death, but the person plugged-in to the machine will not “feel” or experience any type of
deterioration or sickness.

The philosophical question at hand is: Would you plug-in to the machine? If one would definitely
plug-in without hesitation, then one values pleasure greatly, perhaps as the highest good. If
one would definitely not plug-in, then one must value “pleasure” as onlyone good among many
goods. Pleasure, on this view, would not be held as the “highest” good. Those who think that
plugging-in would generate “the best life” value “pleasure” more than, for example, “reality” or
“genuine human interaction” or “genuine love and friendships.” To be clear, however, every
experience that one would have (or could have) in the Experience Machine would be at least as
“real,” if not better, qualitatively speaking, than a similar experience in ‘reality.’ Since a
Utilitarian conceptualizes “Pleasure” as the only intrinsic good, it would be natural for a
Utilitarian to think that plugging into the Experience Machine would, in many cases, be the best
life-experience.

The Principle of Utility

Utilitarians believe that the universe contains one immutable moral law—The Principle of
Utility. It states that in choosing an action or policy one should choose the act or policy that, all
things considered, would have the best consequences—which means, the action or policy that
would generate the most pleasure. Put otherwise: An action is morally right if and only if it
maximizes utility—i.e., if and only if the balance of benefit to harm calculated by taking
everyone affected by the act into consideration is greater than the balance of benefit to harm
resulting from any alternative act.

Applying The Principle of Utility

While The Principle of Utility might seem complex, it is actually quite simple. It merely states
that when one acts or sets a policy one should consider (a) everyone affected by the policy or
action, as well as (b) any other actions or policies that are available as potential/alternative
actions or policies. After considering factors (a) and (b), one should choose the action or policy
that maximizes happiness / pleasure. Many classic Utilitarians, such as Jeremy Bentham,
believed that a procedure can be performed in order to determine the course of action that would
maximize utility on any occasion. By Bentham’s lights, all that one needs to do is “calculate” the
morally correct action by simply making a cost-benefit chart. Such a chart is to be constructed by
simply listing all of the relevant alternative acts as well as all of the individuals who would be
affected by the various acts, including oneself. After constructing a chart, one simply “adds-up”
the totals, seeing which act maximizes utility, i.e., which action results in the greatest total
balance of benefit/Pleasure to harm/Pain. Consider the following chart.

Person Person
Person 1 Person 4 Total
2 3

Action
3 2 -4 4 5
1

Action
6 -4 0 7 ✓9
2

Action
-12 -1 -6 15 -4
3

Action
-3 -1 -2 7 1
4

Action
1 1 1 1 4
5
In this hypothetical representation, there are four persons, where person 1 is the person
constructing the chart. There are five possible actions. One simply fills-in the chart with
“hedons,” that is, units of pain or pleasure that each person would experience given the various
actions under consideration. Positive numbers represent units of pleasure. Negative numbers
represent units of pain. Let us consider “Action 1.” It says that if Action 1 occurs, then Person 1
will experience 3 units of happiness; person two will experience 2 units of happiness; person
three will experience 4 units of pain, and person four will experience 4 units of happiness. One
then simply adds it all up: 3+2+-4+4= 5. The total value for “Action 1” is 5. However, 5
is not the highest value. The highest value is 9, which means that Action 2 satisfies The
Principle of Utility.

Notice that some people can suffer under The Principle of Utility. Others might not be affected
at all (--this is represented by a “0”--). Furthermore, The Principle of Utility isnot a principle of
“fairness,” as Action 5 distributes one unit of happiness to everyone, but it does not generate the
most happiness overall. The morally right course of action is Action two. Action two is what
morality demands, as it generates the most happiness, all things considered. Also notice that The
Principle of Utility is not a “selfish” doctrine. It takes into account everyone’s pains and
pleasures, not merely one’s own. A selfish doctrine, such as Ethical Egoism, would ignore all
others and simply recommend the action that maximizes one’s own happiness. For example,
an Ethical Egoist would recommend action one, since it yields the highest value for the person
constructing the chart. However, action two, is the action that maximizes happiness overall.
Thus, action two is the morally right action according to Utilitarianism.

Quantifying Pains and Pleasures

One might, quite legitimately, wonder how the numbers are generated and determined. This is a
significant issue. The chart is to be filled-out with numerical values that represent the “units” of
pleasure or pain that an individual will experience when attempting to “calculate” the right thing
to do. The person filling out the chart inputs numbers for herself as well as for all others affected
by the various actions. Consider action 3 in the above chart. Person 4 allegedly experiences 15
units of happiness. How is this determined? Can we be sure that person 4 does not experience 13
or 14 units of happiness? What about 16 or 17? The numbers seem quite arbitrary unless there is
some scientific method for determining such values. Inputting numerical values seems capricious
at best.

Jeremy Bentham insisted that chart-drawing was possible. He proposed that we devise a scale
and stick to it—such as +20 (on the high end) to -20 (on the low end). We then move up and
down the scale according to various criteria: Intensity: How intense is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last? Success: How likely is it that the action will succeed
or that the pleasure will come off? Fruitfulness: How likely is it that the pleasure will lead to
other pleasures? Long-Term / Short-Term: What are the long-term pleasures? What are the
short-term pleasures? Such factors, it seems, are supposed to give us a “guide” in order to render
“scientific” and accurate numerical values. In this way, Bentham says, numerical values
representing “pains” and “pleasures” are not arbitrary.

Despite Bentham’s suggestions, it seems quite difficult to believe that assigning numerical
values is anything but subjective arbitrary assessments. Even if we seriously consider his
suggestions for determining numerical values, there is no reason to think that an exactnumerical
value can be given. Note that one assigns numerical values for both one’s self and for others. The
issue of “arbitrariness” seems true for both self and other. In respect to one’s self, how accurate
can one quantify one’s own pains and pleasures? Accuracy for self is doubtful. However,
accuracy in respect to quantifying the pains and pleasures of others is especially dubious.
Suppose that one is “determining” the pains and pleasures of close associates. Even for such
close intimates it seems impossible to exactly quantify pains and pleasures. In respect to persons
who one is unfamiliar with, the task of assigning accurate numerical values seems extraordinarily
hopeless. This can be tested, empirically, in the case of others. For example: Pick five close
associates, such as friends, family, or co-workers. Devise a series of scenarios and have everyone
“fill-out” a chart. The chances of any sort of “agreement” is hopeless. Thus, it seems
extraordinarily difficult to determine with any accuracy whatsoever the “hedonic” value of any
given “action”—assuming that numerical quantification is even possible (--which seems
dubious--).

Some Utilitarians argue that exact quantification is neither necessary nor even desirable. This
camp argues for a “Rule of Thumb” application. According to these theorists, one simply runs
through the scenarios in one’s mind without assigning numerical values. One simply “thinks” of
the various people and the various actions available and then “guestimates” which action will,
all things considered, generate the most happiness over unhappiness. According to this model, a
scenario might go as follows: Suppose Jack promises his parents that he will help them move on
Friday. In the meantime, Jill asks Jack out for a date on Friday. Jack strongly prefers a date with
Jill over helping his parents pack and move. However, he considers, without numerical
quantification, all of the pains and pleasures that would follow. On the one hand, he could keep
his promise and help his parents move. This will generate a lot of happiness for his parents,
siblings, and family members. On the other hand, Jack could blow off his promise and take Jill
out for a hot date! However, the happiness felt by Jack and Jill would not outweigh the sadness
and suffering felt by Jack’s parents and family. Thus, Jack decides to keep his promise, help his
parents move, and ask Jill for a postponement of their date. Thus, without any mathematical
calculations or numerical quantifications, Jack arrives at a decision that would maximize utility.
The pain that would ensue were he to break his promise would upset The Principle of Utility.

While it might seem that this method is preferable to chart-drawing, its alleged superiority is
unclear. While it eliminates the need to numerically quantify, it still requires an assessment about
what will maximize utility. It is supremely unclear how a given subject is to “decide” which
action will maximize utility. It seems as if one just “intuits” the morally right action. This makes
things very mysterious. “Intuitionist” theories are plagued by innumerable problems, which we
will not explore here. Suffice to say that “Intuitionism” is a dead theory. The case of Jack and Jill
is very simple. It is hardly realistic of any complex moral situation that most people would face
in everyday life. The term “guesstimate” means “to guess.” Is morality, then, reduced to mere
guesses (--or intuition plus guessing?--)? Is “guessing” about the right action really a rigorous or
serious approach to ethics? What if the situation is dire and quite serious? Should we be content
with guessing? The matter remains supremely unclear. However, let us set aside the very serious
issue of “calculating” utility in order to explore a few types of Utilitarian reasoning as well as the
extraordinarily serious problems that plague all classic forms of Utilitarianism.

Applications: Euthanasia and Animal Activism

Some Utilitarians argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in many cases via The Principle
of Utility. Such an argument might go as follows: Suppose that a terminally ill person is dying a
painful cancerous death. The victim asks her doctor for a quick mercykilling. Traditional
religious ideas and moral thinking strongly opposes Euthanasia. Critics typically claim that life
is a gift from God. Only God may decide when life will end. Euthanasia is murder and is
contrary to religious authority and/or traditional morality. However, the Utilitarian might argue
as follows: Killing the patient—and hence ending her misery—might not only be morally
permitted, but also morally required.

1. The morally right thing to do, on any occasion, is whatever would bring about the
greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness.
2. On at least some occasions, the greatest balance of benefit over unhappiness may be
brought about by performing a mercy killing.
3. Thus, on at last some occasions, performing a mercy killing is the morally right
course of action.

This argument would only be convincing to someone who is already a Utilitarian. Premise (1)
states that The Principle of Utility is true. If one does not believe in The Principle of Utility,
then the argument falls flat from the get-go. Premise two is the “calculation” of utility. And the
conclusion, (3), simply says that Utility permits euthanasia on at least some occasions.

By far, the figure most associated with championing Utilitarianism in the latter twentieth and
early twenty-first centuries is Peter Singer. He is synonymous with “Animal Rights” and
“Animal Activism.” In numerous books and articles he tells us that moral consideration should
not be based upon intelligence, rational capacities, the use of language, etc. These factors are all
totally irrelevant to establishing a policy of equal treatment in respect to moral consideration.
The amount of moral consideration giving to a being should be based upon the being’s capacity
to experience pain and pleasure. This is the only criterion relevant for determining moral
consideration. More specifically, the two key components for moral consideration are (1) Self-
awareness and (2) an Ability to express a preference for pleasure over pain. Virtually all animals,
Singer argues, have both (1) and (2).

When humans disregard animals from moral consideration we are being “Speciesists.” The term
invokes racism and sexism. Singer claims that while most of us nowadays recognize that racism
and sexism are morally wrong, few of us recognize that Speciesism is morally wrong for the
very same reasons. Speciesism, as he defines it, involves treating the interests of the human
species as superior to the interests of other non-human species. Based upon the Utilitarian
criterion for moral consideration, animals’ interests are deserving of equal moral consideration.
Animals can experience pain and pleasure. Animals are “self-aware” and “show preferences.” He
tells us: “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering
into consideration.” Hence, on Singer’s view, the Utilitarian calculation (--however it is made--),
must include all “sentient” beings, which he understands as those beings that exhibit (1) and (2).
It is clear that Singer intends all mammals to be included with his criteria for moral
consideration. However, it is unclear if fish, bugs, and so on are also to be considered.

In any case, it is crucial to Singer that we stop our practices of eating meat and experimenting on
animals. He tells us: “Our practice of rearing and killing other animals in order to eat them is a
clear instance of the sacrifice of the most important interests of other beings in order to satisfy
trivial interests of our own.” Singer’s argument goes like this:

1. A plant-based diet is healthier than an animal-based diet. Therefore, we have no

need to eat other animals.
2. Animals suffer immensely as a result of our production and consumption practices.
3. Animal suffering upsets the principle of utility.
4. Therefore, our consumption and production of animal meat is gravely morally wrong.

Singer’s argument is, again, only convincing if one already believes in The Principle of Utility.
Premise (1) is true as a matter of medical science. And in contemporary America we might not
“need” to eat other animals as a source of protein. Premises (2) is also true, regardless of whether
or not one cares that it is true. Premise (3), however, *might* be true only if one is definitively a
die-hard Utilitarian. If one is not a Utilitarian, then (3) is irrelevant and the whole argument falls
apart. Premise (3) presuppose the truth ofThe Principle of Utility, but it does not give anyone a
reason to believe that The Principle of Utilityis true (or that one should care about it). Hence,
the conclusion, (4) only follows if one is a Utilitarian who believes in the truth of premise (3).
Someone might agree with (1) and (2), and then reject The Principle of Utility—rendering (1)
and (2) devoid of moral content without further (non-Utilitarian) elaboration. Moreover, a die-
hard Utilitarian might simply reject premise (3) as false, insisting that animal suffering does not
upset The The Principle of Utility. In any case, the argument is uncompelling.
Higher-Order Pleasures: Are all Pleasures Worth the Same Value

Jeremy Bentham and his brilliant student John Stuart Mill strongly disagreed about whether or
not all “pleasures” should be deemed the same, or if some pleasures are more valuable than
others. As Utilitarians, they both agreed that The Principle of Utility is the one and only moral
truth. Bentham held the view that one pleasure is just as good as another. A sort of “Whatever-
floats-your-boat...” type of view. Playing video games is just as “valuable” as reading Plato or
Dante. Attending a fine opera could be just as pleasurable as dropping LSD. Some people will
prefer the latter, others will prefer the former. There is no point in “ranking” or “ordering”
pleasures. A pleasure-is-a-pleasure end of story. And to capture his view, Bentham coined a
slogan: “Pushpin is as good as poetry.” Presumably “pushpin” was a seventeenth century
children’s game. So the slogan means that a child’s game is just as good as reading poetry.

Mill, on the other hand, had a different scheme. He held that if an agent is properly educated and
has the requisite experience of a wide range of pleasures, one would agree that not all pleasures
have the same value. Some pleasures are, indeed, more desirable / valuble than others. Mill
argued for a scheme of “higher-order” pleasures. Mill famously ranked pleasures according to
“the mental” or “the bodily” pleasures they roused. The highest order pleasures are intellectual;
those that involve the mind and the body together are in the middle and are “aesthetic;” and the
lower order pleasures only concern “animal” / bodily gratification.

Mill’s Notion goes something like this:

Higher Order Intellectual pleasures (Mental) Books, Poetry, Opera,

Pleasures (Intellect) Philosophy, High-Art Mental stimulation…….etc…………

Middling (Intellect and Aesthetics (Mind and Body): A Waterfall, A Rose, Certain

Senses) Arts / Crafts, Garden

Lower Order
Sensual (Bodily / Animal): Food, Sex, Sleep, Wine….etc.…….
Pleasures (Animalistic)

Mill’s idea is best understood as a normative claim about the best possible life. He would argue
that while sitting-around fulfilling animal functions might seem enjoyable, it would not produce
the best possible human life. A better life would involve education, being fluent in other
languages and cultures. The educated person will prefer a life filled with artistic achievements,
science, music, and other higher-order pleasures. Mill’s claim is not that there is anything wrong
with aesthetic or sensual pleasures. All pleasures are good. However, on his view, higher-order
pleasures are worth more than lower-order pleasures when viewed from a holistic context. A life
filled with higher-order pleasures will be morefulfilling than a life without such pleasures.
Objections To Utilitarianism: Human Rights And Social Injustices

The Emergency Room

Consider the following type of case: Suppose that an otherwise healthy eighteen-year-old shows
up at the Emergency room with an acute case of appendicitis. Suppose that a fully competent
surgeon examines the patient, concluding that a successful appendectomy will cure the ailment.
Further, there is little risk of complications. The surgeon could easily cure the youth. However,
the surgeon has many patients in need of organ-transplants. The surgeon is a die-hard, card-
carrying Utilitarian. As a serious and reflective Utilitarian, she reflects and contemplates the
situation. She wants to do what is morally correct. As she contemplates, she considers the four
other patients in her care, each of whom is in need of a critical organ. One patient needs a heart,
another needs a liver, another needs a kidney, and another needs a lung. If she can get the “parts”
she can cure each agent, restoring each to optimal health. She is certain of success. Her problem
is that she needs “spare parts.” If she waits for each sick individual to “obtain” an organ via a
donor list, then none of the patients will survive. However, the youth has perfectly healthy
organs. Moreover, the youth has no relatives and is unemployed. This person, the surgeon thinks,
would not be missed. Being a good Utilitarian, and taking the situation seriously, the doctor
draws up a chart, just to make sure she does the morally correct action. No estimating with a
matter this serious.

Person 1 18- Person Person 3 (Needs Person

Total
year-old 2 (Needs Heart) Kidney) 4 (Needs Lung)

Action 1: Use Person 1 ✓

-20 +20 +20 +20
for Spare Parts +40

Action 2: Cure Person

+20 -20 -20 -20 -40
1

It seems clear that, all things considered, the morally right thing to do is to use the youth for
spare-parts. If the sugeon goes with action 2 and cures Person 1 (--the eighteen-year-old with
appendicitis--), then 3 people will die. Assuming a scale of 20 to -20, the result would be -40.
But if the surgeon goes with Action 1, and uses Person 1 for spare parts, then 1 person will die
and 3 lives will be saved. More happiness will arise, all things considered, if 3 people live and
only 1 dies. Thus, the morally correct action is action 1—via The Principle of Utility.
Utility demands that Action 1 be performed. Not performing Action 1 is a violation of the moral
law. But that seems bizarre. If the moral law demands that surgeons kill innocent people for
spare-parts, then something seems seriously wrong with the moral theory. This case is not unique
in any way. It demonstrates a deep pattern with Utilitarianism, namely The Principle of
Utility can be used to “violate” a person’s rights.
Ace In The Hole (AKA "The Big Carnival")

In Billy Wilder’s 1951 Masterpiece Ace In The Hole (AKA, The Big Carnival), he unfolds a
marvelous morality tale rife with Utilitarian themes. In the film, Leo Minosa becomes trapped in
an old Indian cave-dwelling as the walls and floor give way, trapping him deep inside. Sleazy
newspaper man Chuck Tatum—fired from virtually every major newspaper around the country
—is seeking a comeback. He is stuck at a tiny little paper in Albuquerque; however, he
is determined to make it back into the “Big-Time.” He just needs a “big break” that will “put him
on top” again. In his interview with the morally upright Jacob Boot, Chuck says: “I can handle
big news and little news. And if there's no news, I'll go out and bite a dog.” Mr. Boot, however,
wants a straight and truthful report of “the facts.” The “truth” and the “facts” are negotiable for
Tatum who says: “Bad news sells best. Cause good news is no news.”

When Chuck accidently stumbles upon Leo Minosa’s crisis, he decides that he will use the
situation to his advantage. When his junior colleague, Herbie, asks him why a story about one
man matters, Chuck says: “One man's better than 84. Didn't they teach you that?....You pick up
the paper, you read about 84 men or 284, or a million men, like in a Chinese famine. You read
it, but it doesn't say with you. One man's different, you want to know all about him. That's human
interest! ....”

While the local engineer, Sam, who is capable of solving Leo’s problem proposes to “shore-up”
the walls of the old cave and have Leo out in 12 hours, Tatum turns the situation to his
advantage. If he can keep the story going for a couple of weeks, then he can climb his way back
into the big-leagues! Aside from Leo’s poor parents, everyone sees a way to profit off of the
tragedy. Leo’s heartless and loveless wife cherishes the crisis as she fills her dinner with
customers, charges onlookers for parking, and even rents the area near the cave to a carnival.
While her pockets are getting lined, Chuck obtains “exclusive” access to Leo and the story.
Working side-by-side with a crooked Sheriff, Gus Kretzer, Tatum arranges to promote the
Sheriff’s re-election campaign in exchange for “the exclusive.” Tatum and the Sheriff arrange for
a massive drill to tunnel from the top of the mountain down to where Leo is trapped. Leo,
however, is seriously injured and getting sicker as the days pass. As the drills presses forward, so
too does the “human interest.”

An empty, deserted field next to an old abandon mountain becomes filled with spectators. A
carnival sets up shop. Food, souvenirs, and every type of commodity is sold. Everyone is making
a quick buck. The Sherriff is using the incident to promote his re-election; Tatum is using the
incident to get his old New York job back; Herbie, the young journalist, is trying to ride on
Tatum’s coattails; Lorraine Minosa is milking every person for every penny that she can
squeeze. The local engineer is blackmailed into “agreeing” to the farce in order to keep his job
with the city.
From a Utilitarian’s point of view, the circus is morally justified. An entire community is
obtaining pleasure / happiness from the suffering of one man. Leo’s pain and suffering
isjustified by the sheer number of people who are profiting from his hardship. While Leo’s
mother and father are suffering, a mass of untold hundreds or thousands are having a festival
right outside the cave-dwelling. Then there is Tatum, Herbie, the Sherriff, Leo’s wife, and
countless listeners nationwide who are directly profiting off the incident, or who are enjoying the
tragedy as mere entertainment. A Utilitarian has no moral grounds whatsoever for criticizing
Leo’s exploiters. How are they violating The Principle of Utility? They most surely are not!
The problem is, of course, that Leo’s rights are being violated. But Utilitarianism does not take
human “rights” into account.

When Mr. Boot, clearly an advocate of human rights, asks Tatum if honest and integrity ever
bother his conscience, Tatum says: “Not enough to stop me. I'm on my way back to the top, and
if it takes a deal with a crooked sheriff, that's alright with me! And if I have to fancy it up with
an Indian curse and a broken hearted wife for Leo, then that's alright too!” However, as Leo’s
condition edges him to the breaking point, Tatum has a change of heart. It is too late, however, as
Leo dies. After Leo’s death, Tatum puts a stop to the carnivorous carnival. He tells “Nagel” from
“New York” that he has the “real story” (--“the story behind the story”--). The real story is, of
course, that Leo was held captive for many days as everyone exploited his misfortune to the
point of murder. When nobody is willing to listen to Tatum’s change of heart and truthful
revelation, he ends up back at Mr. Boot’s small-town paper. Just as he made an elaborate
entrance into Boot’s office on his first day, he makes an equally elaborate entrance on his last
day. He tells Mr. Boot, as he is about to collapse from a wound inflicted by Leo’s wife: “How'd
you like to make yourself a thousand dollars a day, Mr. Boot? I'm a thousand-dollar-a-day
newspaperman. You can have me for nothing.” Tatum collapses or dies and the credits roll.

The moral of the story is clear: Leo was exploited to death. One man died so that many could
exploit fast profits. From a Utilitarian’s point of view the situation was not only morally
acceptable, but morally correct. If one follows The Principle of Utility—the situation is morally
acceptable! The joy obtained by the many justify Leo’s death and suffering. Once again, the
fundamental problem inherent to Utilitarianism is exposed: The theory does not take into account
human rights. Leo’s right to life, medical care, and justice were denied for the sake of utility. Is
this a problem that we should accept?

The Infamous Case of the Trolley Car

Another infamous case is called “The Trolley Car.” Imagine that one is in a big city that has
Trolley cars. A man looks over a steep ledge. Standing next to him is an obese man. As the man
looks at the trolley track he sees that below him, on the track, are ten workers. Each has ear-
plugs and is toiling away working to fix a spot on the track. With loud machines at work the
workers do not hear a “Trolley” that is heading their way. The repairmen below are in serious
danger; they cannot hear what is going on around them. From the ledge the man sees that a
trolley car is blazing down the track. The conductor cannot see the workers due to a sharp curve.
And the workers on the track cannot hear or see the trolley car.

The man, however, is in an unusual position to help. He can actually save lives! He need only
“push” the obese man off of the ledge, as his corpulence will stop the Trolley, thus saving the ten
workers. The obese man’s demise will result in ten lives being saved. All ten repairmen, who
have large families, will be saved! From a Utilitarian’s point of view the situation should be
analyzed as a simple case of one life versus ten lives. The Utilitarian asks us to soberly analyze
the situation: What will maximize utility?-- one man’s death or the death of ten workers? The
Utilitarian must admit that killing one to save ten will maximize utility. Utility demands that the
corpulent man be sacrificed to save the many. Once again, we have a violation of rights. The
obese person’s right to life is violated for the sake of utility.

Peeping Tom: A Right to Privacy

Suppose that Peeping Tom owns an apartment complex. He lives in one unit and he rents out the
other five-hundred units. Unbeknownst to anyone, Peeping Tom has installed micro-spy
equipment all over every unit in the building. His spy gadgets are so savvy that not even the FBI
could detect them. His equipment is impossible to detect. He has a control consul secretly in his
own private unit. In his free time, Peeping Tom sits around spying on all tenants in all five-
hundred units. However, he only uses his spying for his own personal pleasure. He never sticks
images on the internet. Nor does he show anyone his spy equipment. His voyeurism is for his
own private purposes. Thus, the tenants never know that they are spied upon. There are no
“negative” consequences to his spying activity. Nobody knows, nor will anyone ever know,
about his activities. In fact, the only consequence of his spying is an increase in his own
happiness. Thus, when looked at from a Utilitarian perspective, Peeping Tom is not only doing
nothing wrong, he is actually making the world a happier place: His own pleasure / happiness
increases, thus increasing the world’s utility by a wee little bit. And there is no negative utility
whatsoever. One might even say that, as a Utilitarian, he is morally required to peep! Once again
we have a strange moral outcome: What about his tenants’ rights to privacy? Once again
Utilitarianism has trampled over people’s rights. The Principle of Utility does not take “rights”
into consideration.

Other Violations

The cases above all involve violations of human rights. Such violations are believed to be very
serious problems for Utilitarianism. Most critics see these types of cases as the ultimate downfall
of Utilitarianism as such. In addition to the cases mentioned so far, we could add a multitude of
similar cases. Even further, we could add cases involving social injustices. Let us focus, for a
minute, on the latter.
Consider slavery. Suppose that some overwhelming majority decides that they would rather not
do any house chores and that they would prefer to have house-slaves. Suppose that the majority
forces a small minority to do all of their toilet scrubbing, dusting, moping, cooking, and laundry.
We can all surely agree that the minority’s rights to freedom, self-determination, etc. are
being violated. But what is wrong with slavery if The Principle of Utility is being satisfied?

Once again, we have a clear violation of moral commonsense. The Principle of

Utilitysupersedes all other considerations. For the Utilitarian there is only one moral truth and
that is The Principle of Utility. In this case, as in all others, The Principle of Utilitydemands
that the balance of happiness over unhappiness be satisfied. The evils of slavery seem to be
justified by the happiness of the majority. Very few moral philosophers would find such a result
acceptable. Hence, The Principle of Utility is seen as a degenerate research project.

Consider another classic example: Let us imagine that a village has suffered a series of serial
murders. The village-police have no clue whatsoever who has committed the heinous murders.
They have looked high and low, checked every lead and have come up empty. The village is in
pandemonium. Citizens are not leaving their homes, going to work or school. Businesses are
closed. Citizens are scared to death. The mayor is surely facing impeachment, which makes him
scream at the chief of police. In turn, the police chief is all over the Captain and the District
Attorney. Eventually the police find a down and outer that has drifted into the village. While they
clearly establish that the drifter is not guilty, they also discover that he is a loner with no family,
friends, or job. They decide to frame him for the serial-murders. Who will know the difference?
The real killer might have moved on to another location, as he has not killed anyone in two
weeks. If the police frame the drifter, the mayor will be happy. The town can return to normalcy.
Thus, using The Principle of Utilityas a moral guide, the police decide to frame the innocent
man. Everybody but the innocent man will be happy. It will surely be a violation of the man’s
right to justice. But that is a small price to pay for satisfying Utility!

Hedonistic “Rule” Utilitarianism

In response to these types of cases, some Utilitarians attempt to salvage the theory by changing
the way in which The Principle of Utility is satisfied. These theorists think that the basic idea is
that Utilitarianism is true, despite the problems outlined above. The trouble, they think, has to do
with the way in which The Principle of Utility is satisfied. Instead of trying to satisfy it each
and every time one goes to act (--hence the name “act” Utilitarianism--), it can be better and
more properly be satisfied by devising a set of rules (--hence the name “rule” Utilitarianism--)
that, if everyone adheres to consistently, will better satisfy The Principle of Utility.

The rules are not “moral truths” of any sort. Principle of Utility is the one and only moral truth.
However, the rules are simply a means to satisfying Utility. The Principle of Utility is satisfied,
these theorists think, by following a general list of rules. If everyone follows the list of rules,
then the world will be a happier, better place and utility will be satisfied, overall, in the long run.

The Rule Utilitarian asks: “What if everyone followed rule “X”?” Would following that rule

make the world better or worse, all things considered? After a suitable list is established, the
theorist will claim: “Overall, in the long run and all things considered, the world will be a better
(happier) place if everyone follows the list of general rules.” One might ask: What should the
rules look like? The procedure for determining which rules should go on the list would be
something like this: Imagine some rule, “X.” Then imagine the opposite of that rule “-X.” Now
ask: Which rule will result in maximal happiness for all concerned? Consider the following
examples:

Rules:

1.1 All surgeons can kill patients for body parts.

Result of following Rule 1.1: Chaos, nobody goes to doctors, sickness, no health, and so on…

Now consider the opposite Rule:

(Opposite Rule) 1.2: Doctors should follow their Hippocratic Oath and try to cure all of their
patients.

Result of Following Rule 1.2: People get cured, trust in physicians, Health, and so on…

Conclusion: It seem perfectly clear that rule 1.2 would lead to “better” consequences than rule
1.1. Thus, we can incorporate rule 1.2 into the general list of rules. Further, we can state the rule
in its more general form: “Do not kill innocent people.” Now, we can incorporate this very
general rule into our rule book.

General Rule (1): “Do not kill innocent people.”

This type of procedure should continue until we fashion a very large General set of Rules. Notice
that when we put the general rule, (1), in the rule-book, cases involving killing innocent persons
get delegitimized and thrown out. Thus, it seems as if we have solved cases like the surgeon who
kills patients for body parts, the exploitive murder of Leo Minosa for the sake of sensationalism;
the murder of the obese man on the Trolley Track, etc. If such cases are eliminated, then
Utilitarianism seems to be far less objectionable. Consider a few other rules:

Rule 2.1 People can spy upon others for cheap thrills.

Result of following 2.1: Anxiety, paranoia, Costly security, no trust among citizens, etc....
Opposite Rule 2.2: People should respect each other’s privacy.

Result of following Rule 2.2: Respect, well-being, trust, community, kindness, etc....

Conclusion: It clearly seems to be the case that rule 2.2 will have better consequences than rule
2.1. So we can generalize.

General Rule (2): Respect the privacy of other people.

The Rule Utilitarian will continue on in this fashion so as to generate a whole list of rules that, if
followed by everyone, will maximize Utility, thus satisfying the one moral truth (i.e., The
Principle of Utility).

The Trouble With “Rule Utilitarianism”

The problem with Rule Utilitarianism is that it does not work. The problem is serious and
inherent within the very foundations of Utilitarianism. According to Utilitarianism, there is
only one moral truth, The Principle of Utility. We are only obligated to follow the general list
of rules if doing so will maximize utility. The only purpose of the rules is to maximize utility.
But what if breaking a rule would maximize utility? The Principle of Utilityover-rides any
“general rule.” The Principle of Utility is the ONLY moral truth: it and it alone is morally
obligatory. Thus, one can break a general rule if doing so would maximize utility. This problem
can be analyzed in many ways. A common way to formulate the problem is to analyze it in terms
of “The Exception Rule.” Imagine that we have a list of “General Rules.”

General Rules

 Do not cheat.
 Do not kill.
 Do not lie.
 Help others in need.
 Respect others privacy.
 (Last Rule on the List) Exception Rule: You can break any of the other general rules if
doing so will maximize utility.

The Exception Rule must be on the list of rules. If it is missing, then the theory is notreally a
Utilitarian theory. One must be able to break a general rule if doing so will maximize Utility.
Since there is no way to get rid of the Exception rule, Rule Utilitarianism collapses into Act
Utilitarianism. There seems to be no justification for following rules if they do not maximize
utility. Let us explore the issue in detail.
Consider the following case: Imagine a Dutch villager in 1942 who is hiding various people from
the Nazi SS. The Dutch Villager has Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, and many other people that
are on the Nazi’s “Kill-List.” Imagine that the Nazi executioner knocks on the Dutch villager’s
door, and asks: “Do you have any of these people (Jews, Catholics, Homosexuals, etc.) hiding in
your house? Let us suppose, further, that the Dutch Villager is a Rule Utilitarian. On the list of
rules will be the general rule, “Do Not Lie.” Now, should the Dutch Villager follow the “general
rule” than a massacre will ensue, all on the list will die. Should the Dutchman say: “Yes, there
are many such people upstairs in my attic…Please try not to get too much blood everywhere…”
Or, on the other hand, should the Dutch Villager follow the Exception Rule in this
case? Exception Rule will allow the Dutch Villager to break a general rule in order to preserve
the integrity of Utility. Since a group of psychotic killers engaged in the mass-murdering
innocents is not conducive to utility, one must lie to the Nazis. The Exception Rule allows the
villager to break the general rule so as to maximize utility. The rule that prohibits lying is defunct
in this case. Lying in order to preserve and maximize utility is the required action. In this case,
the Exception Ruledoes what it is supposed to do, namely allows the agent to maximize utility.

However, consider another case: Suppose that an otherwise healthy eighteen-year-old shows up
at the Emergency room with an acute case of appendicitis. Suppose that a fully competent
surgeon examines the patient, concludes that a successful appendectomy is highly likely. The
doctor could have the eighteen-year old cured and out the door by the following morning.
However, the doctor decides that she is a Rule Utilitarian and she wants to make the morally
right decision. She has four patients, each in need of a crucial organ. One patient needs a heart,
another needs a liver, another needs a kidney, and another needs a lung. If she can get the “parts”
then she can cure each patient. The problem is that she does not have spare parts. However, the
eighteen-year-old has perfectly healthy organs. Moreover, the eighteen-year-old does not have
ANY relatives and is unemployed. This person, the doctor thinks, would not be missed. Being a
good Rule Utilitarian, and taking the situation seriously, the doctor decides to look at her
“General Rules.” She spots the rule that says: “Do not kill innocent people.” Just as she is about
to shut her rule book, she notices “The Exception Rule.” The “Exception Rule” says that: “You
can break any of the other general rules if doing so will maximize utility.” The doctor decides
that, on this occasion, The Principle of Utility will be preserved by using the Exception Rule.
Hence, she uses theException Rule and therefore cuts apart the 18-year old for his/her organs.

The problem with Rule Utilitarianism should be clear: There is no way to justify following a
general rules if breaking the rule would maximize utility. The Principle of Utilityoverrides any
general rule. It is the sole source of authority. It is what commands moral obedience. The general
rules have no value except when they are conducive to Utility. But they can always be
overridden. Or, put alternatively, one can always follow the Exception Rule. If the Exception
Rule is removed from the Rule Book, then the theory is no longer a Utilitarian theory. As a
result, in the final analysis, Rule Utilitarianism always collapses into Act Utilitarianism. And
then all of the problems associated with violating rights and social injustices re-occur all over
again.

In sum: It is very difficult to be a Utilitarian without compromising moral commonsense. If a

moral theory provides advice that seems morally heinous, then that is a good reason to be
skeptical of the theory. It is not a “proof” that the theory is wrong. But it incites grave suspicion.
And since there is no way to stop Rule Utilitarianism from degenerating into Act Utilitarianism,
there is no way to reconcile Utilitarianism with those egregious instances wherein The Principle
of Utility would fully justify violating a person’s rights or enacting Social Injustices. For these
reasons most ethical theorists abandon Utilitarianism as a hopelessly flawed and degenerate
theory.