UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It may be summed up as- The greatest good for the greatest number of people. (p.99 “…utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right…”)

It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. (p.96 “All action is for the sake of some end…”) It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth, i.e. Kantianism) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character).

Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain). It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance.

Aspects of Utilitarianism
1. Hedonism, pleasure and pain determine values (not simply sensuousness)
2. Consequentialism, rightness or wrongness determined by consequences. The greatest good for the greatest many. Quantitative values, only the amount of pain or pleasure is considered.
3. Egalitarian, everyone counts as one. Maximizes consequentialism.

But are consequences the only thing that matters?
Deontologists disagree with Utilitarianism. Deontologists consider torture to be wrong b/c it’s simply wrong; while for the Consequentialists considers torture to be right b/c it produces good results.

Jeremy Bentham, British philosopher (1748-1832)
Bentham was born in London, into a wealthy family. He was a child prodigy and was found as a toddler sitting at his father's desk reading a multi-volume history of England. He began his study of Latin at the age of three. Bentham’s will stipulated an ‘auto-icon’.

Bentham's position included arguments in favor of individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the end of slavery, the abolition of physical punishment (including that of children), the right to divorce, free trade, usury, and the decriminalization of homosexual acts. He also made two distinct attempts during his life to critique the death penalty. Oddly enough, he wrote a criticism of the Declaration of Independence.

The origins of utilitarianism are often traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but, as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to Jeremy Bentham. Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” From this, he derived the rule of utility: the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart was educated by his father, with the advice and assistance of Jeremy Bentham. He was given an extremely rigorous upbringing, and was deliberately shielded from association with children his own age other than his siblings. His father, a follower of Bentham, had as his explicit aim to create a genius intellect that would carry on the cause of utilitarianism and its implementation after he and Bentham had died.

Mill was a notably precocious child; at the age of three he was taught Greek. By the age of eight he had read Aesop's Fables, Xenophon's Anabasis, and the whole of Herodotus, and was acquainted with Lucian, Diogenes Laërtius, Isocrates and six dialogues of Plato. He had also read a great deal of history in English and had been taught arithmetic.

At the age of eight he began learning Latin, Euclid, and algebra, and was appointed schoolmaster to the younger children of the family. His father also thought that it was important for Mill to study and compose poetry. One of Mill's earliest poetry compositions was a continuation of the Iliad. In his spare time, he also enjoyed reading about natural sciences and popular novels, such as Don Quixote and Robinson Crusoe.

About the age of twelve, Mill began a thorough study of the scholastic logic, at the same time reading Aristotle's logical treatises in the original language.
At age fourteen, Mill stayed a year in France with the family of Sir Samuel Bentham, brother of Jeremy Bentham. In Montpellier, he attended the winter courses on chemistry, zoology, logic- as well as taking a course of the higher mathematics.
This intensive study however had injurious effects on Mill's mental health, and state of mind. At the age of twenty he suffered a nervous breakdown. As explained in his Autobiography, this was caused by the great physical and mental arduousness of his studies which had suppressed any feelings he might have developed normally in childhood.

In his famous work, Utilitarianism, (p100) the younger Mill argues that: (1) cultural, (2) intellectual and (3) spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere (4) physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges.

What is a competent judge? (p.103) A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. Education, according to Mill, provides people with the skills to be competent judges (p.105). Thus, utilitarian ethics is like calculus- for it can be taught and used to calculate right from wrong. Remember our question from reading the Meno, “Is ethics like mathematics?” Utilitarians would think so…

His famous quote found in Utilitarianism (p.102) was, "…it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" demonstrating Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "…few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures."

Like Bentham's formulation, Mill's utilitarianism deals with pleasure and happiness. The ‘Happiness Principle’ (p.103) is “…the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable…”
However John Stuart Mill made a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure; and made it evident that Weak Rule Utilitarianism was focused on maximizing happiness rather than pleasure; for what one desires and what is good are not always the same thing. For example a pleasure/desire may be to bully a lonely child, which may produce pleasure; however happiness comes from following virtues rather than desires.

You have heard the phrase, “Greater love has no man than he give his life for another.” That is, sacrifice is often seen as a morally virtuous action. However, utilitarians think that sacrifice is not inherently virtuous- it is only a virtue if it serves the greater good. (p.107-108)

Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe will generate most pleasure. The rule utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at what would happen if it were constantly followed. If adherence to the rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper object of consequentialist calculation — specific to a case or generalized to rules.

Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule, but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians add, however, that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness, one example being self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians retort that rules in the legal system (i.e. laws) that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defense is legally justified, while murder is not.

Biology and Evolution

It has been suggested that sociobiology, the study of the evolution of human society, provides support for the utilitarian point of view. For example, in The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer argues that fundamentally utilitarian ethical reasoning has existed from the time primitive foraging bands had to cooperate, compromise, and make group decisions to survive. He elaborates: "In a dispute between members of a cohesive group of reasoning beings, the demand for a reason is a demand for a justification that can be accepted by the group as a whole." Thus, consideration of others' interests has long been a necessary part of the human experience. Singer believes that reason now compels the equal consideration of all people's interests, including animals.
Some Practical Applications of Utilitarian Ethics

Can certain actions or practices be ethically justified by utilitarianism? (1) Slavery (2) Torture (3) Genocide (4) Discrimination
Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Too permissive- The end justifies the means. There are no universal prohibitions against any action. Is it the case that, there is no action which is universally prohibited? If so, is this a problem? Should this be troubling?

Too demanding- Are utilitarian ethical standards too high- that is, are they unrealistic in their demands upon people? For example, according to utilitarianism, you might be required to give up a pleasure like internet ($30 a month), if that means someone doesn’t go hungry.