That Religious Studies Website

Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism (Part 1): Introduction, Bentham and Mill
• Utilitarianism (Part 2): Singer, developments and critiques

Moral theory

• Deontology
• Emotivism
• Feminist Ethics
• Freewill
• Religion and Ethics
• Situation Ethics
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue Ethics

Recently added to the site

• The Ontological Argument: Introduction and Overview (Video)
• Visit to a Cathedral (Roman Catholic)
• Revision quiz: The Ontological Argument (Anselm of Canterbury)
• Revision quiz: Design arguments for the existence of God (Judeo-Christian): Part 1
• Revision quiz: Martin Luther King Jr.: Key facts
• Worksheet: Martin Luther King Jr.: The Early Years

Utilitarianism (Part 1): Introduction, Bentham and Mill

Information: An introduction to the key ideas and themes of Utilitarianism as set out in the moral philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Introduction

The principle of utility - or Utilitarianism - is a moral test for the rightness of actions, based on how much pleasure or  pain they produce. The most well-known (and developed) versions of it are found in the work of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). However, the 'principle of utility' is also found in the work of David Hume (1711-1776), and can trace its origins back to Epicurus (341-270 BCE).

Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist theory of ethics. Consequentialist theories judge the rightness (or wrongness) of an action, by what occurs as a result of doing something.

Bentham and Mill wanted to find a secure, irrefutable and objective basis for morality. They were deeply suspicious of moral theories which did not do this, especially when it seemed they were arbitrary and subjective (as they felt faith-based moralities were). Being anti-establishment, anti-monarchist, anti-imperialist meant they also wanted a more democratic approach to ethics and law-making. Therefore, judging actions to be right or wrong on the basis of their effects, seemed to allow Bentham and Mill (and other Utilitarians) to objectify morality. In other words, they could actually see that doing x would lead to y outcome, rather than be told that this or that might or could happen.

Utilitarianism is often contrasted with Deontological ethics. These consider an act to be good when someone is doing what they ought to do (one's duty), and bad when not doing this. Deontologists are only interested in the act, and not whether doing something leads to good or bad consequences.

Something to think about: We are often told that lying is wrong, but why do people think it is? If someone told you that lying was no longer wrong, would you agree or disagree with them, and why?

Key terms

• Hedonistic Utilitarianism: An action is good when it maximises the amount of pleasure, leading to the minimum amount of pain.
• Act Utilitarianism: Thinking about how our specific actions might contribute to the welfare of others, or be detrimental to it.
• Rule Utilitarianism: Only implementing rules (or laws), which will lead to the well-being of the majority of people.
• Preference Utilitarianism: Thinking about how others would prefer us to act (i.e. they would not want to suffer because of something we do), even if they knew nothing about our actions, or experienced no ill-effects as a result of them.

In his 1952 book Open Society and Its Enemies (Volume 1), British philosopher Sir Karl Popper suggested that instead of seeking to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, we should instead be looking to avoid harming the greatest number of people. This is known as Negative Utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

In, Fragment of Government (1776) and An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Bentham set about attacking English law as that which had no logical or scientific foundation. In other words, there was no objective basis for English law, and as such morality rested on a multiplicity of foundations (e.g. the Bible, tradition, conscience etc.). This meant that the law/morality, was nothing more than a set of subjective truth-claims, with no objective basis. To correct this, Bentham wanted to introduce a means (or criteria) for validating and securing ethical behaviour, and one which could also serve as the basis for a system of law and government. He also wanted a more democratic form of government, as he felt that handing power to rule over to others led to an attitude of servitude and dependency amongst the common people, and was open to abuse by those in power (who could use their position to promote their own ideals).

Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. (Bentham J., Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)

Bentham began An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation by defining human nature as something fundamentally driven by the pleasure/pain principle. He believed that from observing the way people operate in the world, it could be reasonably demonstrated that humans naturally seek pleasure, and naturally seek to avoid pain. Therefore, he believed that morality (and the laws derived from this), could be grounded in what he believed to be a fundamental and 'objective' truth of our existence - maximising pleasure, and minimising pain!

According to Bentham, a good politician or judge would be one who introduced laws based on what would be to the advantage of most people. In other words, they act for the greater good of the greatest number of people.

Something to think about and discuss: Do you believe politicians or rulers in your country, are acting for the greater good of the greatest number of people? Find one example of a story from the recent news to support your case.

The Hedonic Calculus (aka Felicific calculus)

In order to avoid a subjective definition of what counts as pain and pleasure, Bentham devised a way of calculating pain and pleasure 'units'. These would be measured according to seven criteria:

• 1. The intensity of any pleasure or pain.
• 2. The duration of any pleasure or pain.
• 3. The certainty or uncertainty of any pleasure or pain.
• 4. The remoteness of any pleasure or pain (or how much the legislator might be affected).
• 5. The chances of the same effects being repeated (More pleasure or more pain?).
• 6. The chances of the same effects not being repeated (No more pleasure or pain?).
• 7. The number of people who will be affected by any pleasure or pain arising as a result of the act in question.

Of an action that is conformable to the principle of utility one may either say that it is one that ought to be done... One may also say, that it is right it should be done; at least that it is not wrong it should be done: that it is a right action; at least that it is not a wrong action. (Bentham J., Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation)

Something to discuss: If the rightness of an action is evaluated according to the amount of pleasure it produces, is it morally just to torture one person to find the whereabouts of another person being held captive, if it will save their life? What about if torturing one person will save 10 lives, or 50 lives, or even 100 lives? What if these 100 lives were those of young children?

Advertisement

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

John Stuart Mil's father (James Mill) had worked for Jeremy Bentham, and was greatly impressed with Bentham's Utilitarianism. Naturally, he educated his son about the principle of utility. However, rather than accepting these ideas carte blanch, John Stuart Mill criticised Bentham for not really distinguishing between the quality and quantity of pleasures, and also for not recognising that there are some things which are more desirable than others. In his book Utilitarianism (1863), Mill distinguished between physical pleasures (eating, drinking, and having intimate relationships with others etc.), and intellectual pleasures (philosophical debate, reading, listening to an opera etc.). Being a highly educated man (and a little sexually repressed), Mill naturally favoured the 'higher' pleasures over the lower ones.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. (Mill J. S., Utilitarianism)

Mill was critical of those who believed the principle of utility was nothing more than a justification for gratifying one's physical appetites. In fact, given the choice Mill believed people would always seek the 'higher' pleasures over the 'lower' ones. In fact, he considered this to be the natural thing for humans to do:

A beast's pleasures do not satisfy a human being's conception of happiness. (Mill J. S., Utilitarianism)

Mill responds to his objectors

In chapter 2 of Utilitarianism, Mill spends some time answering various objections he felt could be raised against his version of the principle of utility. One of the biggest objections he felt needed to be countered, was that the principle of utility is based on an ideal which is unattainable; that people cannot be happy all the time. Mill's response was to suggest that if we have in mind a life of complete and total unending happiness, then of course this is unobtainable, No one can be that happy all the time, and nor should they be! However, we can aspire to live a life which is generally more happy than not, and as such this should be our goal:

It is only those in whom the need for excitement is a disease, that feels the tranquility that follows the excitement dull and insipid, instead of pleasurable in direct proportion to the excitement that preceded it. (Mill J. S., Utilitarianism)

Mill also felt that some people might ask why they should be concerned about other people's happiness, especially if this involved some loss of pleasure on their own part. Mill's response to this objection was to show that in order for someone to 'happy', there must be some trade-off between people. We cannot think it feasible to live a purely selfish existence and expect to give nothing back to others around us, for we will soon become very unhappy at how other people begin to treat us in due course. We can also find happiness in helping other people.

Probably one of the biggest objections Mill considers, is the charge that there is often no time to calculate and weigh-up the different effects our actions might have. Sometimes we are called to make decisions 'in the heat of the moment', and as such do not have the luxury of deliberating the various outcomes of our actions before doing something. Mill's first response to this is to first show that this objection is absurd, for we do not have to know every possible outcome of doing something, before doing anything. Also, it is not the case that we have no clue as to what might generally occur as a result of doing something. To say we do not know how our actions will affect everyone is one thing, but to we do not know how our actions will affect anyone, is simply not true:

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness. (Mill J. S., Utilitarianism)

Mill considers the principle of utility to be as close to an objective moral truth as we can get. Although he accepts that being governed by feelings of pleasure/pain is rather subjective, he challenges us to show how it is not a principle which governs all human behaviour. People do all kinds of things because they believe it will make them 'happy', even if they do them out of a sense of 'duty'. Our basic instinct is to avoid pain, and in doing so we naturally seek pleasure.

Utilitarianism (Part 2): Singer, developments and critiques

Back to top