LUEG 3083: Utilitarianism

Normative theories of ethics agree that there is objective moral truth.

[They disagree on how to locate those truths, even though there may well be some agreement on what
those truths are.
In particular, they disagree on what is rightly construed as intrinsically valuable.]
“Objective” moral truth is to be contrasted with the idea of there being only “subjective” moral truth.
“Objective” moral truths are true independent of any individual person’s (or culture’s) beliefs about those
truths.  They are true for all people for all times, even if no one believed them to be true.  
“Subjective” moral truths are said to be solely dependent upon personal and/or cultural beliefs about morality
at a particular time and place.

Normative theories of ethics can be divided between consequentialist theories and non-consequentialist
theories.
“Consequentialist” theories: the moral rightness/wrongness of an action is solely determined by the (most
likely) results (i.e. the “consequences”) of that action.
“Non-consequentialist” theories: the moral rightness/wrongness of an action is NOT solely determined by the
(most likely) results (i.e. the “consequences”) of that action.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of normative ethics which relies on

calculating/measuring/determining the amount of happiness any particular act produces.
The basic idea/guideline/principle followed by the Utilitarian – “The Greatest Happiness Principle”: We
should always act so as to produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over suffering for everyone
affected by our actions.
All other so-called moral principles are thought to reduce to faithfully following this single objective principle.
[Here’s the idea: To the extent that principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice have
moral merit in this theory, they ultimately rely on “The Greatest Happiness Principle”.]
Happiness = (feelings of) pleasure in the absence of pain
For the Utilitarian, happiness (as defined above) is the only thing of intrinsic (as opposed to
extrinsic/instrumental) value and thus the only thing to consider when considering the rightness/wrongness of
human action.

Pleasures and pains obviously have varying intensities and durations.  These variables must be considered
when making our moral calculations about happiness under Utilitarianism. Both of these variables contribute to
the quantity of pleasure or pain.
John Stuart Mill says the Utilitarian must also consider the relative quality of different pleasures and pains.
Some pleasures are of a “higher” order (and worth more in the calculation) while others are of a “lower” order
(and worth less in the calculation). For instance, mental/intellectual pleasures are said to endow humans with
“a sense of dignity” which becomes essential to their happiness.

Points to Understand about Utilitarianism

1. The calculation required to determine the amount of happiness which will be produced by an action
requires one to consider BOTH the pleasure AND the pain/suffering that will result from the action.
[Total Happiness = Total pleasure – Total pain]
2. The same action will affect different people’s individual happiness in different ways.
3. In principle, nearly any action might entail moral consequences.
4. Happiness is to be maximized by considering not only the short term, but the long run as well.
5. Obviously we don’t know with certainty what all the future consequences of our actions will look like.
Accordingly, we act so that the expected or likely amount of happiness is as great as possible.
6. Our own happiness is no more or no less important than anyone else’s happiness when considering the
consequences of our actions.
Critical Questions about Utilitarianism
1. Is the theory actually workable?  Can we really make the sort of calculations required by the theory?
2. Could some actions be morally wrong, even if they produce greater overall happiness?
If so, then what does that say about Utilitarianism?
3. Has the Utilitarian even correctly defined the concept of “happiness”?
4. Even if we grant the Utilitarian conception of happiness, is it really the only thing of intrinsic value?
5. Is Utilitarianism inherently unjust? Does the concept of human rights fit into the Utilitarian moral
scheme?
6. Consider the following quotation from J.S. Mill:
“… the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the
agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of
others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent
spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of
utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the
ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.”
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1861), Chapter 2

To what extent does Jesus Christ promote the ethics of Utilitarianism?

Consider the following quote from the Bible:

“Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because
you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work
so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, you
should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.”
James 1: 2 – 5 (NIV)

To what extent does this promote the ethics of Utilitarianism?