Utilitarianism is a teleological theory regarding what we ought to do.

It is a normative

ethical principle of judging the right or wrong of a human action. According to this theory,

social welfare is the sum of the well-being of all individuals. What should human beings

do? The answer can be teleological or deontological. Deontological theory says that

one’s duty is of ultimate importance. Teleological theory points out than in the ultimate

analysis, we should do only those things which can bring the highest level of happiness

to the greatest number of people. It considers the utility of rules or laws, and is therefore, more
concerned with policy formulation. Utilitarianism

states that man’s worldly happiness is the only good. This is a normative-positive test of

all policies, actions and institutions.

The motto: “greatest good of the greatest number”, was fi rst voiced by Francis

Hutcheson. Utilitarianism developed between the late eighteenth century and the last

quarter of the nineteenth century. The main proponent of this philosophy is Jeremy

Bentham who is revered as the father of utilitarianism.

The concept of utilitarianism has many loose ends and it means many things to many

people. The following are the basic meanings of utilitarianism:

● Greatest good of the greatest number

● Maximization of pleasure

● Minimization of pains

● Maximization of happiness

● Satisfaction of desire

Although there are various meanings and versions of utilitarianism, there is one

common philosophy underlying all these notions. They are basically concerned with the consequences
of an action or judgment. The philosophy is anti-Kantian, in the sense that unlike the

Kantian idea, it does not emphasize the intention of the moral action but on its

end-result, the consequences. It is a philosophy which is the same as that of

consequentialism. In the case of utilitarianism, the end justifi es the means.

The theory of utilitarianism is sometimes interpreted in terms of cost and benefi t

analysis (CBA). An action is acceptable if the net benefi t (benefi t minus cost) is the

greatest in a project as compared to other available projects or policies. The concept of

utility involved in the theory of utilitarianism has been interpreted by many as net benefi t.

There are basically two variants of utilitarianism—Act Utilitarianism and Rule

utilitarianism.

Act utilitarianism is concerned with those actions which will bring great benefi ts to

great number of people. However, in case of act utilitarianism, the problem arises

because some acts are by themselves not socially acceptable like stealing. Hence, act

utilitarianism has to be supplemented with rule utilitarianism which gives direction to the

former. An action in all cases may not bring about the greatest good of the greatest

number. Obedience to rules (say traffi c rules) will prevent chaos and will maximize

happiness of passers by reducing accidents.

Criticism of utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism based on the principle of CBA is an important part of decision–making in

modern organizations and institutions. However, the concept of utilitarianism has a

number of conceptual problems. Firstly, one needs to defi ne utility in a unique manner.

We have already seen that it has been given different meanings by different proponents.

Utility is subjective and mental, and this raises an epistemological question: how do we

gauge a person’s happiness or feeling of pleasure or goodness? (Hoffman and Graham,

2010, p.180). Secondly, another tricky issue is the measurement of utility. Many people

believe that being a subjective concept, utility is not measurable. However, there are two

important ways to measure utility. Alfred Marshall, the leader of the neoclassical school

of economics, said that the utility that one is expecting from a commodity can be
indirectly measured by the amount of money he is prepared to pay for it. However, in the

case of social policy or action, the application of market valuation approach to

measurement of utility becomes diffi cult. Hence, when utility is measured in this way, we

get cardinal measurement. As opposed to this, we can get another type of measurement

(ordinal measurement) where utility or satisfaction is ranked (from highest to lowest, or

vice versa). In the ordinal sense, utility leads to preference satisfaction. However, in the

case of preference or ordinal ranking, we can only rank different utility functions to know

which is better (or higher) but we cannot say by how much.

Limitations of Utilitarianism

● The theory is incoherent simply because you cannot maximize two numbers at the

same time (greatest happiness and greatest number).

● Utility is essentially a subjective concept. There is no acceptable defi nition of “good”.

● The concept (happiness) means different things to different people. There are also

multiple meanings of the concept of utilitarianism.

● In the case of utilitarianism, the end justifi es the means. This idea has been

vehemently criti cized by many. It is said by critics that for a moral action, both the

end and the means must be good. To many, the means justify the ends, and not

the other way round.

● Utilitarianism does not consider individuals or minorities. It does not care for individual

entitlements, rights and distributive justice.

● There is a critical question that utilitarianism does not answer. Suppose some actions

are by nature morally wrong, but their consequences are good. Utilitarianism will

support those actions. But then this will not prima facie entitle the theory to be a moral theory.

However, in spite of its many conceptual limitations, the movement of utilitarianism has

been instrumental in saving the conditions of common people. The philosophy of

utilitarianism stood for the aspirations of the middle class. It has been the basis of many

reformative movements in the fi elds of legislation, politics and socio-economic

institutional changes around the world.