Name: ___________________ Date: _______________

Course: ________________

Chapter II Utilitarianism
by: Plato
I. Introduction
On January 25, 2015, the 84th Special Action Force (SAF) conducted a police
operation at Tukanalipao, Mamasapano in Maguindanao. Also known as Oplan Exodus,
it was intended to serve an arrest warrant for Zulkifli bin Hir or Marwan, a Malaysian
terrorist and bomb-maker that had a $5 million bounty on his head. This mission
eventually led to a clash between the Philippines National Police’s (PNP) SAF, on the
one hand, and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) on the other. Although the police operation was “successful”
because of the death of Marwan, the firelight that ensured claimed sixty-seven lives
including forty-four SAF troopers, eighteen MILF Fighters, and five civilians. However,
the relatively high number of SAF members killed in this operation caught the attention
of many including the Philippine media and the legislature.
In one of the Congress investigation that followed this tragic mission, then Senate
President Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Escudero debated the public hearing of an
audio recording of an alleged conversation that attempted to cover up the massacre of the
PNP-SAF commandos. Drilon questioned the admissibility of these recordings as
evidence under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law whereas Escudero cited the legal brief of the
Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) arguing that the Anti-Wire Tapping Law protects
only the recording and interception of private communications. Drilon cited Section 4 of
the Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) and explained that “any communication or spoken
word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, or meaning of the same or any of the
same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any
person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or
investigation. “Senator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate committee on
public order and dangerous drugs, argued otherwise. “Sinabi n ani Senator Drilon na ito
daw ay illegal na hindi raw pwede, na ako daw ay pwedeng maging liable kung ito daw
ay ipapakinig ko sa Senado ako naman, ano ba itong mga batas na ito?...Ang mga batas
na ito ay para malaman natin ang katotohanan at magkaroon tayo ng hustisya. Itong
mga anti-wiretapping or mga recording ng ganito, kung hindi pwedeng ilabas sa publiko,
pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive session.”
II. Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics;
2. Distinguish the differences between two utilitarian model: the quantitative model of
Jeremy Bentham and the qualitative model of John Stuart Mill; and
3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international scenarios.
III. Discussion
Activity 1.

 Read

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of pleasure and
the determination of right behaviour based on the usefulness of the action's consequences.
Putting this idea together, utilitarianism claims that one's actions and behaviour are good
inasmuch as they are directed toward the experience of the greatest pleasure over pain for
the greatest number of persons.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are the two foremost
utilitarian thinkers. Their system of ethics emphasizes the consequences of actions. For
Bentham and Mill, utility refers to a way of understanding the results of people's actions.
The utilitarian value pleasure and happiness. Bentham and Mill understand happiness as
the experience of pleasure for the greatest number of persons, even at the expense of
some individual's right.
Utility - refers to the usefulness of the consequences of one’s action and behaviour.
Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, Catholic, and
Doctor of the church.
The Context of the Christian Story
The fundamental truth maintained and elaborated by Aquinas that we are created
by God in order to ultimately return to Him.
Three Parts of this Voluminous Work
1. Aquinas speaks of God, and although, we acknowledge that our limited human
intellect can fully grasp him, we nevertheless are able to say something
concerning His Goodness, His Might, and His Creative Power. Recognizing than
that we are created by God.
2. Which deals with man or the dynamic of human life. This is characterized by our
pursuit of happiness, which we should realize rests ultimately not on any
particular good thing that is created by God, but in the Highest Good which is
God himself. In other words, salvation is only possible through the presence of
God’s grace and that grace has become perfectly incarnate in the person of Jesus.
3. Focuses on Jesus as our Savior.

The Greek Heritage (Neoplatonic Good)

“Why should I bother trying to be good?”
and
“Why cannot ‘good’ be just whatever I say it is?”
3 Fundamental Elements of Neoplatonic Good
1. The One
2. Intelligence (nous)
3. The Soul
The Essence and Varieties of Law
The essence of law - “common good” and “promulgation”.

Varieties of law
1. Eternal Law
2. Divine Law
3. Natural Law
4. Human Law

Natural Law
In common with other beings - Aquinas thus identifies first that there is in our
nature, common with other beings, a desire to preserve one’s own being.
In common with other animals – Aquinas then goes to say that there is in our
nature, common with other animals, a desire that has to do with sexual intercourse and
the care to one’s offspring.
Uniquely human – After the first two inclinations, Aquinas presents a third
reason which states that we have an inclination to good according to the nature of our
reason.
Utilitarianism
 The belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of
people.
- Can the government infringe individual rights?
- If it is morally permissible for the government to infringe individual
rights, when can the government do so?
- Does it become legitimate to sacrifice individual’s right when
considering the greatest number of people?
Jeremy Bentham (1784-1832)
 Born on February 15, 1874 in London England
 He was the teacher of James Mill, father of John Stuart Mill.
 Bentham first wrote about the greatest happiness principle of ethics and was
known for a system of penal management called panopticon.
 He was an advocate of economic freedom, women’s rights, and the separation of
church and state among others.
 He was also an advocate of animal rights and abolition of slavery, death penalty,
and corporal punishment for children.
 He denied individual legal rights nor agreed with the natural law.

THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

In the book AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND
LEGISLATION (1789), Jeremy Bentham begins by arguing that our actions are governed
by two "sovereign masters" ---- which he calls pleasure and pain. These "masters" are
given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and what ought to be done
and not; they fasten our choices to their throne.
The principle of utility is about our subjection to these sovereign masters:
pleasure and pain. On one hand, the principle refers to the motivation of our actions as
guided by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that in our
everyday actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is painful. On the
other hand, the principle also refers to pleasure as good if, and only if, they produce more
happiness than unhappiness.
Mill supports Bentham's principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as
happiness and, consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes people
happy is intended pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the privation of pleasure. The
things that produce happiness and pleasure are good; whereas, those that produce
unhappiness and pain are bad.
Clearly, Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them
pleasurable and we avoid doing things because they are painful. If we find our actions
pleasurable, Mill explains, it is because they are inherently pleasurable in themselves or
they eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
-May 20, 1806, Bentonville London, UK
-Son of James Mill
-Married to Harriet Taylor
-Died on May 8, 1873
“Theory of Life”
The pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are not only important principles -
they are in fact the only principle in accessing an action's morality.
Felicific Calculus
- is a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can
produce.
2 Dimensions:
The fecundity or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind, and
purity or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
Extent - considering the number of persons who are affected by pleasure and pain.
* He thinks that the principle of utility must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not
merely quantitatively.
* The quality is more preferable than quantity.
PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER
• Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent
alone and independently from others.
• Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts.
• Utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the
quality of life for all persons.
JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
What is right? Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward
society's pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are the
valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
Mill expounds that the abovementioned rights referred are related to the interests that
serve general happiness. The rights to due process, the right for free speech or religion,
and are justified because they contribute to the general good. This means that society is
made happier if its citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interests are
protected and that society (as a whole) defends it. Extending this concept to animals, they
have rights because of the effect of such principles on the sum total of happiness that
follows consequence of instituting and protecting their interests. It is not accidental,
therefore that utilitarian’s are also the staunchest defenders of animal rights. A right is
justifiable on utilitarian’s principles in as much as they produce an overall happiness that
is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation.
Utilitarian’s argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import
because the category of rights is directly associated with the individuals most vital
interests. All of these rights are predicated on the person’s right to life.
* Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that
when legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness
principles.
* Mill seems to be suggesting that it is morally permissible to not Follow, even violet an
unjust law.
* Mill thinks that it is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of avail
disobedience for the sake of promoting a higher moral good.
In this sense, the principle of utility can obligate us to steal, kill, and the like we
say “theoretically" because this merely constitutes a thought experiment and need not be
actualized. Since what matters in the assessment of what we do is the resultant happiness,
then anything may be justified for the sake of producing the greatest happiness of the
greatest number of people.
Mill provides an adequate discourse on rights despite it being mistakenly argued to be
the weakness of utilitarianism.
ACTIVITY (Case Analysis)
Name ______________________________ Date ____________
Course: ___________________
Animal Rights and Welfare
Peter Singer, in his book Animal Liberation, argues that animals are equal
candidates for moral respect; this does not mean equal treatment as it does equals
consideration. While Rene Descartes argues that animals are incapable of feeling pleasure
and pain because they do not have any minds, Bentham and Mill argue otherwise. For
them, animals are capable of feeling pleasure and pain and are thus to be included in
whatever moral deliberation we are to make, especially when the decisions we make
affect them. The animal’s capacity for suffering is a vital characteristic that entities them
to equal consideration. While animal intelligence is another moral issue to confront, it
cannot be denied that animal behaviourists have established that animals do feel physical
pain. While other researchers simply dismiss this as an act of anthropomorphizing, the
vast research on animal consciousness is worth considering at this point. Should animals
have moral rights?
Utilitarianism recognizes that animals do feel physical and emotional pain. But
this does not mean that we are not allowed to cause animals pain. When causing animal
pain obtains a greater happiness to the majority of humans and nonhuman animals, then
doing so to sentient creatures can be morally permissible. For this reason, utilitarian’s
nowadays rarely use the term animal rights as they do talk about animal welfare. If
human rights, according to Bentham, are “nonsense upon stilts,” then the same is true
with animal rights. These rights are not absolute especially when it would be detrimental
to the society. Mill does talk about rights to security, liberty and justice, but he also
argues that “particular cases may occur in which some other social duty is so important,
as to overrule any one of the general maxims of justice.” This can mean that, as a
utilitarian, the pain and pleasure of nonhuman animals must be taken into consideration
when there are no concerns that would justify their pain for the sake of the greatest
happiness of the number. In this case, when animals are used for the development of
household products and cosmetics, they are condemned but utilitarian’s. However, when
they are used for medical experimentation that can lead to cure for a debilitating or
terminal illness, they are acceptable to a utilitarian. Do you agree with this?

Activity 2 - Prelim requirement

Instruction: Discuss briefly and concisely the following questions (copy
and answer) Write – yellow paper – 10 pts. each

Let’s apply what you have learned.

1. Do you agree that happiness is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain,
and that all actions are directed towards pleasure? Why?

2. In view of Bentham’s and Mill’s assertion of the greatest happiness of the greatest
number, do you think that animal rights and welfare should even be a concern in
the Philippines where millions of Filipinos below the poverty threshold are
struggling to have a descent lives? Is the concern for animal rights and welfare a
first world problem?

VI. References:
Bulaong, Oscar G. Jr., “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation” Published &
Distributed by REX Book Store. 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., 1977 C.M. Recto
Avenue Manila. Tel. Nos. 735-1364, 736-0567.
Calano, Mark Joseph T. “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation” Published &
Distributed by REX Book Store. 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., 1977 C.M. Recto
Avenue Manila. Tel. Nos. 735-1364, 736-0567.
Lagliva, Albert M. “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation” Published &
 Distributed by REX Book Store. 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., 1977 C.M. Recto
Avenue Manila. Tel. Nos. 735-1364, 736-0567.
Mariano, Michael Ner E. “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation” Published &
Distributed by REX Book Store. 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., 1977 C.M. Recto
Avenue Manila. Tel. Nos. 735-1364, 736-0567.
Principe, Jesus Deogracias Z. “Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation” Published &
Distributed by REX Book Store. 856 Nicanor Reyes Sr. St., 1977 C.M. Recto
Avenue Manila. Tel. Nos. 735-1364, 736-0567.