PH133 Introduction to Philosophy: Moral Philosophy

Week 7: Utilitarianism and the Right

1. Recap

Consequentialism is a theory in normative ethics which evaluates actions based on their

consequences.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism which tells us to assess the value of
consequences in terms of their total utility – the right action is the action that produces the
most overall utility (for everyone affected).
Utility = happiness = balance of pleasure over pain (Mill: higher/lower pleasures)

Mill’s conception of rightness

2. Utilitarianism: Mill’s greatest happiness principle.

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 1998, p. 55)

We are moral when we produce happiness and all other actions are wrong to the extent
that they produce the reverse of happiness. Utility therefore serves as the foundation of
moral; this is because Mill believe that happiness is desirable intrinsically where ‘pleasure
and freedom from pain are the only thing desirable as end’. In mill’s opinion, happiness is
the end of human conduct so it will necessarily also be the standard of morality, hence the
notion that rightness and wrongness should be associated with happiness.

Key features:
• Act-centred – we focus on actions and their consequences (act utilitarianism). Other
consequentialism may focus on virtue or rules
• Maximisation of the good – the right (morally best) action is that which maximises
happiness (greatest balance of pleasure over pain).
• Degrees of rightness and wrongness – there is one best thing to do, and the other
options can be more or less right or wrong. (Sandra might donate only some money to
the charity and buy herself a cheaper coat)
• Impartiality – it takes into account everyone affected by an action (all sentient beings
– being which are able to feel pleasure and pain), both short-term and long-term.

The practicability of calculating utility itself undermine the concept.

1
“When buying an apple, we should take into account that the apple may be grown in a
pesticide rich land, and shipped to the store using fuel inefficient vehicle. But when I am
buying an apple, I am promoting a healthy and happier lifestyle for my children while
simultaneously helping the local business.”

Problem: if the right action is that which maximises happiness, taking into account everyone
involved, how in the world will we ever be able to stop calculating?! The utilitarian decision-
making is too costly and possibly self-undermining.

Mill’s answer:
 Criterion of right: what makes actions right.
 Decision procedure: how we should decide what to do.

The Greatest Happiness Principle is the criterion of right, not the decision procedure!
Therefore we don’t have to employ it in our everyday decision making.

How do we make decision on a daily basis?

Common-sense morality and our moral ‘rules of thumb’ (Mill thinks that the utility standard
is behind these rules – secondary principles - that we are brought up to accept) are good
enough to help us maximise happiness without endless calculation (since we already
understand the consequences and effects that entails with our action).

When should we apply the Greatest Happiness principle?

Nevertheless, Mill doesn’t suggest that we take common sense morality as foundational or
untouchable, but believe that it can still be improved. For instance, gender inequality may be
common, however, it is innately wrong.

 We should apply the first principle when common sense morality doesn’t seem right.
 We should apply the first principle when two or more common sense morality is in
conflict. (Being on time and helping someone on the way)

“It is a strange notion that the acknowledgement of a first principle is inconsistent with the
admission of secondary ones. To inform a traveller respecting the place of his ultimate
destination, is not to forbid the use of landmarks and directions-posts on the way.” (Mill,
1998, p. 70)

3. The Proof of the Principle of Utilitarianism

The Principle of Utility (PU) = the right action is that which produces the greatest balance
of happiness (pleasure) over unhappiness (pain). The principle suggest that happiness is the
ultimate end. This means that utility is the foundation of morality where to prove the
principle of utility correct is therefore to prove utilitarianism correct.

How can we prove PU? What is meant by ‘proof’?

2
We don’t have a deductive proof for utility since it is the first principle and is therefore
foundational.

“Questions of ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be good,
must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof.
The medical art is proved to be good, by its conducing to health; but how is it possible to
prove that health is good? (…) We are not, however, to infer that its acceptance or rejection
must depend on blind impulse, or arbitrary choice. There is a larger meaning of the word
proof, in which this question is as amenable to it as any other of the disputed questions of
philosophy. (…) Considerations may be presented capable of determining the intellect
either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine; and this is equivalent to proof.”
(Mill, 1998, 1.5, p. 52, my emphasis)

Proof = considerations that persuade us to accept the principle. (not logical deduction,
but reasonable consideration that can be presented in favour of a claim or a doctrine)

Mill is an empiricist. He believed that all our knowledge is based on our sense experiences,
hence considerations based on observation and experience is key in persuading people of the
principle of utility. In other word, Mill believe that we can appeal to out faculty of desire,
where by appealing to our experience of desiring things, considerations can indeed be
brought in favour of the principle of utility.

The proof:
1. Happiness is desirable.
2. The general happiness is desirable.
3. Nothing else but happiness is desirable.

Step 1: we all desire our own happiness, and isn’t that sufficient to show happiness is
desirable? Just like the fact that something can be seen is evidence that it’s visible, (by
analogy) so the fact that we desire happiness is evidence that happiness is desirable.

Step 2: if your happiness is desirable and my happiness is desirable etc, this shows that the
general happiness is desirable. (quote chapter 4 )

Step 3: all the other things that we desire, we desire either as a means to happiness (e.g., good
food, playing video games are related to happiness) or because they are a part of happiness
(e.g., virtue). These activities are instrumentally good and conducive towards the pursue of
happiness, where happiness is desire intrinsically as an end.

Overall, it is proven (through consideration in favour of the claim) that the ultimate end and
the highest good is happiness and that it will the aim of human conduct.

3
Problems with the proof:

Problem with step 1: ‘visible’ (can be seen) is clearly different from ‘desirable’ (*ought* to
be desired, not *can* be desired). Something can be desired even if it’s not desirable, and
vice versa. (G. E. Moore)

Reply: Mill doesn’t say that ‘desirable’ means ‘can be desired’. The idea is instead that
something being desired is good evidence (the sole available evidence, Mill thinks!) that it’s
desirable. (The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people
actually see it – quote chapter 4 – so if we can see people desiring happiness then, it follows
that happiness is desirable)

Problem with step 2: the egoist will care about their own happiness, but reject that the
general happiness matters too. (Agree with step 1 but disagree with step 2)
Reply: Mill’s assumptions are important here. First, he is directing this to people who already
care about morality (individual who think that there is more to morality), not egoists (could
anyone change the mind of the egoist anyway?). Secondly, Mill is committed to the
impartiality (happiness counts equally to everyone else and hence could be sum up in
aggregated when calculating the general happiness).

Problems with step 3: we do desire things other than happiness (not only instrumental
goods), e.g., virtue.
Reply: virtue is desirable in itself, but only because it’s a part of happiness (virtue is a mean
to happiness). We start by wanting virtue as a means to happiness, but then we end up
associating it with pleasure (and its lack with pain). So, virtue becomes desired for its own
sake.

“But if this doctrine be true, the principle of utility is proved. Whether it is so or not, must
now be left to the consideration of the thoughtful reader.” (Mill, 1998, 4.12, p. 86)

Potential merits of utilitarianism:

• Utilitarianism is simple.
• Utilitarianism is action-guiding and practical.
• Utilitarianism is impartial.
• Utilitarianism is common-sensical.
• Utilitarianism is progressive.

4
4. Objections to Utilitarianism

Problem 1: Justice and rights need to have a place in a moral theory. Utilitarianism
implies that we can violate them, if that maximises happiness.

Think about the following cases…

Case 1: A nearby town has seen a series of violent crimes lately. The sheriff is confronted
by the mayor, who tells her that unless she executes the one person who is the town jail at
the moment, whom the whole population believes to be the criminal, there will without
doubt be a terrible riot, in which many people will almost certainly be seriously injured or
killed. The person who is in jail has no friends or family, and the sheriff knows he is
innocent. Should the sheriff execute the innocent who is in jail?

Case 2: At the nearby hospital, a doctor has 5 patients who all require a lifesaving
transplant (of different organs). As it happens, a lone traveler arrives at the hospital, just
for a routine check. It turns out that he is a perfect match for all 5 patients. Should the
doctor sacrifice the life of this lone traveler in order to save the lives of 5 patients?

The issue: If we follow the utilitarian logic, it seems that the sheriff should execute the
innocent and the doctor should kill the traveller to save his 5 patients – this would
maximise the good. However, such actions would clearly be in violation of justice and of
these people’s rights. Utilitarianism doesn’t value people’s rights and doesn’t value
justice, which makes it a poor moral theory.

Utilitarian reply: this is a confusion between the criterion of right and the decision
procedure – happiness is promoted in the long-run (the crime might be exposed) if we
follow common sense morality (refraining from these actions would bring about most
happiness).

Response:
1) but if the sheriff and the doctor do these things, the utilitarian has to say it was the
right action – in a case where we can’t think of a bad long-term consequence
(even if it preaches against it in theory);

Utilitarian might say that respecting peoples right is more conducive to

helping us live with each other. Furthermore, there is no certainty that these
immoral acts could be hidden away forever. However:

2) for the utilitarian, rights and justice don’t matter in the right way.

It would be reductionist to reduce justice and rights to utilitarianist terms

where only the outcome of an action matter. Rights shouldn’t be treated as
instrumentally good just because it is conducive towards the promotion of
greatest happiness, in fact , rights and justice will still be relevant even when
they conflict with happiness.

5
Problem 2: Utilitarianism is very (too?) demanding – it requires a radical change of our
way of life.

Think about this case: on your way to work, you see a child who appears to be drowning
in a shallow pond. You could wade in and pull the child out, but of course your clothes
would be muddy and you may be late. Do you have an obligation to rescue the child? If
we ought to help the child, we are also ought to help the poor globally, given that the
situation doesn’t differ in any morally relevant aspect.

1. If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby

sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do
it.
2. Suffering and death caused by lack of food, shelter, or medical care are bad.
3. Helping people in need in faraway countries is in our power.
4. Physical distance doesn’t make a moral difference.
5. Hence, we ought morally to help the global poor, as long as we don’t have to sacrifice
anything of comparable moral importance. (Just because other is there to help doesn’t
mean that I don’t have a duty to do so)
(Singer, 1972)

Do we have a duty to give most of our possessions away to relieve the suffering of the
poor?

The issue: Utilitarianism is very (maybe too!) demanding. It requires huge sacrifices as a
mean to maximise utility and achieve an optimum outcome. It implies that we ought to
radically change our lives (put efforts into preventing awful things that happen in the
world). It implies that we’re acting wrongly most of the time (The principle of
impartiality require that we take everyone– potentially affected by our action – into
consideration, hence in theory we should donate more to charity and spend less on
ourselves).

Utilitarian reply: the objection rests on a confusion between criterion of right and the
decisions procedure of utilitarianism. We need to not focus on the greatest happiness
principle in our everyday life!

Response: but don’t we need to use the greatest happiness principle when we see that
common sense morality has it wrong? (one might become selfish and forgot the
importance of impartiality)

Utilitarian reply: “bite the bullet” – morality is very demanding (hence the necessity to
radically change our life), but so what? Who said it has to be easy? We should therefore
make gradual change to common sense morality and accept that morality in itself is
demanding.

Response: utilitarianism stops being practical (and is extremely demanding), as it’s not
sensitive to human psychology (people might not change radically).

6
 Discussion tasks: please work on the discussion tasks and think of any questions that you
have about the lecture – we will discuss all of that in the live session!
• Discussion task 1: Do you agree with the utilitarian that the right action is the action
that produces the most overall utility for everyone affected? Why or why not?
• Discussion task 2: What do you take to be the strongest reasons in favour of
utilitarianism?
• Discussion task 3: Can the utilitarian successfully overcome the objections discussed
in episode 3?

Nozick’s objection:
Authenticity, truth
Purpose (goal) – progress
Just dessert
Fear of change

Feeling of

There is more to the state of pleasure then to the seeming state of pleasure.

Try to even out the case as much as possible.

Mill and politics – utilitarianism and tyranny of the majority.

Utilitarian is instrumental to the greater good.
Force others to accept higher pleasure, liberty and rights is conflicted.
Mills based his argument on totalitarians – happiness is in a society full of liberty.
Utilitarianism justifies all his policy.

7
Proof of the principle of utility: additional feature – potential merit – details

What kind of feature should moral theories consist?

It is a simple theory of the good, there is no space for confusion. Pretty simple answer: what
is good life, happiness and morality.

It is practical and action guiding. Moral theory can help us figure out what to do. It give us
clear response to what we should do = maximise happiness

It is Impartial – disinterested in benevolent spectator; generally, moral is valuable. No one’s

happiness should be given more weight.

Common sensical- intuitive judgement, what to do and whats right and wrong. Matches our
intuitive judgement.

Progressive = expose some prejudice that we have. Went against prejudice of the time.
Provide us with moral critique. Take into account sentients being other than human being.
force of radical and progressive societal change.

Singer argument
Utilitarianism is too demanding: people don’t comply. If we would the world would have
been different. Temporal and special distance: mill and singer: feature of human psychology
– moral duty doesn’t depend on temporal and special distance.
Decreasing quality of life.

Common sense morality: could such senses clash with utilitarian ideas?
The greatest happiness principle: does every single action require time to scrutinise.
The common-sense morality: secondary principle to guide us.

When in conflict; we should go with common sense morality for most of the time; we should
only bring out greatest happiness principle when common sense morality seems fishy, or
when two or more common sense morality clash. Maybe it is used when different moral
theories clashed?

It is not a comfortable place for utilitarian. Short term vs long term utility – does this justify
that we should stick with common sense morality to maximise happiness.

Utilitarianism lacks constraints, it is missing something – we have rights and rights shouldn’t
be violated – is morality more than just maximising happiness?

Impartial relationship assumption – a flaw?

Wont always be able to be strictly impartial, especially close to us.

Is sacrificing a person, right?

Thought experiment = we can place constraint on designing case.
For instance, if in isolated instance, a doctor is right to sacrifice the patient. Isn’t this strange,
as though utilitarianism is missing something. Right violation, violation of justice.

8
However, what if we are not in an isolated condition. On a global level vs on an individual
level.

Reflect on this and rewatch.

Mill’s incorporation of virtue into the theory: Don’t we desire virtue for its own sake?
Virtue is an ingredient of happiness. It is a means to happiness. We derive pleasurable
experience from virtue; we might mistakenly think that we can separate the two but it still
comes back to the idea of pleasurable.

Can it falsified.

Utilitarian framework
Balance of happiness and pain. The calculation of happiness and pain therefore justify this
one person (painless killing, and the person don’t have family). The five person that is saved
has family and friends.

What if one person has family and friends, while the other who is saved got cancer.
There are consequences that we don’t really know about. How exactly can we do the
utilitarian calculation? The cluelessness objection.

One way to answer:

Objective rightness: what actually happen, what is right and wrong based on the actual
consequences. Objectively killing 1 people is wrong.
Subjective rightness: deal with expected and probable consequences. The best we can do is to
anticipate consequences subjectively. (Roger)

This shows a limitation of utilitarianism.

How do we draw the boundary between greatest happiness principle and common-sense
morality; could we be habituated with common sense morality, do we then have to
check every common sense?

Mill thinks common sense morality based on utilitarian standard. Maybe we should pay a
little attention to the effects of our action. If we were to hit everyone on the street, no
calculation is needed to determine that our action is constituting pain and harm (observe the
reaction of the people).

Boundaries is blurred but the possible response is above.

The idea is that we can go around and observe the effect.

However, consider slavery and human right?

Epistemology question for utilitarian agent. When is common sense morality is fishy? Can
we construct a way to think about common sense morality? Can we take a step forward and
ask woman or observe woman’s thought? Could we devise some way? Are we making sure
that we are thinking impartially?

It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied?

9
Is he leaving consequentialism? He is making distinction between higher and lower pleasure.
We should be pursuing higher pleasure because the quality and nature of pleasure matters.
Mill argues that that is why we cant put it on the scale. They are valuable because it is
pleasureable – fundamentally pleasure is the ultimate desireable thing – however, why isit
that higher pleasure more superior than lower pleasure.

Could it be that nobility or dignity can be valuable in itself?

Still holding on to consequentialist view of maximising pleasure.

10