MODULE THREE: THE UTILITARIAN ETHICS

At the end of this module, students should be able to:

 explain the basic idea of Utilitarianism.
 apply the basic idea of Utilitarianism to specific moral issues.
 apply the Utilitarian reasoning to a variety of cases in the real world.
 discuss various issues on Utilitarianism.

INTRODUCTION
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham and is developed
and popularized by John Stuart Mill. As the term suggests, utilitarianism is
founded on the principle of utility, which adheres to the belief that an act is good
or morally right if it promotes happiness and bad or immoral if it tends to produce
pain.

The key, therefore, in utilitarianism is the principle of happiness. Hence, again, in

utilitarianism, an act is good or morally right if it produces greatest happiness to
the greatest number of people; and bad or immoral if it produces more harm or
pain than benefits or happiness to the greatest number of people. This explains
why the utilitarian would not care whether the action is done out of deception, lie
or manipulation as long as it produces maximum benefits to many people.

For example, the act of condemning a terrorist to death is morally right (that is,
good) for the utilitarian because this action produces equal benefits or greatest
happiness to the greatest number of people concerned.

BRIEF HISTORY OF UTILITARIANISM

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832), who lived in London during the Industrial
Revolution, was a philosopher and social reformer who wished to alleviate the
period’s dreadful living conditions. Poverty, disease, overcrowding, child labor,
lack of sanitation, and miserable prison and factory conditions inspired Bentham
to be an agent of social reform. He graduated from Oxford at the age of fifteen
and used his prodigious gifts as social critic and legal and constitutional reformer.

He became the leader of a group of individuals, including James Mill (1773– 1836)
and John Stuart Mill, who espoused the principles of a moral philosophy
called utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was an influential force in eighteenth and
nineteenth-century England, and Bentham personally influenced the British
legislature to adopt virtually all of his proposals.

The guiding principle of Bentham’s thought was the principle of utility: human
actions and social institutions should be judged right or wrong depending upon
their tendency to promote the pleasure or happiness of the greatest number of
people. A popular formulation of the principle is “promote the greatest happiness
for the greatest number.” Bentham himself defined the principle of utility as “that
principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to
the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of
the party whose interest is in question.” It was the first moral philosophy to give a
significant place to nonhuman animals

A REVOLUTION IN ETHICS. Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) made a powerful

argument for a novel conception of morality. Morality, he urged, is not about
pleasing God, nor is it about being faithful to abstract rules; instead, it is about
making the world as happy as possible. Bentham believed in one ultimate moral
principle, the “Principle of Utility.” That principle requires us, in all circumstances,
to “maximize happiness”—in other words, to produce the greatest total balance
of happiness over unhappiness, or of pleasure over suffering.

Bentham led a group of radicals who worked to reform the laws and institutions
of England along utilitarian lines. One of his followers was James Mill, the
distinguished Scottish philosopher, historian, and economist. James Mill’s son,
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), would become the next leading advocate of
utilitarian ethics. The younger Mill’s advocacy was even more elegant and
persuasive than Bentham’s.

To understand why the Principle of Utility was so radical, consider what it leaves
out of morality: It says nothing about God, nor does it speak of abstract rules
“written in the heavens.” Morality is not viewed as obedience to a list of ancient
proclamations. morality is not “a system of nasty puritanical prohibitions . . .
designed to stop people [from] having fun.” Rather, ethics is about the happiness
of beings in this world, and nothing more; and we are permitted—even required
—to do what is necessary to bring about the most happiness.
UTILITARIANISM AND THE REAL-WORLD ISSUES

First Issue: Euthanasia. Sigmund Freud, the father of modern psychoanalysis had
a well-known love of the cigar. The natural progression of this vice was the
development of oral cancer for which he underwent a lengthy ordeal. An account
is given in this article of Sigmund Freud's illness and care following the diagnosis
of his oral cancer. The role of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide is also
discussed.

He was a heavy smoker with a 20-cigar/day habit. In 1923, a diagnosis of

squamous cell carcinoma of the palate was made, for which he underwent a
lengthy ordeal which span a total of 16 years. During this period, he bluntly
refused to quit smoking. Freud consulted many specialists (otolaryngologists, oral
and maxillofacial surgeons, prosthodontists and general surgeons), during the
course of his ordeal with oral cancer. He underwent 34 surgical procedures before
his eventual death in 1939 through euthanasia.

Continued indulgence in smoking and procrastination on the part of Freud, as well

as mediocrity, negligence and incompetence on the part of the first surgeon that
operated on Freud, could partly be responsible for his lengthy ordeal.

Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), the legendary psychologist, was diagnosed with oral
cancer after a lifetime of cigar smoking. During his final years, Freud’s health went
up and down, but in early 1939 a large swelling formed in the back of his mouth.
The cancer was active and inoperable, and he was also suffering from heart
failure. As his bones decayed, they cast off a foul smell, driving away his favorite
dog. Mosquito netting had to be draped over his bed to keep flies away.

On September 21, at the age of 83, Freud took his friend and personal physician,
Max Schur by the hand and said, “My dear Schur, you certainly remember our
first talk. You promised me then not to forsake me when my time comes. Now it’s
nothing but torture and makes no sense anymore.”

Forty years earlier Freud had written, “What has the individual come to . . . if one
no longer dares to disclose that it is this or that man’s turn to die?” Dr. Schur said
he understood Freud’s request. He injected Freud with a drug in order to end his
life. “He soon felt relief,” Dr. Schur wrote, “and fell into a peaceful sleep.”
Second Issue: Marijuana. In 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte declared
that drug abuse was “public enemy number one” in the Philippines. Since then,
billions of pesos on law enforcement, prison construction, military action, and
public-opinion campaigns were spent, all designed to reduce the use of illicit
drugs. And every local government joined in.

Today, thousands of people are prisoners of the Philippines' Drug War; part of
those of people incarcerated in the Philippines are locked up primarily due to
nonviolent drug offenses. Despite its name, the War on Drugs targets only some
drugs. Many drugs are perfectly legal. Anyone can buy over-the-counter
medications, which contain such drugs as aspirin. Also legal are three substances
that millions of Filipinos are addicted to alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine.

Among those villains is marijuana. The law has always classified marijuana as an
outlawed. Thus, under law, nobody in the Philippines may grow, possess, or
distribute cannabis, including doctors and pharmacists. Marijuana, it seems, has
been one of the main enemies in the War on Drugs.

A day after President Duterte joked about using marijuana to keep him awake; he
again reiterated his approval for the legalization of medical marijuana. A couple of
years back, the President replied when asked by a television reporter on the
subject: “Medical marijuana, yes, because it is really an ingredient of modern
medicine. There are medicines being developed, or are now in the market, that
contain marijuana for medical purposes.”

Presidential Spokesman Salvador Panelo explained that the President was in favor
of “controlled” and “regulated use of marijuana for medical purposes.” The
President strongly opposed to the use of marijuana as a recreational drug. Should
we allow medical marijuana to be legalized here in our country? This was what I
posed in my social-media account recently.

Marijuana, a.k.a cannabis, pot, weed, hemp, or reefer, has been a topic of heated
debates for many years, but now, it is in the spotlight more than ever. The issue
about the use of this drug is becoming more and more topical because people are
debating whether or not to legalize it. It is said that this drug can help cure
diseases, including cancer, glaucoma, and AIDS. Other people claim that it is a
great stress reliever and a useful medicine for pain. Even doctors prescribed this
drug to people who have problems in sleeping and eating, but here in the
Philippines marijuana is still not legalize. Many said that people will abuse it and
that's the reason why marijuana is still not legalize. What do you think?

Medical Benefits of Marijuana. The most common use for medical marijuana in
the United States is for pain control. While marijuana isn’t strong enough for
severe pain (for example, post-surgical pain or a broken bone), it is quite effective
for the chronic pain that plagues millions of Americans, especially as they age.

In particular, marijuana appears to ease the pain of multiple sclerosis, and nerve
pain in general. Patients claim that marijuana allows them to resume their
previous activities without feeling completely out of it and disengaged. Along
these lines, marijuana is said to be a fantastic muscle relaxant, and people swear
by its ability to lessen tremors in Parkinson’s disease and also its use quite
successfully for fibromyalgia, endometriosis, interstitial cystitis, and most other
chronic pains.

Marijuana is also used to manage nausea and weight loss and can be used to treat
glaucoma. A highly promising area of research is its use for PTSD in veterans who
are returning from combat zones. Many veterans and their therapists report
drastic improvement and clamor for more studies, and for a loosening of
governmental restrictions on its study. Medical marijuana is also reported to help
patients suffering from pain and wasting syndrome associated with HIV, as well as
irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s disease.

Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have now made marijuana
available for medical — and, in some states, recreational — purposes.

Third Issue: Cruelty to Animals. The treatment of animals has traditionally been
regarded as a trivial matter. Christians believe that man alone is made in God’s
image and that animals do not have souls. Thus, by the natural order of things, we
can treat animals in any way we like. Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) summed
up the traditional view when he wrote: Hereby is refuted the error of those who
said it is sinful for a man to kill brute animals; for by the divine providence they
are intended for man’s use in the natural order. Hence it is not wrong for man to
make use of them, either by killing them or in any other way whatever.
But isn’t it wrong to be cruel to animals? Aquinas concedes that it is, but he says
the reason has to do with human welfare, not the welfare of the animals:

“And if any passages of Holy Scripture seem to forbid us to be cruel to brute

animals, for instance to kill a bird with its young, this is either to remove man’s
thoughts from being cruel to other men, lest through being cruel to animals one
becomes cruel to human beings”.

Utilitarianism on Animal Abuse. One of the main emphasis of utilitarianism is

animal rights. The utilitarian argument runs this way: Since nonhuman animals
are sentient beings, meaning they have the ability to feel pain and suffering, then
it is in your interest not to cause any harm to them.

It primarily focuses on the treatment of animals and how they should be treated
more humanely. It requires people to stop eating animals and experimenting on
them. The classical utilitarian, Jeremy Bentham, argued that the main principle of
utility is that we must generate the most happiness and the least unhappiness.
Suffering the animal only causes unhappiness. They believe that animals should
be treated just like humans. If they are able to feel pain or pleasure like humans,
then they should receive similar treatment.

In sum, they highly encourage that we ought to care for any creature that feels
pain or pleasure (Rachels, 2015). Furthermore, utilitarian requires humans to
treat the animals like humans and if they fail to do this, then, we should not use
them to experiment on or to kill and eat. This is a positive aspect to the theory
because we take animals for granted.

Benthams’s Felicific Calculus.

How does Bentham view happiness? For Bentham, happiness is simply the
absence of pain. Bentham introduced the “felicific” calculus to measure the
degree of happiness or pleasure that a specific action may produce. The felicific
calculus is also called the utility calculus or hedonistic calculus. It includes
intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. For
Bentham,

 the more intense (intensity) the pleasure is, the better;

 the longer (duration) it lasts, the better;
  the more certain (certainty) that it will happen, the better;
 the closer (propinquity) that it will occur, the better;
 the greater the possibility (fecundity) that it will be followed by another
pleasure, the better;
 the purer (purity) the pleasure, the better;
 the greater the number of people that it benefits (extent), the better.

Formula for Felicific Calculus. The formula of Bentham’s felicific calculus goes like
this: Happiness – Pain = Balance.

For Bentham, the Balance is the basis of the morality of an action. In other words,
for Bentham, if the balance is in favor of happiness, then the act is morally right,
and if it is in favor of pain, then it is morally wrong. How do we do this?

Bentham said we just need to sum up all the pleasures and pains produced by the
action. If the balance is in favor of please, then the act is morally right. If the
balance is in favor of pain, then the action is morally wrong. Put in simple
mathematical calculation,

If an act produces 12 pleasures and 6 pains, then the balance is 6 which is in favor
of pleasure or happiness. Hence, if this is the case, then for Bentham the action is
morally right.

However, if the act produces 20 pains and just 5 pleasures, then the balance is 15
which is in favor of pain. If this is the case, then for Bentham the act is morally
wrong.

IS PLEASURE ALL THAT MATTERS? According to this claim, it is only pleasure that
moves people to action, and only pleasure is the ultimate end of human action.
On this view, the underlying reason I eat chocolate cake, or go for a walk, or chat
with friends is because I find doing these things pleasurable. I pursue my goals
with the ultimate aim of enjoying the pleasure I would gain from achieving them.
This goes for all human actions. We act in ways we take to promote our pleasure,
and avoid acting in ways which promote our displeasure.

But is this really all there is to human motivation? Is it really true

that only pleasure moves us to action? Consider the following examples: A single
mother who works multiple jobs in order to save money to secure her children’s
future, or a spy who endures painful torture in order to protect their nation’s
secrets, or a boy strolling down the street who kicks a rock as he walks by it ‘just
because he felt like it’. It is not clear in these examples that the person acting is
doing so only for the sake of pleasure.

What pleasure does the single mother gain from laboring away while trying to
support her children? Is that she loves and cares about her children and their
future not a more plausible motive for her actions rather than that she finds
laboring her life away pleasurable? Does the spy not endure pain for the reason
that they deeply value loyalty to their nation rather than for the sake of some
masochistic pleasure? Do people not sometimes just do things ‘for the hell of it’?

ARE CONSEQUENCES PLEASURE ALL THAT MATTERS? The consequences of our

actions are important. They matter. But if the utilitarian is right, then
consequences are all that matters. Is this correct?

The main principle of utilitarian moral theory, the principle of utility, states
that the right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness. John
Stuart Mill adapted Jeremy Bentham's theory, and stated that happiness is
pleasure and the absence of pain. However, Mill clarified that there are higher
and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are the pleasures of the intellect, and
the lower pleasures are the pleasures of the senses. The upshot is that morally
speaking, it is not just the quantity of pleasure that matters to the utilitarian, but
the quality as well.

On the positive side, if we applied this theory to our lives we might become more
unselfish, and many of the problems we face might be alleviated. This is because
everyone's happiness counts the same. Prejudice and discrimination have no
place here, because each individual counts the same when calculating the
happiness produced by our actions. Mill himself fought for women's rights,
against slavery, and for fair labor practices, which is consistent with his utilitarian
stand.

Our world is governed by rules, either implied or implemented, and early on we

are taught to live by these rules. Society expects us to act in such a way that will
conform to these rules in order to live happy, harmonious lives. We do things,
careful not to break any of the rules that might hurt or cause harm to others.
Sometimes though, we do things not in accordance with the rules but based on
what we feel is the right thing to do.

Some people believe that it is morally right to break a rule in order to do a greater
good. With this argument, it becomes morally right to steal food or medicine to
save a life. But then, will it be also morally right to kill a paedophile in order to
save children from being harmed by him? The discussion and argument continues
as long as people have different views on morality and the proper way to act in
society.

Some people adhere to the belief that the moral significance of an action is
determined by its outcome. They believe that the greatest pleasure of the
greatest number of people should be the result of the action that you make which
will render it morally right. This theory or belief is called utilitarianism.

There are two types of utilitarianism. One is Act utilitarianism and the other is
Rule utilitarianism. While these two reflect on the consequences or usefulness of
an action, they are two different views.

KINDS OF UTILITARIANISM

1. Act utilitarianism. It is the belief that an action becomes morally right when it
produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Act utilitarianism is often seen as the most natural interpretation of the utilitarian
ideal. If our aim is always to produce the best results, it seems plausible to think
that in each case of deciding what is the right thing to do, we should consider the
available options (i.e. what actions could be performed), predict their outcomes,
and approve of the action that will produce the most good.
Act utilitarianism is the belief that it is alright to break a rule as long as it brings a
greater good, while Rule utilitarianism is a belief that even if a rule cannot bring a
greater good, breaking it will not either.

2. Rule utilitarianism. It is the belief that an action can be morally right if it

conforms to the rules that will lead to the greatest good or happiness. It adheres
to the belief that the correctness of an action is determined by the correctness of
its rules and that if the correct rule is followed, the greatest good or happiness is
achieved.

It is a concept that believes that although following the rules does not always
produce the greatest good, not following it will not produce the greatest good
either. In the end, rule utilitarianism can become an act utilitarianism because
when breaking a rule produces a greater good, a sub-rule can be made to handle
exceptions.

Unlike act utilitarian, rule utilitarian believes that we can maximize utility only by
setting up a moral code that contains rules. The correct moral rules are those
whose inclusion in our moral code will produce better results (more well-being)
than other possible rules. Once we determine what these rules are, we can then
judge individual actions by seeing if they conform to these rules.

SUMMARY. Utilitarian believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better
by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the
world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness).

They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are
based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings.
Instead, utilitarian think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its
positive contribution to human (and perhaps non-human) beings.

The task of determining whether utilitarianism is the correct moral theory is

complicated because there are different versions of the theory, and its supporters
disagree about which version is correct.