Utilitarianism

Hedonistic and Ideal Utilitarianism, Act and Rule

Utilitarianism

There is an old saying that ‘the end justifies the

means’.
:But it is an extreme view. For it is claimed here
that the consequence is the only important thing
that justifies an action.
:It means that if the end to be achieved is good,
then anything necessary to achieve that end is good.
Even lying, cheating, stealing and killing would be
justified so long as the end to be achieved is good.
• Contrariwise, views that claim that
consequences are important for assessing the
moral worth of an action are called
‘consequentialist’ view , or consequentialism.

Utilitarianism:
‘Utilitarianism’ is one of the types of
consequentialism.
Theoretical Framework of Utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism is the name applied to ethical theory

formulated by Jeremy Bentham( 1784-1832), James
Mill( 1773-1836) and John Stuart Mill( 1806-1873).
This theory places moral worth of an action in the
action’s consequences and emphasizes the good of
total society, not the benefits accruing to a single
individual or even a group of individuals.
• The early leader of Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham in his
book, An Introduction to the Principle of Morals and
legislation, suggests that moral judgments should be made
on the basis of the principle of utility.
:The attractiveness of this theory is that it is quantifiable
and decisions are made on the grounds of producing the
greatest utility (happiness) for the greatest number of
people.
For Bentham, pain is bad and pleasure is good. Thus an
action is bad if it produces a sum total of more pain than
pleasure.
• Bentham’s version of utilitarianism is a
quantitative approach. He says that the value
of pleasure or pain is measurable. To a number
of persons, pain and pleasure can be more or
less, according to seven circumstances (which is
called Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus):
1. Its intensity
2. Its duration
3. Its certainty or uncertainty
4. Its propinquity( nearness) or remoteness
5. Its fecundity ( productiveness)( i.e., the
chance it has of being followed by sensations
of the same)
6. Its purity (i.e., the chance of not being
followed by sensations)
7. Its extent (i.e., who are affected by it.)
• Bentham’s (gross)version is refined by later
interpreters, such as JS Mill.
• The refined version of utilitarianism rejects a
simplistic belief in pursuing the most pleasure
possible.
• They (e.g., J S Mill)maintain their view in favor
of the idea that incorporates qualitative
standards and evaluates pleasures of the mind
over pleasure of the body.
• For them, happiness seems to captures this broadened
sense best, and thus utilitarians sometimes call this principle
the ‘ greatest happiness principle’.

Criticism of this theory:

• Critics of this theory have charged that it is not a total
theory to ethical decision making, for by concentrating on
the consequences of actions it ignores intentions and
motives, which are also important in moral decision making.
• Utilitarianism also faces limitations in its seeming inability to
deal adequately with the rights of the individuals and minority
groups.
For example, if the greatest happiness of the greatest number of
people can be secured by denying rights to small groups, then
the utilitarian principle would seem to be unable to reject this
unethical conclusion.
The limitation of utilitarian considerations can also be seen in a
business context what is known as cost benefits analysis( a
process wherein monetary costs of a certain course of action are
waited against the benefit to be gained in other possible
actions).
UTILITARIAN ETHICS : AT A GLANCE

‘Greatest good for the greatest number’

: Emphasis on consequences and outcomes

:Business form is cost-benefit analysis

Difficulties with this view:

: Ignores Intention and motives
: Individual rights
: Rights of minorities
J S Mill’s reply to some of theses criticism:
In chapter five of his work Utilitarianism, JS Mill argues that the
concept of justice can be derived from considerations of utility.
For him ‘…actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness’
(Greek philosopher Epicurus maintained the same hedonistic
view, but the key difference between Epicurus and Utilitarians is
that the utilitarians do not look toward an individual’s pleasure
whereas Epicurus give emphasis on individual’s happiness.)
• What is the difference between utilitarianism
and the view of Aristotle?
(for answer see page 77 and 78 of Stewart's book)
The difference between pleasure and happiness
can be used to answer this question.
It seems that they are same as pleasure
(Utilitarians insist on this ) could be seen as
bringing happiness (Aristotal insists on this).
• As Stewart argues, they are different. Here are the
differences:
Differences Between Pleasure and Happiness
: Pleasure is quantitative, happiness is qualitative ;
: Happiness is a life long goal;
: Happiness requires a cognitive judgment (use of
reason is essential for this);
: Pleasure is not essential to achieving happiness.
• Hedonistic and Ideal utilitarianism
• How does one measure pleasure?
• Bentham : focuses only on the quantity of
pleasure; Thus it is called hedonistic utilitarianism.
• J S Mill : There is an important difference in the
quality of various pleasure. He says pleasures of
the mind are superior to those of the physical
side of our body, and for qualitative distinction
Mill’s one is called Ideal utilitarianism.
 Act and Rule Utilitarianism
• Bentham’s version of utilitarianism is called Act
Utilitarianism, and it involves some limitations as has been
mentioned above.

• This version does not appeal to general rules but judged the
rightness or wrongness of each act by its tendency to bring
about the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

• It goes against individual rights and rights of the minority.

Also it goes against law/ basic individual rights for the sake
of the greatest good of society.
: Mill, on the other hand, argues that no
amount of general good for society would
justify violation of personal liberty or the
restriction of women’s rights.
This modified form of utilitarianism is called
Rule Utilitarianism.
• According to this version, we should not use
utilitarian principles on a case by case basis.

• This principle should be used to develop and

defend rules that will bring about the best
consequences for society in the long run and
provide stability and security desired both by
individuals and community.