The Utilitarian Ethics

The Utilitarian Ethics

Utilitarianism maintains that everyone desires happiness and pleasure.
Accordingly, an act is considered as morally good it is produces the greatest
amount of happiness with everyone (greatest good of the greatest number)
Pag madami ang matutuwa, ang kilos ay ituturing na katanggap tanggap o tama.
Ang sinusunod dito ay ang kung ano ang nakakapagpaligaya sa nakakarami. (RULE OF THE MAJORITY)

 The rightness and wrongness if an action are determined by the goodness and
badness of their consequence (outcome).
 (If we will compare this to Immanuel Kant’s Duty Ethics, an action is good regardless of its
consequences for as long as it is your duty. Kant didn’t think of its consequences/outcome,
Here in utilitarianism, consequence or outcome matters because it is the ultimate
determinant whether an action is considered to be morally good or not.)
The Utilitarian Ethics
 This philosophy is greatly influenced by Thomas Hobbes who put an emphasis on
the people’s selfish concern for their won is pleasure.
 The Utilitarians were also aware if the idea of David Hume, who believed that people
would never be able to know the universal law.
 Morality then is focused on the people’s capacity for sympathy – tendency to consider the pleasure
of others. (What will make other people happy.)
 John Locke claimed that the aptness in us to produce pleasure is what we should
consider good; and the desire to produce pain is considered evil.

 Happiness of others serves as the basis of human goodness. (What makes

man happy according to Utilitarianism is pleasure, then pleasure to the majority is the standard of
goodness.)
Moral Standards
Utilitarian Ethics is founded on the principle of UTILITY.
 If you will try to look on the dictionary, one of the synonym of UTILITY is
USEFULNESS, then, what is useful is regarded as good. On this case, WHAT
ISUSEFUL TO THE MAJORITY or WHAT WOULD BENEFIT THE MAJORITY is regarded
as GOOD. Ordinarily, usefulness is determined by the amount of happiness
obtained. On the other side, UNUSEFULNESS to the majority is bad. If the act is not
useful, that means it brings pains to other people.
 When we think of the consequence of our action, we are thinking if it will be
beneficial to others– if they will benefit from it and if it will bring happiness to them,
then the action is considered to be morally accepted.
Principle of greatest number
 Action is good = produces greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
 Action is bad = produces harm than benefit for the greatest number of people.
The Utilitarian Ethics
• The Book, Introduction to the principles of morals and
legislation, of Jeremy Bentham with the sentence: “Nature
has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign
masters, pain and pleasure.”
• We have to follow the principle of the Greatest Happpiness,
i.e., choose that action that leads to the greatest happiness
for the greatest number of people.
For Bentham, in every action that a person would take s/he needs to think first if it will
brought happiness or pain to greatest number of people.
• Bentham rejected all monarchies and established churches, claiming that
“all government is in itself one vast evil for not being able to provide its
subordinates with the necessary happiness that each one experiences.”
The Utilitarian Ethics
 Bentham and Mill held the idea that the human person
should perform an action that will bring happiness to the
greatest number of people.
 The rightness and wrongness of an action are determined by
the goodness and badness of their consequence.
 Principle of utility
 Amount of pleasure and amount of pain
 Utilitarianism – “Actions are good insofar as they tend to
promote happiness, bad as they tend to produce
unhappiness.”
 Pleasure – is the determinant of an action as good.
 The morality of action as entirely dependent on consequence
or results of human well-being of OTHERS or more so of the
WHOLE SOCIETY.
The Utilitarian Ethics
• One may be deceived that Utilitarianism is entirely similar with
Epicureanism, however, what distinguishes the two school of thought is
that, utilitarianism thinks of the well being of the society-MAJORITY
while epicureanism thinks only of one’s welfare, happiness of an
individual or of the self.
• The main concern of utilitarianism is the consequences, effects, results and
the outcomes if an action, it is for the reason that this may be rightly called
“teleological.” It comes from the Greek Word “telos” which means ends or
purpose.
• Every human person ought to choose the action, among the many other
possible ones, that produces the most benefits, i.e., comfort or happiness,
at the least cost of pain or unhappiness. Indeed, some pains may result
from the action that human beings may take. However, what is important is
that each person should do the action that has greatest possible balance of
happiness over unhappiness for all individuals affected.
The Utilitarian Ethics
In contrast with the claim of Epicureanism, Utilitarianism as introduced by
Bentham and Mill tried to avoid any sense of individualism or
subjectivism. On this note, they gave another alternative
formulation of the Principle of Utility which is Principle of the
Greatest Number

An action is good if it produces the greatest happiness for the

greatest number of people. And bad if it produces more harm
than benefit for the greatest number of the individual.

 Principle of Equity – action is good if it provides equal

benefits or happiness for the greatest number of
individuals concerned. (This is also implied in the alternative
formulation.)
 The Hedonistic Calculus (Jeremy Bentham)
 Universal happiness is the common. Bentham rejected Kant’s view of duty or conscience as the
criterion of moral value of good and evil. He held that only pleasure can be accepted as proper
measure or criterion of right conduct.
 Jeremy Bentham devised a pleasure-pain calculus or the hedonistic calculus, a method of
determining which of alternative actions would be preferable because of the amount of pleasure to
be anticipated. This consists of the following:
1. Intensity – how strong (the more intense, the better)
2. duration – how long (the longer, the better)
3. certainty – how like or unlike it will occur (the more certain, the better)
4. propinquity – how soon will it last (the longer it lasts, the better)
5. fecundity – how likely it will produce more (the greater the chance that an action will produce
pleasure, the better)
6. purity – relative absence of pain (the purer the pleasure, the better)
7. extent of action – number of people affected (the greater number of people affected, the better)
The Hedonistic Calculus (Jeremy Bentham)
 Bentham maintained an individual’s egoistic pleasure as a goal of a good action.
 This egoistic pleasure is shared because the pleasure and interests of one person
coincide with those of others.
 Therefore, Calculate carefully the amount of pleasure and pain that any act will
bring.
 After calculating both, the amount of pain should be subtracted from the amount of
pleasure in order to determine the balance. (Pleasure should be greater than pain, if
it is what is obtained, then the action is good.)
The Benevolent-Spectator Principle
 John Stuart Mill disagreed with hedonistic calculus that he
modified Bentham’s egoistic principle.
 Reasons:
1. impossible to calculate the amount of pleasure and pain
which can be obtained from a certain action.
2. No means by which a human person will be able to determine
which is more intense between pleasurable sensations ot he
more acute between two pains.
 Mill placed greater importance on the happiness of all rather than
one’s own happiness.
The Benevolent-Spectator Principle
 Happiness of all should always be taken into consideration
before making a moral decision.
 The is a need eed for us to choose acts that produce for us the
greatest quantity of pleasure, help other achieve their own
happiness in that way we would be able to secure our own. -
(Greatest Happiness Principle)
 Yes, Mill accepted the Greatest Happiness Principle of Bentham, however, he
added another criterion, that is, the quality of ALTRUISM (OTHERNESS). This
means that one’s own happiness should not be the standard but rather the
happiness of all the concerned.
 According to Mill, in the task of choosing between one’s own happiness and
the happiness of other, one should be impartial as an disinterested and
benevolent spectator.
 Act Utilitarianism vs Rule Utilitarianism
 Both Bentham and Mill maintained that the principle of utility should always be
considered in terms of one’s own moral decisions.
Bentham
ACT UTILITARIANISM – the rightness or
wrongness of an act is determined by its effect
on the general happiness. (Will the action bring
happiness to greatest number of people? If YES then
it is a right action. If NO, then action is considered to
be wrong.)
Mill
RULE UTILITARIANISM – people must evaluate
the moral correctness of an action not in
reference to its impact on the general happiness,
but rather, with respect to the impact on the
general happiness of the rule that the action
embodies. (In reference to the law, if the action is
right even if there would be a least number of people
that will be happy, then action is still considered to be
wrong.)
Act Utilitarianism vs Rule Utilitarianism
Bentham
ACT UTILITARIANISM
e.g. death penalty to a convicted rapist – here,
this will be judged as good since many will be
happy especially those families of his/her
victims. More so, it will also bring
comfort(happiness) even to the non-victims for
they would no longer worry that same thing
will happen to their loved ones. Here, death
penalty is good or morally acceptable.
Mill
RULE UTILITARIANISM
e.g. executing a rapist may be allowed by a law
in a certain nation, however, it will remain as a
form of killing, and killing is always wrong,
then, death penalty being against the rule –
you shall not kill or no one has the right to kill
another person, then it remains to be wrong or
morally unacceptable.
Act Utilitarianism vs Rule Utilitarianism
Bentham
ACT UTILITARIANISM
e.g. death penalty to a convicted rapist – here,
this will be judged as good since many will be
happy especially those families of his/her
victims. More so, it will also bring
comfort(happiness) even to the non-victims for
they would no longer worry that same thing will
happen to their loved ones. Here, death penalty
is good or morally acceptable.
Mill
RULE UTILITARIANISM
e.g. executing a rapist may be allowed by a
law in a certain nation, however, it will
remain as a form of killing, and killing is
always wrong, then, death penalty being
against the rule – you shall not kill or no one
has the right to kill another person, then it
remains to be wrong or morally
unacceptable.
Act Utilitarianism vs Rule Utilitarianism
Another example

Bentham Mill
ACT UTILITARIANISM
RULE UTILITARIANISM
e.g. President Duterte’s fight against drugs.
e.g. Killing the drug addicts remains to be
It killed many persons involved in drugs,
morally unacceptable since regardless they
this is justifiable because it brings
have been involved in illegal substances
happiness or pleasure on the part of the
that may lead them to do different form of
public since their security is
crimes, still, it is a form of killing.
insured/guaranteed.
Critique on Utilitarianism
 Following Utilitarianism, it is allowed to sacrifice the few if it is for the betterment of the
majority. On this ground, one can ask, what about the rights of the minority? (How about the
minority? The least number of people? Is it right to exclude them just because they are only few and what we
need to prioritize is the majority?– which is the largest number of people.)
 This is a form of injustice for it would appear that some are more important than others. People are unequally
treated. Always remember, everyone has rights, then either you belong to the majority or minority, both have
rights.
 Another example, those who lost their lands, specifically those who live in the mountain ranges. Their lands
were forcedly bought from them by various businessman who would say that they would open countless job
opportunities to the public, however, the rights of those who live in the mountains were sacrifice. Their rights
are of equal value with the rights of the public. All of them are human. No on is greater than the other.
 Evil motives is acceptable for as long as it produce desirable results to everybody.
 Accepting this principle would mean, the action of Robinhood is commendable or morally acceptable
because his act of stealing goods from the rich produces desirable result, since it benefits the majority. But
despite of the consequence/outcome of such act, we believe that stealing would always be wrong or
inacceptable.
In general..
• Utilitarianism maintains that everyone desires happiness and pleasure.
• Accordingly, an act is considered as morally good it is produces the greatest amount of
happiness to everyone. (greatest good of the greatest number)
• The rightness and wrongness if an action are determined by the goodness and badness of
their consequence (outcome).
• Moral principle of utilitarianism = Principle of utility which states that actions are good
insofar as they tend to promotes happiness, bad as they tend to promote unhappiness.
Alternative formulations:
a. Principle of greatest number (alternative formulation)
 Action is good = produces greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
 Action is bad = produces harm than benefit for the greatest number of people.
b. Principle of Equity
 Action is good = if it provides equal benefits or happiness for the greatest number of people concerned.