Chapter 2

UTILITARIANISM

FELIPE V. NANTES JR., PHD

Table of Contents
Chapter II: Utilitarianism
• The Principle of Utility
• Principle of the Greatest Number
• Justice and Moral Rights
Chapter Objectives
After presenting this chapter, you should be
able to:
• Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics;
• Distinguish between two utilitarian models: the
quantitative model of Jeremy Bentham and the
qualitative model of John Stuart Mill; and
• Apply utilitarianism in understanding and
evaluating local and international scenarios.
 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 Zulkifi bin Hir or Marwan, a Malaysian terrorist and bomb-
maker who had a $5 million bounty on his head.
Although the police operation was “successful” because of the death of Marwan, the
firefight that ensued claimed 67 lives – 44 Special Action Force (SAF) troopers, 18 Moro
Islamic Liberation Front fighters, and five civilians.
In one of the Congress investigations 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.
 Senator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate committee on
public order and dangerous drugs, argued otherwise. “Sinabi na ni
Senator Drilon na ito daw ay illegal, na hindi daw 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 na ganito, kung hindi pwedeng ilabas sa
publiko, pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive session.”
Senator Poe’s response leads us to ask: 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 rights when considering the
greatest benefit for the greatest number of people?
 THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
For Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), 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. On the other
hand, the principle also refers to pleasure as good if, and only if, they
produce more happiness than unhappiness.
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) supports Betham’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.
For Bentham and Mill, the pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain
are not only important principles— they are in fact the only principle in
assessing an action’s morality. Why is it justifiable to wiretap private
conversations in instances of treason, rebellion, espionage, and sedition?
Why is it preferable to alleviate poverty or eliminate criminality?
In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a
framework for evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called felicific
calculus, a common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that
some actions can produce.
Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than
quantity. An excessive quantity of what is otherwise pleasurable might
result in pain. Whereas eating the right amount of food can be
pleasurable, excessive eating may not be.
 THE PRINCIPLE OF THE GREATEST NUMBER

Utilitarianism is not only about our individual pleasures,

regardless of how high, intellectual, or in other ways noble it
is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number
affected by the consequences of our actions.
Utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure
more happiness for others.
Also, it implies that utilitarianism is not at all separate from
liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life
for all persons.
• Because of the premium given to the consequences of actions, Mill pushes
for the moral irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions:

He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally

right, whether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his
trouble; he who betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime,
even if his object be to serve another friend to whom he is under greater
obligations. But to speak only of actions done from the motive of duty,
and in direct obedience to principle: it is a misapprehension of the
utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive it as implying that people should
fix their minds upon so wide a generality as the world, or society at large.
 JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward
society’s pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
For him, rights are a valid claim on society and are justified by utility.
Utilitarians argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional
import because the category of rights is directly associated with the
individual’s most vital interests. All of these rights are predicated on
the person’s right to life. Mill describes:
 Mill describes:
To have a right, then is, I conceive, to have something which
society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes
on to ask why it ought, I can give him no other reason than general
utility. If that expression does not seem to convey a sufficient feeling
of the strength of the obligation, nor to account for the peculiar
energy of the feeling, it is because there goes to the composition of
the sentiment, not a rational only but also an animal element, the
thirst for retaliation; and this thirst derives its intensity, as well as its
moral justification, from the extraordinarily important and impressive
kind of utility which is concerned. The interest involved is that of
security, to everyone’s feelings the most vital of all interests.
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 principle, then these rights need neither be observed, nor be
respected. This is like saying that there are instances when the law is not morally
justified and, in this case, even objectionable.
While it can be justified why others violate legal rights, it is an act of injustice to
violate an individual’s moral rights. Going back to the case of wiretapping, it
seems that one’s right to privacy can be sacrificed for the sake of the common
good. This means that moral rights are only justifiable by considerations of
greater overall happiness.
DISCUSSION POINTS
1. Mill revises utilitarianism by arguing
for “higher” pleasures. Which
pleasures are higher?
2. Do you agree that happiness is the
pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance
of pain, and that all actions are
directed toward pleasure?
PROCESSING QUESTIONS
1. Does utilitarianism question individual
rights? What if violating the civil rights
of a minority increases the sum total of
pleasure of the majority?
2. Is it justifiable to build a basketball
court because there are basketball
fans, than to build a hospital because
there are fewer sick people?
QUESTION 1
What is utilitarianism and
why is it a kind of
consequentialist theory of
ethics?
ANSWER 1
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which asserts
that the morality of an action is dependent upon
or based on the usefulness of the action’s
consequences. It is a consequentialist theory
because it gives importance to the
consequences of action as the basis of morality,
where the goodness of an action is solely based
on the usefulness of its consequences.
QUESTION 2
What is the principle of
utility and what makes
pleasure good according to
this principle?
ANSWER 2
The principle of utility states that human beings by
nature desire for pleasure and avoid pain. A pleasure
is good if it produces more happiness. This implies
that a pleasure can be bad if it does not produce
more happiness. Sleeping is pleasurable if by such
pleasure it recharges you so that you can do your job
well afterwards. The pleasure of sleeping can be bad
the moment it leads you to be late in class or fail to
finish your job on time.
QUESTION 3
What is happiness according to
the principle of utility and what
makes an action right or wrong
according to this principle?
ANSWER 3
Happiness is the experience of intended
pleasure and the absence of pain. The pleasure
must be intended or desired and must not have
any admixture of pain. For example, I went to
the party to meet and mingle with my long-
time crush but I wasn’t able to do so, but
instead I met Jane De Leon, more beautiful and
sexy than my crush. Am I happy? Why not?
ANSWER 3 (continued)
An action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it
promotes the opposite of happiness, that is, pain.
Studying my lesson, though not pleasurable in itself, is
the right thing to do tonight considering that: 1) I have a
final quiz tomorrow which can make or break my making
it in the course; 2) I have not reviewed at all before
tonight, and I have no other more convenient time to
review than tonight. Studying my lesson gives me greater
chances of passing the course which will make me happy.
ANSWER 3 (continued)
Considering the same situation, it would be
wrong for me to have a drinking or Mobile
Legend session with my visiting high school
pals, though could be pleasurable to me, but
most probably will result to my flunking the
course, which will make me experience the
opposite of happiness.
QUESTION 4
What are the two ways by
which we find an action
pleasurable according to
Mill?
ANSWER 4
First, an action is pleasurable if it is pleasurable in itself.
Eating, sleeping, watching your favorite movie or TV
show, etc. are pleasurable in themselves. Second, an
action is pleasurable if it ultimately leads to the
promotion of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Going
to school and getting a degree, though not quite
pleasurable, leads to the pleasure of having better-
paying and more stable jobs in the future, and avoids
the pain of joblessness and financial instability and
poverty.
QUESTION 5
What is for Bentham and Mill the
only principle in assessing the
morality of human action and
why do they think so? Give some
concrete example.
ANSWER 5
The only principle in assessing the morality of an action is
the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain.
Bentham and Mill think so because they see human beings
as creatures of pleasure, that is, their well-being and the
value of their lives depend on pleasure and pain
experienced. A life of greater pleasure and free from pain
is worth-having while a life full of pain and suffering is
not. An action which brings pleasure or improve the
quality of life is good or morality right while one which
brings pain and suffering is bad or wrong.
QUESTION 6
Why does Mill argue against
Bentham that the quality of
pleasure is more preferable
than the quantity of pleasure?
ANSWER 6a
Because for Mill an excess of what is pleasurable
might/can result to pain. For example, eating is
pleasurable but excessive eating can lead to pain
or indigestion. Playing mobile games is good
when one needs to be entertained or to unwind
from a stressful day but playing too much might
lead one to neglect other more important things
in life like health, studies, family and work duties,
etc.
ANSWER 6b
Because for Mill actual choices of
knowledgeable people show that higher
intellectual pleasures are preferable than
purely sensual appetites. A good novel is
better than a porn magazine. Meeting a long
lost friend is preferable than partying with
casual friends. Truth is more preferable than
convenience. Justice than profit.
ANSWER 6c
Because for Mill no human beings in his/her
sane mind would exchange human qualities of
higher reason over animal pleasures. What do
you say of a student who prefers to stay in bed
and not enter his morning classes because he
feels lazy that day? Or a storekeeper who does
not immediately entertain you because he
can’t stop watching basketball on TV.
QUESTION 7
What does Mill mean by
this? “It is better to be a
human being dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied.”
ANSWER 7 (flexible answer)
According to Mill, human beings are capable of higher
(intellectual/rational) pleasures than base (sensual) pleasures.
Animals only know sensual pleasures and know nothing of
intellectual pleasures but human beings know both. Human
beings know better than sensual pleasures. She can be better
than that. What makes her human is the pursuit of intellectual
pleasures not plain animal pleasures. It is better to pursue
intellectual pleasures, fall short, and be dissatisfied than
simply pursue animal pleasures which are easier to get and be
surely satisfied. It is better to be human than to be an animal.
QUESTION 8
Utilitarianism is basically about
choosing an action which makes me
happy and avoiding what brings me
pain. But why can’t utilitarianism lead to
selfish acts? Give a concrete example.
ANSWER 8 (flexible answer)
Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts because mere
individual happiness contradicts the greatest
happiness principle. The greatest happiness principle
states that: What is good is that which promotes the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Individual happiness at the expense of others does not
really make the individual truly happy. But a happiness
which considers the happiness of the greatest number
of people is what makes an individual truly happy.
QUESTION 9
What is a right (karapatan)
for Mill and what makes a
right valid?
ANSWER 9
A right is a valid claim on society and is justified by the
principle of utility. It is something that society must give
and protect. A right is a valid right if it contributes or
serves the general good or the greatest happiness of the
greatest number. A right to presume innocent before
proven guilty is a valid right for it is advantageous to all
rather than deny this right to anyone. If everyone is denied
of this right then anyone can be falsely accused and suffer
imprisonment even after they are proven innocent.
QUESTION 10
What is justice for Mill?
ANSWER 10
Justice is a respect for rights directed toward
society’s pursuit for the greatest happiness for the
greatest number. Justice reigns when valid rights of
individuals and groups are recognized, honored,
promoted, and protected. Injustice occurs when
rights are violated without justifiable reasons. If I
have the right to speak and be heard, then society
has the obligation not to silence me and listen to me,
to promote and defend my right.
QUESTION 11
Why are utilitarians the
staunchest defenders of animal
rights? How can animals have
rights based on utilitarian
principles?
ANSWER 11
Because protecting the interest of animals has the
consequence of adding up to the sum-total of
happiness. Like humans, animals are capable of
pleasure and pain. Hence, their well-being is
equally governed by the utility principle.
Protecting the animals’ right to well-being (a life
free from unnecessary pain or suffering)
contributes to overall human pleasure.
QUESTION 12
Why does Mill think that
moral rights take
precedence over legal
rights?
ANSWER 12
A legal right needs to be morally justified on the
basis of the greatest happiness principle which is
grounded on moral rights, e.g., right to life,
liberty, property, happiness. Hence, when a legal
right conflicts with a moral right, it is tantamount
to having a law which infringes on a moral right—
it is an injustice. Such a law (legal right) is
unjustified under the greatest happiness principle.
ANSWER 12 (continued)
Citizens are morally permitted not to follow/obey
such unjust law. They are even morally obliged to
protest against that law. Citizen’s right to life,
liberty, and property takes precedence over the
government’s legal right to impose discipline and
social order. The very reason why discipline and
social order are imposed is to protect and
promote the lives of citizens.
ANSWER 12 (continued)
But if the very imposition of discipline, law and order
endangers the lives of citizens, then that would be
unjustifiable under the principle of utility. Take the
case of the film Equalizer where the government
outlaws all forms of emotions and their expressions
(no art, no music, no pets, no family, etc.). Also in
Hunger Games where the capital plays on the lives of
people for their cheap entertainment.
QUESTION 13
When is the case that legal
right may morally
justifiably override a moral
right?
ANSWER 13
When under extreme circumstances and
it is for the sake of a greater good or the
greatest good of the greatest number.
Right to property is a moral right, but the
government may override that right for
the common good.
ANSWER 13 (continued)
Freedom to travel or of abode could be
overridden in the case of suspected and
convicted criminals by legal right to protect
the citizens from further harm. The teacher
has the legal right to make a seat plan for
students which overrides the students moral
right to sit where they want.
QUESTION 14 (flexible answer)
Are all pleasures commensurable?
Can they be evaluated on a single
scale? Can some goods like
friendships be balanced against
other goods, like money?
ANSWER 14
There cannot be a common standard of pleasure as
you cannot use the same standard for both sensual
and intellectual pleasures. They are of entirely
different quality—qualitatively different. You cannot
compare the pleasure of eating ice cream and the
pleasure of a heart-t0-heart talk with a true friend.
The pleasure of a leisure walk cannot be compared
with the pleasure of promotion based on pure hard
work.
QUESTION 15 (flexible answer)

Mill revises utilitarianism

by arguing for “higher”
pleasures. Which pleasures
are higher?
ANSWER 15
Obviously, intellectual/spiritual pleasures are higher
than sensual/physical pleasures. Being satisfied
merely with physical pleasures is fitting for animals,
but the pleasures fitting for humans are intellectual:
truth, justice, beauty, goodness, etc. The pleasure of
truth is higher than the pleasure of money. The
pleasure of winning in mobile games is nothing to
the pleasure of making it in a subject with flying
colors.
QUESTION 16 (flexible answer)
Mill proposes that “higher” pleasures are
those preferred by the majority of
people. Do you agree that this is a good
way of distinguishing between higher
and lower pleasures? Can a well-informed
majority prefer higher pleasures?
ANSWER 16
I don’t think that the nobility of pleasures is
not determined by vote because the quality
and value of pleasure are determined by its
contribution to the human well-being and
quality of life and these concepts cannot be
fully accounted by the degree of physical
pleasures one experiences.
ANSWER 16 (continued)
The majority is sometimes misinformed or is
governed by whims and caprice. Most probably a
well-informed majority may prefer higher
pleasures unless they are also twisted or blinded
by their own prejudices. According to Niccolo
Machiavelli, “Men in general judge more from
appearances than from reality. All men have eyes,
but few have the gift of penetration.”
QUESTION 17 (flexible answer)
Does utilitarianism question
individual rights? What if violating
the civil rights of a minority
increases the sum total of
pleasure of the majority?
ANSWER 17
Sometimes, but basically utilitarianism
protects and promotes individual rights,
individual happiness. The more individual
pleasures are added to the sum-total of
happiness, the better. That is the
greatest happiness of the greatest
number.
ANSWER 17 (continued)
But when individual rights collides with rights of
more significant implications to the lives of a
greater number of people, then that can
question individual rights. Right to security is
more important to right to some sort of
convenience and comfort. More strict and
rigorous searches of baggage on ports sacrifices
a lot of individual convenience and comfort.
QUESTION 18 (flexible answer)
Do you agree that happiness is
the pursuit of pleasure and the
avoidance of pain, and that all
actions are directed towards
pleasure?
ANSWER 18
Sort of. I agree that happiness is the
pursuit of pleasure, base or noble; but I
don’t agree with the avoidance of pain
because sometimes we are willing to
experience pain to avoid other more
significant pains or to attain more
significant pleasures.
ANSWER 18 (continued)
I also agree that all actions are directed
towards pleasures. Even the masochist
loves pain because he/she derives
pleasure from pain. Those who avoid the
pleasure of sin and immorality is pursuing
the pleasure of a more profound
satisfaction and of immortality.
QUESTION 19 (flexible answer)
Are all pleasures comparable,
even objectionable pleasures?
What if the majority derives
pleasure from being sexist?
ANSWER 19
Obviously. In philosophy nothing is
incomparable and unobjectionable.
Nothing and no one is immune to
questioning. Not even kings, presidents,
or leaders of the church. No pleasures
are absolute and perfectly true in all
situations.
ANSWER 19 (continued)
Some pleasures are better than others. The
pleasure of studies is higher than the pleasure
of eating or playing. But to subject yourself to
extreme hunger or constant starvation for the
sake of getting higher grades is wrong when it
can lead to sickness or death. Too much study
and no play makes Johnny a dull boy.
ANSWER 19 (continued)
The principle of the greatest happiness for the
greatest number is never absolute. It is wrong to
subject one person to humiliation or discomfort
just because it brings pleasure to many. The right
to freedom from pain is more important than
anybody’s right to enjoy. However, the death or
potential death of one or more may be justified
for the life and security of greatest number.
QUESTION 20 (flexible answer)
Is it justifiable to build a
basketball court because there
are basketball fans, than to build
a hospital because there are
fewer sick people?
ANSWER 20
This question reiterates the answer to the
previous question (#19). The answer is
obviously no. The principle of greatest
number cannot be applied literally and
cannot compare with the principle of the
greater pleasure.
ANSWER 20 (continued)
The pleasure of entertainment is less significant
to the pleasure of health. Those who enjoy
basketball can or may get sick or injured and
they will surely need hospitals. And those who
are sick now may not necessarily appreciate
basketball. Hospital is everybody’s need while
basketball is not everybody’s need. Besides
needs are more important than wants.
QUESTION 21 (flexible answer)
When is it justifiable to torture
suspected criminals?
ANSWER 21
Torture is justifiable under extreme and
very rare circumstances like the “ticking
time-bomb scenario” where you have to
take your chances. In most cases, torture
is hardly justifiable even on utilitarian
grounds of good consequences.
ANSWER 21 (continued)
If torturing a criminal would surely (?) lead to a
valuable and true confession, then go for it. But
the problem is the question of the effectivity of
torture in attaining the consequences desired.
Scientific studies and experiences of expert
interrogators prove otherwise compared to
rapport-building methods. Torture hardly
works.
ANSWER 21 (continued)
On utilitarian grounds, torture less likely
leads to the good consequences desired
and actually inflicts unjustifiable harm to
the criminal; hence it is ethically wrong in
almost all circumstances and justifiable in
extreme circumstances where there is no
more time and no other (better) way.