THEORY OF UTILI-

TARISM
What would be more
ethical? Killing one
person in front of 5
people or killing 5
person in front of
one person?
Topics to be discuss:
Meaning of Utilitarianism
1

2 JEREMY BENTHAM

The Principle of Utility

3

4 JOHN STUART MILL

5 Principle of The Greatest Number

6 Justice and Moral Rights

 What is
Utilitarianism?
 UTILITARIANISM
is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of plea-
sure and the
determination of right behavior based on the usefulness
of the actions
consequences. This means that pleasure is good and that
the goodness of action is determined by its usefulness.
Putting these ideas together,
utilitarianism claims that one’s action and behavior are
 UTILITARIANISM
Their system of ethics em-
phasizes the consequences
This meansof actions:
that the goodness or the
badness of an action is based on
whether it is
useful in contributing to a specific
purpose
 UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is conse-
quentialist:
This means that the moral value of
actions and decisions is based solely
or greatly on the
usefulness of their consequences; it is
the
usefulness of results that determines
 UTILITARIANISM

The utilitarian value

pleasure
andthathappiness:
This means the usefulness of ac-
tions is based on its promotion of hap-
piness as the experience of pleasure for
the greatest number of persons, even at
the expense of some individual rights.
JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-
1832)
 JEREMY BENTHAM
Intellectual inheritor of
David
Born on February 15, JEREMY BENTHAM UTILITARIANISM
1748 Hume
in London, England. Recognized as ‘Act Util-
Died on
June 6, 1832. itarian’
He was the teacher of
Right actions result in
James Mill, father of ‘good or pleasure,’
John Stuart Mill.
wrong actions result
Bentham first wrote about
the in pain or absence of
greatest happiness princi-
ple of
pleasure.
ethics and was known for The Principle of Utility
a
system of penal manage-
Law and Social Hedo-
 THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
JEREMY BENTHAM

In the book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789),

Jeremy Bentham begins by
arguing that our actions are governed by two “sovereign masters”--which he calls pleasure and
pain. These “masters” are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or bad and
what The
ought to be done
principle and not;
of utility is they
aboutfasten our choicesto
our subjection to these
their throne.
sovereign masters: PLEA-
SURE 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. It is like saying that in our everyday actions, we do what is pleasure as
good if, and only if, they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is not
enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier.
Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of util-
Actions
ity, Bentham that lead
equates to PLEASURE
happiness ARE RIGHT, ones that produce PAIN ARE
with pleasure.
WRONG.
LAW AND SOCIAL HEDO-
FELICIFIC
NISM CALCU-
LUS
JEREMY BENTHAM
 LAW AND SOCIAL HEDONISM
JEREMY BENTHAM

LAW
 Government should not pass laws that protect tradition, customs or rights
 Government should base all laws on the happiness principle
The greatest happiness for the greatest number
 Bentham’s theory is both empirical (how much pain or pleasure is caused by the act or
policy) and democratic
(each individual’s happiness is as important as any other’s)
SOCIAL HEDONISM
Ethics as Greatest Happiness
 Moral worth judged by presumed effect
 Action guided by pleasure/pain
 FELICIFIC CALCULUS
JEREMY BENTHAM

FELICIFIC CALCULUS- common currency framework that calculates the pleasure that
some actions can produce.
In this framework, an action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength of plea-
sure;
 DURATION or length of the experience of pleasure.
 CERTAINTY, UNCERTAINTY, or the likelihood that pleasure will occur; and
 PROPINQUITY, REMOTENESS, or how soon there will be pleasure.
These indicators allow us to measure and pain in actions, we need to consider THREE MORE
DIMENSIONS:
 FECUNDITY or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind
 PURITY or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.

 FELICIFIC CALCULUS
JEREMY BENTHAM

Felicific calculus allows the evaluation of all

actions and
their resultant pleasure. This means that ac-
tions are
evaluated on this single scale regardless of
preferences and values. In this sense, pleasure
JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873)
JOHN STUART MILL
Was born on
He studied Greek at May
His ethical theory the 20, 1806 in
age of three and
and his defense of Penton-
Latin at the age of
utilitarian views are eight. He wro- ville, London,
found in his long te a history of Ro- United King-
essay entitled man dom.
UTILITARANISM Law age eleven. He Died on May
(1861). was married to Har- 8, 1873 in Avi-
riet Taylor after 21 gnon, France
years of friend- from
ship.
 A more sophisticated form of Utilitarianism. Erysipelas.
 Concerned with quality of pleasure and quantity of people who
enjoy it.
 Recognized higher and lower types of human pleasure.
 PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST NUMBER
 JOHN STUART MILL

 Mill dissents from Bentham’s single scale of pleasure. He thinks

that the principle of
utility must distinguish pleasures QUALITATIVELY and not
merely quantitatively.
 For Mill, utilitarianism cannot promote the kind of pleasures appro-
priate to pigs or to
any other animals. He thinks that there are HIGHER INTELLEC-
TUAL and LOWER BASE
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a
PLEASURES.
pig satisfied;
Lower pleasures: eating, drinking, better
sexuality, etc.
Higher pleasures: intellectuality, creativity and spirituality.
PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST
NUMBER
JOHN STUART MILL
 PRINCIPLE OF GREATEST NUMBER
JOHN STUART MILL

 Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness
alone; it cannot be all
about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a moral
good. In this sense,
utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.
 Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It
is not interested with
Utilitarianism is interested
the intention with
of the agent. everyone’s
Moral happiness,
value cannot in fact,inthe
discernible thegreatest
intentionhappiness of the
or motivation
greatest number.
of the person doing the act;
 JUSTICE
AND
MORAL RIGHTS
JOHN STUART MILL
JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
JOHN STUART MILL

 When we call anything a person’s right, we mean that he

has a valid claim on society to protect him in the posses-
sion of it, either by the force of law, or by that education
and opinion. If he has what we consider a sufficient claim,
on whatever account, to have something guaranteed to
him by
society, we say that he has a right to it.
 The right to due process, the right to free speech or reli-
gion, and others
 JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS
JOHN STUART MILL

 A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles in as much as they pro-

duce an overall happ-iness that is greater than the unhappiness result-
ing from their implementation.
 Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification.
He points out that when legal rights are not morally justified in ac-
cordance to the greatest happiness prin-ciple, then these rights need
neither be observed, nor be respected. This is like saying
In short, Mill’s that there
moral are instances
rights when the lawofisjustice
and considerations not morally justified
are not and, but
absolute, in
are only justified by
this case, even
their consequences to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.
 BETHAMITE MILLSIAN
DEMOCRATIC UTILITARIANISM ELITE UTILITARIANISM
o No one pleasure is inher- Some pleasures are better than
ently others

better than any other o If you party and get drunk every

o If drunken parties make day,

you then you won’t be as happy as

happy, then go for it! you

o Reading poetry isn’t bet- otherwise might be.

o