Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is…

a type of consequentialism according to which it is the consequences of actions that give them their moral worth.

Utility is

the ‘usefulness’ of action, which is often understood as how it maximises the welfare of sentient beings.

By utility, Bentham means

the balance of pleasure over pain (maximising pleasure, minimising pain).

Quantitative utilitarianism makes no distinction between pleasure based on

its type, its origin or indeed what the pleasure is being taken in: only the quantity of pleasure created is morally significant.

Bentham’s hedonic calculus is

a system of measuring the pleasure and pain produced by an action to determine its moral worth. Consists of intensity, duration and likelihood

Mill’s idea of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures concerns the difference between

lower pleasures (gained from bodily activity, like alcohol and food), and higher pleasures which are gained from mental activity, like poetry and music. Lower pleasures are generally fleeting and costly, whereas higher pleasures can have a “lasting enlightening effect”.

Mill proves the superiority of higher pleasures on qualitative grounds through

using “competent judges” to see which is preferred over the other. Mill argues that anyone with an experience of both would always prefer higher pleasures.

Mill’s proof of the greatest happiness principle states that

just as the only evidence for something being visible is that it is seen, the only evidence for something being desirable is that it is desired. The proof that happiness is desirable is therefore that it is desired, and if happiness is desirable then it ought to be desired and utilitarian naturalism is true.

Non-hedonistic utilitarianism, specifically preference utilitarianism, differs to hedonistic utilitarianism by stating that

we should focus on maximising people’s preferences rather than their happiness to maximise overall welfare. This values individual autonomy, including respecting the wishes of the dead and resolving Nozick’s experience machine.

Rather than specific actions, rule utilitarianism focuses on

the consequences of general rules. Rules are decided on the basis of whether they increase happiness, and actions are deemed right or wrong depending on whether they are in accordance with these rules.

Nozick’s experience machine challenges hedonistic utilitarianism through the use of a

hypothetical “pleasure-maximising” machine which would simulate the most overall happiness you could get in life, and removing any painful memories you may have of your past life. Nozick argues that because not everyone would choose to plug themselves into it, happiness cannot be the only good.

Utilitarianism challenges fairness and individual rights by

justifying the sacrifice of individuals for the greater good, potentially allowing injustice. It prioritizes overall happiness over moral principles, enabling the tyranny of the majority. While we intuitively view human rights as intrinsically good, utilitarianism would have to take this on a case by case basis.

Problems with calculation arise when we realise utilitarianism requires us to

predict the future, make complex calculations under time constraints and objectively measure subjective experiences.

Utilitarianism requires us to remain impartial to friends and family, which could be considered

psychologically unrealistic. This issue becomes most apparent in moral dilemmas such as choosing between saving a loved one or five strangers. Utilitarianism dictates that saving five lives maximises happiness, but human psychology naturally prioritises family and close relationships. If people cannot realistically act impartially, utilitarianism fails as a normative theory because ethical systems must be practically applicable.

Utilitarianism can be said to ignore the moral integrity of the character

because it judges each action individually, without considering the person’s overall moral disposition. This leads to unintuitive conclusions, such as saying Hitler did a good thing merely because he gave a soldier a sandwich, despite his overall moral depravity.

The fact that utilitarianism also ignores the intentions of actions leads to

morally counterintuitive conclusions, as even malicious acts can be deemed good if they result in overall happiness. This means a deceitful or exploitative action could be justified if its consequences are positive, disregarding the moral significance of intent.