Utilitarianism

What is Utilitarianism?

A normative, consequentialist ethical theory that judges actions by their consequences: the greatest good for the greatest number

Who originated Utilitarianism?

Jeremy Bentham

What is ‘utility’?

The capacity of actions to produce pleasure, happiness, or prevent pain/unhappiness

What does ‘maximising utility’ mean?

Choosing actions that yield the greatest net benefit (happiness minus pain) for the most people.

Quantitative Hedonism

Pleasure is measured by quantity (hedons): intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent

Felicific Calculus

Bentham’s method of calculating utility across the seven dimensions

Principle of Utility (Bentham)

“Greatest happiness of the greatest number” is the baseline of right and wrong

Consequentialism

Ethical quality depends solely on outcomes, not motives or intrinsic principles

Act utilitarianism

An action is good if it brings more pleasure than pain (felicific calculus)

Issues for Act Utilitarianism

• long-term consequences can never be known (can’t predict the future)

• It takes too long to calculate moral worth

• The theory leads to counter-intuitive results (killing one person to save multiple still feels wrong)

Rule Utilitarianism

Overcomes the issues for Act Utilitarianism by saying we should follow general rules (don’t steal, don’t kill) that have increased happiness in the past/ have been proven to increase happiness.

Criticism of Rule Utilitarianism

It collapses into act utilitarianism - most general rules (don’t lie or don’t steal) can have legitimate exceptions where going against the rule would increase happiness. If we amended the rules with each exception it would just become act utilitarianism again but with very specific rules.

Higher and Lower Pleasures

(Mill) Pleasures of the mind are superior to physical pleasures because they last longer.

Many people prefer pleasures of the mind (higher pleasures) to pleasures of the body (lower pleasures)

Even those who have experienced both prefer higher pleasures and only those who appreciate both are considered competent judges

“It’s better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”

Criticism to Higher vs Lower Pleasures

This can’t be considered hedonistic utilitarianism anymore if pleasures that give less pleasure (higher) are better.

If something could be less pleasant but better then we can’t be looking to maximise pleasure

Response to first criticism of higher & Lower pleasures

• Mill says that higher and lower pleasures are just incommensurable (not less pleasant than the other) e.g. blue is different from red, no amount of blue is the same as red because they are simply different

• Doesn’t see happiness just as a question of pleasure bcs humans are able to reason & develop

1. Criticism to response to Higher and Lower pleasures

1. Loses simplicity - utilitarianism is appealing for its simplicity, Mill’s introduction of higher & lower pleasures complicates things

2. Elitism - this is cultural elitism because higher pleasures = things Mill enjoys/ insiders good enough which can be dismissive of the pleasures of the masses

Mill’s proof of greatest happiness

• Only evidence something can be seen is that it’s visible

• Only evidence something is desirable is that it’s desired

• Each person desires their own happiness

• So each person’s happiness is desirable

• General happiness is desirable

• Each person’s happiness is a good to that person

• General happiness is a good to the aggregate of all persons

• Happiness is the only good

Criticism of Mill’s Proof

• Equivocation - Mill confuses two meanings of “desirable”: “Can be desired” ≠ “Ought to be desired.”
  Just because people desire something (even bad things) doesn’t mean it’s morally good or should be desired.

• Fallacy of composition - Mill wrongly assumes that if each person desires their own happiness, then everyone collectively desires general happiness. E.g.Everyone wants to win the lottery—but not for everyone to win!

• Mystical aggregate fallacy - Mill talks about the “aggregate” of people desiring happiness—but only individuals can have desires, not a group as a whole.

• Is- Ought Gap - Mill moves from a factual claim (“people desire happiness”) to a moral claim (“people ought to desire happiness”) without justification. This is a logical leap—describing what is doesn’t prove what ought to be.

Non-hedonistic utilitarianism

We should maximise something but not just for pleasure

Preference utilitarianism

An action should be judged by how it conforms to the preferences of all those affected by the action (and its consequences).

Good act = maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved

Advantages of Preference Utilitarianism

Focusing on just pleasure can be counter intuitive (racism/discrimination etc.)

Preference utilitarianism provides a solution because most preferences are pain free and stronger than their preference for gaining pleasure.

Preferences are easier to find/ figure out (don’t have to predict the future)

Criticism of preference utilitarianism

Bad preferences - we can’t maximise bad preferences (preference utilitarianism imagines everyone pleasures are normal when there are people who prefer to hurt others)

Weighing up preferences - preference utilitarianism needs something to help quantify different pleasures to help moral decision making. If some people are for and others against how do we decide what to do?

Issues with Utilitarianism - Nozick’s Experience Machine

• Thought experiment: Plug into a perfect simulator that guarantees maximum pleasure but severs you from reality.

• Key intuition: Most people refuse to plug in → shows we value authenticity, achievement, relationships, autonomy in addition to pleasure.

• Implication for utilitarianism: If we seek more than pleasurable feelings, then “pleasure = the sole intrinsic good” is false; utilitarian calculus is incomplete.

Criticism of Nozick’s Experience Machine

1. We don’t just seek pleasure, but things outside our minds
   – Nozick argues we value real experiences, genuine relationships, and achievements in the actual world, not just the feeling of pleasure.
   – This challenges hedonistic utilitarianism: pleasure alone isn’t enough for a good life.

2. It’s not pleasure we seek, but specific things
   – We desire truth, autonomy, love, or moral purpose—not just the pleasurable sensation they bring.
   – Plugging into the machine may give the feeling, but not the thing itself.

Issues with utilitarianism - Fairness and individual liberty/rights

• Problem: Utilitarianism can justify actions that violate individual rights if doing so maximises overall happiness.

• Example: Punishing an innocent person to prevent riots might increase net utility—but is clearly unjust.

• Tyranny of the Majority: The happiness of the many can override the rights of the few.

• Critics argue: Morality must protect individual rights and fairness, not just outcomes.

• Response (Rule Utilitarianism): Rules protecting rights promote long-term happiness—but this can collapse back into act utilitarianism when rules are broken for utility.

Criticism of fairness and individual liberty/ rights

• Fairness, rights, and liberty are not just means to happiness—they have intrinsic value (good in themselves).

• Criticism: Utilitarianism treats them only as tools to maximise utility, not as moral ends.

• Example: Violating someone’s rights may increase total happiness—but this ignores the moral wrong done to the individual.

• Conclusion: A moral theory must respect fairness and rights as ends, not override them for the sake of overall utility.

Mill on liberty: the risk of the tyranny of majority

• Mill warned that even democracies can oppress minorities — through laws or social pressure.

• Called this the “tyranny of the majority”: when majority opinion limits individual freedom.

• Mill’s Harm Principle: The only reason to limit someone’s liberty is to prevent harm to others.

• Valuing liberty may explain why people reject the Experience Machine — we want real freedom, not just pleasure.

• Mill believed liberty leads to greater happiness overall, but critics argue liberty has value in itself, not just for its outcomes.

problems with calculating utility

• Total vs Average Happiness: Should we maximise total happiness or average per person? Each gives different results.

• Distribution: Utilitarianism ignores how happiness is shared — one person could get most of it.

• Consequences When? It’s unclear how far into the future we should calculate outcomes.

• Whose Happiness Counts? Should we include only humans, or animals too?

• Measurement Problem: Pleasure and pain are subjective — hard to measure or compare reliably.

Criticism – An Alien Way of Discussing Animals

• Critics argue utilitarianism treats animals as units of pleasure/pain, not as beings with their own moral worth.

• It asks “How much happiness do they contribute?” instead of respecting them as individuals.

• This instrumental view can feel alien or cold — reducing animals to part of a happiness calculation, rather than recognising their inherent value.

• Some claim this fails to capture what truly matters in our moral concern for animals.

Issues around partiality

• Act Utilitarianism: Demands strict impartiality—everyone’s happiness counts equally, even strangers.

• Problem: Ignores personal relationships and special obligations (family, friends).

• Rule Utilitarianism: Allows some partiality by following rules that generally promote happiness, including respecting personal ties.

• Governments & Partiality: Should governments be impartial, or can they favour citizens over outsiders?

• Strict impartiality can be unrealistic and conflict with common moral intuitions about loyalty.

Moral integrity and intentions of the individual

• Utilitarianism focuses on outcomes, not intentions—an action is right if it maximises happiness, regardless of motives.

• Critics say this undermines moral integrity, forcing people to act against their conscience for utility’s sake.

• Some argue intentions matter morally: good motives give actions moral worth beyond consequences.

• Mill acknowledged intentions affect moral worth, but consequences remain primary.