Utilitarianism

What Is Utilitarianism?

• Consequentialist Ethical Theory: An action is right or wrong because of the consequences it is likely to produce.

• Central Question: Which available action will produce the greatest overall good?

• Scope: Consider the benefits and harms to everyone affected, not simply the person making the decision.

• Intentions: Good intentions are not enough; the morality of an action depends on what it can reasonably be expected to cause.

• Summary: “Do the most overall good you reasonably can.”

Classical Utilitarian Thinkers

• Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832): Developed the Principle of Utility—judge actions by their tendency to increase happiness and reduce suffering.

• John Stuart Mill (1806–1873): Defended and refined utilitarianism; argued that the quality of happiness matters, not only its quantity.

  • Higher Pleasures: Exercise capacities such as thought, imagination, and moral feeling.

  • Lower Pleasures: More immediate bodily pleasures or simple sensations.

• “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” —John Stuart Mill

Core Principles

• Consequences: Likely results determine whether an action is right or wrong.

• Impartiality: Each person’s well-being counts; no one automatically counts more.

• Aggregation: Weigh the benefits and harms across everyone affected.

• Maximization: Choose the option that produces the greatest net good.

Key Assumptions

• Intrinsic Value: Happiness or well-being is valuable in itself.

• Instrumental Value: Money, rules, health, and institutions have value insofar as they contribute to well-being.

• Comparability: Benefits and harms can be compared, at least approximately, and likely consequences can be estimated.

• Aristotle Connection: Both treat happiness as fundamental, but Aristotle emphasizes flourishing across a life; utilitarianism evaluates the overall effects on everyone.

Bentham’s Measures of Happiness

• Direct Factors: Intensity (how strong); Duration (how long); Certainty (how likely); Proximity (how soon).

• Indirect & Broader Factors: Fecundity (will more follow?); Purity (how free of accompanying pain?); Extent (how many are affected?).

• Purpose: The point is not perfect arithmetic; it is systematic comparison.

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

• Act Utilitarianism: Evaluate each available action by its likely consequences in this particular situation.

• Rule Utilitarianism: Follow rules whose general acceptance tends to produce the greatest overall good.

• Comparison: Same goal, different level of calculation.

Rules, Rights, and Flexibility

• Purpose of Rules: Rules against harming, lying, and restricting liberty usually protect trust, security, freedom, and predictable expectations.

• Justification: Utilitarianism ultimately justifies rules by their consequences, not because the rules are intrinsically binding.

• Flexibility: If breaking a rule would clearly produce more overall good, utilitarianism may permit—or require—breaking it.

• Kant Contrast: Kantian duties constrain what we may do; for utilitarianism, no rule automatically outweighs the overall outcome.

Applying Utilitarianism

1. Identify the decision and available actions.

2. Identify everyone who could be affected.

3. Estimate the likely benefits and harms of each option.

4. Include long-term, indirect, and uncertain consequences.

5. Choose the option that produces the greatest net well-being.

Focus: What will each option contribute to the overall happiness and welfare of individuals affected? Consider both positive outcomes and potential drawbacks.

Example Developed in Class: Should I Cheat on the Exam?

1. Available Actions: Cheat or complete the exam honestly.

2. People Affected: The student, classmates, instructor, and institution.

3. Likely Effects: Cheating may produce a better grade, but creates an unfair advantage and undermines learning, fairness, and trust.

4. Long-term and Indirect Effects: Widespread cheating damages assessment, credentials, and confidence in the system; detection may also bring serious harm to the student.

5. Conclusion: The limited individual benefit is outweighed by the broader and longer-lasting harms, so cheating does not maximize well-being.

• Comparison with Kant: Kant and utilitarianism probably reach the same answer for different reasons: Kant focuses on universal law and respect for persons; utilitarianism focuses on overall harm.

Major Critiques

• Measurement: How can we compare different kinds and amounts of happiness across people?

• Uncertainty: How can we predict long-term or unintended consequences?

• Justice and Rights: Can harming a few be justified whenever enough other people benefit?

• Demandingness: Must we always sacrifice our own interests whenever doing so would produce more overall good?

Applying Utilitarianism to Sport

• Virtue Ethics: The character, habits, and excellence sport develops.

• Deontology: Rules, fairness, duties, and respect for persons.

• Utilitarianism: Collective benefits and harms, policy choices, and the allocation of resources.

The same ethical problem looks different depending on which questions we ask.

• Applications: Useful for evaluating policies, safety rules, punishments, funding, access, scheduling, and the distribution of limited resources.

• Justification: Sport can be justified when its overall benefits—joy, health, belonging, opportunity, and community—outweigh its injuries, inequalities, and costs.

• Key Question: Who receives the benefits, who bears the harms, and which available choice creates the greatest net good?

The “Big Three” Approaches

• Aristotle: Who should I become? Virtue and flourishing.

• Kant: What must I do? Duty, universal law, and respect for persons.

• Utilitarianism: Which choice will produce the greatest overall good? Consequences and well-being.

• Utilitarianism & Utility: Utilitarianism holds that individuals have a moral obligation to maximize overall happiness and well-being in the world. Bentham defined utility as the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, asserting that moral actions should prioritize the greatest good for the greatest number through impartial decision-making.

• Bentham's Sliding Scale: Rather than viewing morality as strictly black-and-white, Bentham argued that actions exist on a spectrum where individual pleasure must be weighed against another's pain. An action is deemed moral if the collective pleasure or benefit outweighs the total inconvenience or suffering caused.

• Utility Calculus (Hedonism Calculus): To scientifically measure the moral value of an outcome, Bentham developed an algorithm that quantifies actions into "hedons" or positive utility units using seven variables:

  • Intensity: How strong the pleasure or pain is.

  • Duration: How long the pleasure or pain lasts.

  • Certainty: How likely it is that the pleasure or pain will occur.

  • Propinquity: How soon the pleasure or pain will happen.

  • Fecundity: The likelihood of the action leading to further pleasure or pain.

  • Purity: The likelihood that the initial feeling will not lead to its opposite.

  • Extent: How many people are affected by the action.