The History of Utilitarianism - Vocabulary Flashcards
1. Precursors to the Classical Approach
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism: moral quality depends on consequences or value produced by actions/policies.
Proto-utilitarian theories predate the 19th century (early roots):
Ancient China: Mozi (c. 470–c. 391 BCE) and followers emphasized impartiality, the production of well-being, and maximization of good.
Medieval Indian philosophy: Śāntideva focused on producing well-being for sentient beings.
Distinguishing features of utilitarianism ( Classical: Bentham, Mill )
Value to be promoted: typically, the overall good (often understood as pleasure in classical utilitarianism).
Impartiality/agent-neutrality: everyone’s happiness counts equally; no one’s good is intrinsically more valuable than another’s.
Tendency to be controversial and subject to revision over time.
2. The Classical Approach
Emerged in the 19th century with a clear structure and a hedonic theory of value.
Key figures: William Godwin, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill.
Core traits:
Secular basis and reformist aspirations (legal and social reform).
Emphasis on maximizing the good; commitment to evaluating laws and policies by their consequences.
Debate over act-utilitarianism vs. rule-utilitarianism (whether actions are evaluated by their own consequences or by the consequences of the rules governing actions).
2.1 William Godwin
Secular, radical utilitarian who also endorsed anarchism.
In An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793/1796), especially Book II, ch. 2, Godwin argues that justice is a function of producing the greatest quantity of good:
“The just or right is a function of what produces the greatest quantity of good.”
Property as trust: “Suppose for example that it is right for one man to possess a greater portion of property… Justice obliges him to regard this property as a trust, and calls upon him to consider… for the increase of liberty, knowledge and virtue.”
“I hold my person as a trust in behalf of mankind.”
Maximization and impartiality: when saving lives, equal respect for persons; Archbishop vs. chambermaid example illustrates impartial weighting of consequences.
Perfectionist tendencies: rational exercise of understanding; some see Godwin as distinct from Bentham/Mill due to a perfectionist element rather than strict hedonism.
Mill later challenged aspects of Bentham’s hedonism; Godwin foreshadows some liberal and perfectionist themes.
2.2 Jeremy Bentham
Central figure in classical utilitarianism; influenced by Hobbes and Hume.
Core claims:
Psychology: humans are governed by two sovereign masters—pleasure and pain; we seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Principle of utility (the greatest happiness principle): actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they promote the opposite of happiness.
He introduces a quantitative method for evaluating pleasure/pain across actions and laws, anticipating policy-oriented utilitarianism.
Bentham’s methodological stance:
Act-focused utilitarianism, though he allowed for rules as practical guides. The rightness of an action is determined by its overall consequences, not intrinsic goods.
Rejection of base evil or intrinsic wrongness of actions apart from their consequences.
He rejects natural law or “intrinsic” appeals (e.g., to what is natural) as legitimate criteria.
Psychological egoism tension:
Bentham’s view, often read as egoistic, is reconciled by the idea that promoting the general good often aligns with one’s own happiness or by using a broader measure of utility beyond self-interest.
He emphasizes instrumental evaluation: laws and policies should be judged by their consequences for overall happiness, not by whether they satisfy pure self-interest.
Bentham on law and policy:
Law should be a continual process responsive to changing desires and circumstances; a good law today may be bad law tomorrow.
He is optimistic about the possibility of reducing antipathies (prejudice, taste) through demonstration of false beliefs and by focusing on actual consequences.
He offers a robust hedonic calculus with seven variables (factors) used to judge the amount of pleasure or pain produced by an act: ext{Intensit y}, ext{Duration}, ext{Certainty/Uncertainty}, ext{Propinquity/Remoteness}, ext{Fecundity}, ext{Purity}, ext{Extent}
An important move: moral wrongs are not intrinsic in Bentham’s view; they are instrumental in producing less pleasure or more pain. This challenges Kantian/essentialist notions of moral wrongs.
Example: he discusses antipathy to certain acts (e.g., homosexuality) as an empirical prejudice; moral worth should be evaluated by consequences, not by taste.
2.3 John Stuart Mill
Mill studied Bentham but introduced refinements, especially on the value of pleasures and on internal sanctions.
Core change: qualitative distinctions among pleasures. He argues for higher (intellectual) pleasures over lower (sensuous) ones, though still within a utilitarian framework.
Mill’s “proof” of utility is controversial: he claims that people desire happiness, and thus happiness is desirable; others criticize this as the naturalistic fallacy (Moore). Nevertheless, Mill treats happiness as the ultimate end with aggregation across individuals.
Right action and rule formation:
In Mill’s view, utilitarianism can be used to justify rights and to inform law and policy.
The famous maxim in Utilitarianism (chapter 2) states: ext{Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.}
Internal sanctions and social feelings:
Mill emphasizes internal sanctions (guilt, remorse) and the sense of justice as natural motivations that regulate behavior.
These internal states are instrumentally important for sustaining moral action, alongside external sanctions.
Rights and equality:
Mill uses utilitarian arguments to defend women’s suffrage, free speech, and reform of social practices; rights are justified by their contribution to overall happiness.
He challenges traditions justified by appeals to “nature” as relics and argues for utility-based reform.
On virtue:
Mill argues virtue has both instrumental and intrinsic value; virtue can be desirable in itself and also contribute to the general happiness.
He develops an account where virtue can be both a means to an end and a worthwhile end in itself, addressing the demandingness problem by distinguishing between duties (which may require coercion) and virtue (which should remain free where possible).
Debates on act vs. rule utilitarianism:
Some scholars see Mill as an act-utilitarian, evaluating particular actions by consequences; others see him as adopting a rule-utilitarian stance, where rules tend to promote the greatest happiness when followed.
The distinction is subtle: Mill’s formulation of “the rules and precepts for human conduct” that secure the greatest extent of good points toward a rule-oriented approach, even if he accepts act-level judgments in many cases.
3. Henry Sidgwick
Sidgwick’s The Methods of Ethics (1874) is a landmark systematic defense and comparison of ethical theories.
central claim: utilitarianism is the more basic theory among egoism, intuition-based morality, and utilitarianism.
He argues that intuition or common sense morality often conflicts with other considerations, necessitating a higher principle—utilitarianism—to resolve disputes.
Sidgwick clarifies notable issues:
The publicity problem: Sidgwick famously suggested that utilitarian conclusions may justifiably be kept esoteric or selectively promoted, as “esoteric morality is expedient.” He even notes that a utilitarian may prefer that the vulgar crowd not fully endorse his system if its calculations yield bad results in practice.
The total vs. average utility debate: Sidgwick raises the problem of population growth and the balance between total happiness and average happiness. If average happiness remains constant but population grows, total happiness can rise; alternatively, if average happiness falls with larger populations, the calculation is more complex. He proposes a hybrid approach: maximize the product of population size and average happiness, i.e., maximize N imes H, where N = number of persons, H = average happiness.
Sidgwick’s influence on later debates:
The methodological primacy of utilitarianism influenced debates on practical deliberation, population ethics, and political philosophy.
4. Ideal Utilitarianism
G. E. Moore challenges the hedonic view of classic utilitarians in favor of intrinsic values beyond pleasure.
Moore’s main claim: the good is plural and includes intrinsically valuable states like beauty. He argues: there exist objects with intrinsic value independent of their capacity to produce pleasure or happiness.
Organic unity of value:
Moore’s principle of organic unity: a whole can have intrinsic value that is not merely the sum of its parts.
Quote: the whole has intrinsic value different in amount from the sum of its parts; “organic unity” can make the value of a beautiful experience exceed the simple sum of its components.
Principia Ethica and the ideal: when people experience beauty, the value of beauty may be enhanced by its existence; actual existence of beauty adds value to experience.
Moore’s implications for utilitarianism:
He provides resources to respond to arguments that happiness alone is the good; beauty and other intrinsic goods can matter independently of pleasure.
This opened the path for addressing cases of “admirable immorality” in which actions may be morally admirable in their aims or properties even if their consequences are complex.
5. Conclusion
Since the early 20th century, utilitarianism has undergone refinements and often gets classified as a form of consequentialism.
The classic hedonic theory of value is not universally accepted; many philosophers refer to it as consequentialism more broadly rather than strictly utilitarianism.
The influence of classical utilitarians extends beyond moral philosophy to political philosophy and social policy.
The guiding question remains: What use is it?—applied especially to policy formation and law, emphasizing secular, forward-looking reasoning about outcomes.
Bibliographic anchors (selected references) for context
Primary sources: Bentham (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation), Mill (Utilitarianism, On Liberty), Godwin (An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice), Hutcheson (An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue), Sidgwick (The Methods of Ethics), Moore (Principia Ethica).
Secondary context: scholarly discussions on the shift from egoism to altruistic/utilitarian frameworks, utilitarianism before Bentham, Hume’s moral sense, Shaftesbury’s moral sense theory, Price’s deontological constraints, and contemporary critiques of utilitarianism.
Notable topics: moral sense, internal vs external sanctions, public justification, rule vs act utilitarianism, population ethics, perfectionist critiques, and the legacy of utilitarian thinking in modern public policy.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where the moral quality of actions depends on their consequences.
It aims to promote the overall good, often interpreted as pleasure or happiness, and emphasizes impartiality, meaning everyone's happiness is considered equally.
Historical Basis: Proto-utilitarian ideas come from Ancient China (Mozi) and Medieval India (Śāntideva), focusing on maximizing well-being.
Foundational Beliefs: Classical utilitarianism, notably by Jeremy Bentham, rests on the idea that humans are driven by pleasure and pain, seeking to maximize the former and minimize the latter.
Principle of Utility: Actions are right if they increase happiness and wrong if they decrease it.
Why it's considered foundational: Henry Sidgwick argued it's a more basic ethical theory, capable of resolving conflicts arising from egoism or intuition-based morality. It also provides a secular framework for legal and social reform, judging policies by their impact on overall happiness.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where the moral quality of actions depends on their consequences.
It aims to promote the overall good, often interpreted as pleasure or happiness, and emphasizes impartiality, meaning everyone's happiness is considered equally.
Historical Basis: Proto-utilitarian ideas come from Ancient China (Mozi) and Medieval India (Śāntideva), focusing on maximizing well-being.
Foundational Beliefs: Classical utilitarianism, notably by Jeremy Bentham, rests on the idea that humans are driven by pleasure and pain, seeking to maximize the former and minimize the latter.
Principle of Utility: Actions are right if they increase happiness and wrong if they decrease it.
Why it's considered foundational: Henry Sidgwick argued it's a more basic ethical theory, capable of resolving conflicts arising from egoism or intuition-based morality. It also provides a secular framework for legal and social reform, judging policies by their impact on overall happiness.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where the moral quality of actions depends on their consequences.
It aims to promote the overall good, often interpreted as pleasure or happiness, and emphasizes impartiality, meaning everyone's happiness is considered equally.
Historical Basis: Proto-utilitarian ideas come from Ancient China (Mozi) and Medieval India (Śāntideva), focusing on maximizing well-being.
Foundational Beliefs: Classical utilitarianism, notably by Jeremy Bentham, rests on the idea that humans are driven by pleasure and pain, seeking to maximize the former and minimize the latter.
Principle of Utility: Actions are right if they increase happiness and wrong if they decrease it.
Why it's considered foundational: Henry Sidgwick argued it's a more basic ethical theory, capable of resolving conflicts arising from egoism or intuition-based morality. It also provides a secular framework for legal and social reform, judging policies by their impact on overall happiness.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where the moral quality of actions depends on their consequences.
It aims to promote the overall good, often interpreted as pleasure or happiness, and emphasizes impartiality, meaning everyone's happiness is considered equally.
Historical Basis: Proto-utilitarian ideas come from Ancient China (Mozi) and Medieval India (Śāntideva), focusing on maximizing well-being.
Foundational Beliefs: Classical utilitarianism, notably by Jeremy Bentham, rests on the idea that humans are driven by pleasure and pain, seeking to maximize the former and minimize the latter.
Principle of Utility: Actions are right if they increase happiness and wrong if they decrease it.
Why it's considered foundational: Henry Sidgwick argued it's a more basic ethical theory, capable of resolving conflicts arising from egoism or intuition-based morality. It also provides a secular framework for legal and social reform, judging policies by their impact on overall happiness.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where the moral quality of actions depends on their consequences.
It aims to promote the overall good, often interpreted as pleasure or happiness, and emphasizes impartiality, meaning everyone's happiness is considered equally.
Historical Basis: Proto-utilitarian ideas come from Ancient China (Mozi) and Medieval India (Śāntideva), focusing on maximizing well-being.
Foundational Beliefs: Classical utilitarianism, notably by Jeremy Bentham, rests on the idea that humans are driven by pleasure and pain, seeking to maximize the former and minimize the latter.
Principle of Utility: Actions are right if they increase happiness and wrong if they decrease it.
Why it's considered foundational: Henry Sidgwick argued it's a more basic ethical theory, capable of resolving conflicts arising from egoism or intuition-based morality. It also provides a secular framework for legal and social reform, judging policies by their impact on overall happiness.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where the moral quality of actions depends on their consequences.
It aims to promote the overall good, often interpreted as pleasure or happiness, and emphasizes impartiality, meaning everyone's happiness is considered equally.
Historical Basis: Proto-utilitarian ideas come from Ancient China (Mozi) and Medieval India (Śāntideva), focusing on maximizing well-being.
Foundational Beliefs: Classical utilitarianism, notably by Jeremy Bentham, rests on the idea that humans are driven by pleasure and pain, seeking to maximize the former and minimize the latter.
Principle of Utility: Actions are right if they increase happiness and wrong if they decrease it.
Why it's considered foundational: Henry Sidgwick argued it's a more basic ethical theory, capable of resolving conflicts arising from egoism or intuition-based morality. It also provides a secular framework for legal and social reform, judging policies by their impact on overall happiness.