Utilitarian

Ethics
Paley, Bentham,
Mill, Sidgwick

Utilitarian Ethics
Utilitarianism is the idea that the
moral worth of an action is
determined solely by its contribution
to overall utility:
that is, its contribution to happiness
or pleasure as summed among all
people.
It is thus a form of consequentialism,
meaning that the moral worth of an
action is determined by its outcome.

Utilitarian Ethics
Utilitarianism is often described
by the phrase "the greatest good
for the greatest number of
people", and is also known as "the
greatest happiness principle".
Utility, the good to be maximized,
has been defined by various
thinkers as happiness or pleasure
(versus suffering or pain).

Basic Insights of
Utilitarianism
The purpose of morality is to
make the world a better place.
Morality is about producing good
consequences, not having good
intentions
We should do whatever will bring
the most benefit (i.e., intrinsic
value) to all of humanity.

The Purpose of Morality

The utilitarian has a very
simple answer to the question
of why morality exists at all:
The purpose of morality is to
guide peoples actions in
such a way as to produce a
better world.
Consequently, the emphasis in
utilitarianism is on

William Paley
William Paley (17431805)
His position on the nature
of morality was similar to
that of Ockham and Luther
namely, he held that
right and wrong are
determined by the will of
God.
Yet, because he believed
that God wills the
happiness of his creatures,
his normative ethics were
utilitarian: whatever
increases happiness is
right; whatever diminishes
it is wrong.

William Paley
William Paley was a British
Christian apologist,
philosopher, and utilitarian.
He is best known for his
exposition of the
teleological argument for
the existence of God in his
work Natural Theology,
which made use of the
watchmaker analogy.

Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Bentham (17481832)
is properly considered the
father of modern
utilitarianism.
It was he who made the
utilitarian principle serve as
the basis for a unified and
comprehensive ethical system
that applies, in theory at
least, to every area of life.
Never before had a complete,
detailed system of ethics been
so consistently constructed
from a single fundamental
ethical principle.

Benthams Act
Utilitarianism

Nature has placed mankind under the

governancy of two sovereign masters, pain
and pleasure. It is for them alone to point
out what we ought to do, as well as to
determine what we shall do.

The principle of utility . . . Is that

principle which approves or disapproves of
every action whatsoever according to the
tendency which it appears to have to
augment or diminish the happiness of the
party whose interest is in question

By utility is meant that property in any

object, whereby it tends to produce
benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or
happiness, or to prevent the happening of
mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness. . .

Early Criticisms of
Benthams Approach
Hedonism a
moral theory fit
for swine
Atheistic leaves
out God
(and by extension,
any higher-order
moral
considerations)

Promotes
selfishness
Benthams rebuttal: Vulgar or not, nature has placed us
calculus
underof
twopure
masters, pleasure and pain - there is no other

Benthams Ethics
Jeremy Bentham figured
that laws should be
socially useful and not
merely reflect the status
quo; and, that while he
believed that men
inevitably pursue
pleasure and avoid pain,
Bentham thought it to
be a "sacred truth" that
"the greatest happiness
of the greatest number
is the foundation of
morals and legislation."

Benthams Ethics
Bentham supposed
that the whole of
morality could be
derived from
"enlightened selfinterest," and that a
person who always
acted with a view to
his own maximum
satisfaction in the
long run would
always act rightly.

Benthams Ethics
Bentham's position
included arguments
in favor of
individual and
economic freedom
the separation of
church and state
freedom of
expression, equal
rights for women
the end of slavery

Benthams Ethics
the abolition of
physical punishment
(including that of
children)
the right to divorce,
free trade, usury, and
the decriminalization
of homosexual acts.
He also made two
distinct attempts

Modern Criticisms of
Bentham
Quantification and measurability of
the good
Incommensurate notions of the
good
Ignores other, morally relevant
considerations
Human Rights
Justice
Distribution of the good

Difficult and often inconsistent in

practice to solve for U(x) and
maximize this variable
No supererogation
No value in performing more than

John Stuart Mill [1806-73]

John Stuart Mill,
Benthams successor
as the leader of the
utilitarians and the
most influential
British thinker of the
19th century, had
some sympathy for
the view that
Benthams position
was too narrow and
crude.

John Stuart Mills Revisions:

Utilitarianism
Elevate the Doctrine of the Swine

Pleasures of the intellect, not the flesh

Qualitatively better, not quantitatively

Happiness is NOT simply

equivalent to pleasure
lower quality pleasures
shared with other animals e.g., food, sex

higher quality pleasures,

uniquely human, involving our so-called
higher
faculties
It
Itis
isbetter
betterto
tobe
beSocrates
Socratesdissatisfied
dissatisfiedthan
thanaafool
foolor
oraapig
pigsatisfied.
satisfied.

Mills Ethics
Although his position was based
on the maximization of happiness
(and this is said to consist of
pleasure and the absence of pain),
he distinguished between
pleasures that are higher and
those that are lower in quality.
This enabled him to say that it is
better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied.
The fool, he argued, would be of a
different opinion only because he
has not experienced both kinds of
pleasures.

John Stuart Mills Revisions:

Utilitarianism (Cont)
Utilitarianism is NOT equivalent to
selfishness. Mill writes:
. . .between his own happiness and that of another,
utilitarianism requires that one be strictly
impartial as a disinterested and benevolent
spectator.
not the agents own happiness but that of all
concerned.

Notions like rights and justice are merely

rules of thumb that represent underlying
calculations of overall utility (rule
utilitarianism)
Is
Isthis
thiswhat
whatMill
Millreally
reallymeant?
meant?

Mills Ethics
Mill sought to show that
utilitarianism is compatible
with moral rules and
principles relating to
justice, honesty, and
truthfulness by arguing
that utilitarians should not
attempt to calculate
before each action
whether that particular
action will maximize utility.

Mills
Ethics
Instead, they
should be guided
by the fact that an
action falls under a
general principle
(such as the
principle that
people should keep
their promises),
and adherence to
that general
principle tends to

Henry Sidgwick (1838

1900).
Sidgwicks Methods of Ethics (1874)
is the most detailed and subtle work
of utilitarian ethics yet produced.
Especially noteworthy is his
discussion of the various principles
of what he calls common sense
moralityi.e., the morality
accepted, without systematic
thought, by most people.
Sidgwick was himself an intuitionist
as far as the basis of ethics was
concerned: he believed that the
principle of utilitarianism must
ultimately be based on a selfevident axiom of rational
benevolence.

Sidgwicks Ethics
He strongly rejected the view
that all principles of common
sense morality are self-evident.
He went on to demonstrate
that the allegedly self-evident
principles conflict with one
another and are vague in their
application.
They could be part of a
coherent system of morality, he
argued, only if they were
regarded as subordinate to the
utilitarian principle, which
defined their application and
resolved the conflicts between
them.

Sidgwicks Ethics
He adopted a position which may
be described as ethical hedonism,
according to which the criterion of
goodness in any given action is
that it produces the greatest
possible amount of pleasure.
This hedonism, however, is not
confined to the self (egoistic), but
involves a due regard to the
pleasure of others, and is,
therefore, distinguished further as
universalistic.
Lastly, Sidgwick returns to the
principle that no man should act so
as to destroy his own happiness.

Act and Rule

Utilitarianism

Act and Rule

Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism
Looks at the consequences of
each individual act and calculate
utility each time the act is
performed.

Rule utilitarianism
Looks at the consequences of
having everyone follow a
particular rule and calculates the
overall utility of accepting or
rejecting the rule.

An Example

Imagine the following scenario. A prominent and much-loved

leader has been rushed to the hospital, grievously wounded by
an assassins bullet. He needs a heart and lung transplant
immediately to survive. No suitable donors are available, but
there is a homeless person in the emergency room who is being
kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to
live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the transplant, the
leader will die; the homeless person will die in a few days
anyway. Security at the hospital is very well controlled. The
transplant team could hasten the death of the homeless person
and carry out the transplant without the public ever knowing
that they killed the homeless person for his organs. What should
they do?
For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one could approve a
general rule that lets hospitals kill patients for their organs when
they are going to die anyway. The consequences of adopting such a
general rule would be highly negative and would certainly undermine
public trust in the medical establishment.
For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If secrecy were
guaranteed, the overall consequences might be such that in this
particular instance greater utility is produced by hastening the death
of the homeless person and using his organs for the transplant.

The Continuing Dispute

Rule utilitarians claim:

In particular cases, act utilitarianism can justify

disobeying important moral rules and violating
individual rights.
Act utilitarianism also takes too much time to calculate
in each and every case.

Act utilitarians respond:

Following a rule in a particular case when the overall

utility demands that we violate the rule is just ruleworship. If the consequences demand it, we should
violate the rule.
Furthermore, act utilitarians can follow rules-of-thumb
(accumulated wisdom based on consequences in the
past) most of the time and engage in individual
calculation only when there is some pressing reason
for doing so.

Evaluating
Utilitarian
Ethics

Evaluating Actions by Their

Consequences

(Examples from the trivial to the life determining)

Example: (Not a deep moral issue)

Do I eat the donut this morning?

Considerations:
Long term at least 500 calories
Short term pleasure burst of sugar in
my mouth
Will make me sleepy after about 45 min.
I love donuts, they make me happy
Am I a pig?
Other consequences to consider?

Triage

Medical Triage Example

1) Will die
without
extraordinary
measures

2) Will live--dont treat

now

3) Might save
if they get
medical
attention

Is this a fair concept?

How do we morally justify letting people die
without medical attention?
Shouldnt we be trying to save every human
life?
How would you feel if you woke up on tent #1?
How do we morally explain to the patient in

Teleological Ethics
Consequential Principles
Utilitarian Morality:
An act is good/bad, right/wrong, depending
on the consequences or ends produced by
that act
If the consequences are good, the act is
good.
If the consequences are bad, the act is
bad.
Utilitarianism:

Judges the act, not the person

Does not consider intentions or motive
much
So, goodSo
intentions
could
produce a bad act
So
muchfor
forgood
goodintent!
intent!

More Thoughts
Isnt the military the
ultimate Utilitarian?

We are willing to sacrifice

soldiers to achieve our
desired end state?

Dont Utilitarians use

some Kantian ethics?
They have good intent!
Patriot Act?
Value of the individual
Equal claim to triage
treatment?