What is Utilitarianism?

What is Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, as it examines the purpose behind a given action, and assesses its morality based on how it achieves this purpose. It is also a consequentialist theory, as it looks at the results or consequences of an action when considering its morality.  The theory of Utilitarianism abides by the Principle of Utility, or the greatest happiness principle. This principle advocates 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number.'

e18a7c1e-b1b8-40aa-86f2-72aad92d83aa (image/jpg)

Hedonism

Bentham and Mill were both hedonists - they claimed that happiness is pleasure and absence of pain, and this is all that matters. Bentham viewed all pleasure and pain as equally important, using the Hedonic Calculus to calculate how much pleasure a given action is likely to produce.  He believed that the total amount of happiness produced is the sum total of everyone's pleasures minus the sum total of everyone's pains. Mill rejected this view, and thought that some pleasures were higher than others. 

5ed14aeb-4fc5-4e1d-98ba-2778766cfe41 (image/jpg)

Forms of Utilitarianism

Classical: Act Utilitarianism - Jeremy Bentham Rule Utilitarianism - John Stuart Mill Modern Preference Utilitarianism - Peter Singer

12fd3af8-cad2-4940-a296-fbdfa8c4e99f (image/jpg)

Strengths of Utilitarianism

Causes happiness for the greatest number. Gives moral judgements about behaviour. Uses common sense and applicable to all situations. Suits democratic society. Considers the consequences of actions and individuals as equals. The greatest happiness for the greatest number seems like a good rule to follow, as it encourages us to help as many people as possible. The teleological aspect of the theory (telos = end or goal of an action) is good because it puts a strong focus on purposeful living.

222b2e3f-d3af-48c9-8237-f591ca01aa4d (image/jpg)

General Criticism

Is happiness the right standard for morality at all? Utilitarianism weighs the unhappiness of one person against the happiness of another, and philosophers argue that it isn't concerned with people as individuals, but as 'receptacles for happiness,' which fails to treat them with proper respect.  The distribution of happiness (who gets happy by how much) is irrelevant, and this fails to respect justice. e.g.) One person would be happy to have their family around them, whereas another might want to have a bigger house or a nicer car as well as having their family around them. Kant argued that happiness (or satisfying people's preferences) is not always morally good. e.g.) The happiness child abusers get from hurting children is morally bad, and the fact that the abusers are deriving happiness from this doesn't make the action better at all, in fact, it is made worse. Therefore, there must be another standard for what is morally good.

Is happiness the only thing that matters? Many philosophers argue that there are other values such as freedom and justice, that are more important. Even if pursuing these values makes us happy, it is the value itself that is important, not the happiness.  If the majority are happy with something, does this make an action right? e.g.) If a group of child abusers are happy to hurt a child, this doesn't mean that the action is morally right.  Causes pain to minority. Goes against common laws e.g.) abortion and Preference utilitarianism The consequentialist aspect equates to 'the ends justify the means', which means that immoral actions are okay because of the end result. e.g) hospitalising someone who had an undiagnosed tumour is not morally right, even if they do end up receiving tumour treatment.