This document is a strictly confidential communication to and solely for the use

of the recipient and may not be reproduced or circulated without prior written
consent from the authors. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not
disclose or use the information in this documentation in any way.

MODULE 5: Ethical Framework: Utilitarianism/Consequentialism

Module 5 presents the ethical framework of Consequentialism. Although Ethical Egoism

and Altruism are presented here, the bulk of the discussion is on the Utilitarianism of
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. This module aims to:
(1) show how to use Utilitarianism as a framework in analysing one‘s moral
experiences; and
(2) examine some of the strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of Module 5, you should be able to:

1. differentiate Ethical Egoism from Ethical Altruism;
2. trace the development of Utilitarianism from the early Hedonism;
3. justify our present quarantine protocols in the country using Bentham‘s
Felicific Calculus; and
4. evaluate the present education system which is Distance Learning Education
(DLE) thru the lense of J.S. Mill.

DISCUSSIONS

 Utilitarianism/Consequentialism

Also known as Consequentialism, utilitarianism as an ethical principle determines

the morality of an act/choice by its end result. Thus, one ought to choose an act that
would yield the good results. The goodness or badness of an act is determined by its
end or consequence. The working principle here is ―utility‖ or usefulness. The usefulness
of an act is determined by its consequences.

It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the

consequences of our actions. According to consequentialist normative theories, correct
moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's
consequences. In consequentialism, an action is morally right if the consequences of
that action are more favorable than unfavorable.

Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good
and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total
good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences
are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater,
then the action is morally improper.

Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18 th century by philosophers

who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to experience,
rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. In fact, the
most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable
consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism are more precisely
formulated than the general principle above. In particular, competing consequentialist
theories specify which consequences for affected groups of people are relevant.

Three subdivisions of consequentialism emerge:

1. Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action

are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing the action. There
are two kinds of egoism namely, Psychological egoism and ethical egoism.

Psychological egoism asserts that action is good since the consequence of the
action is beneficial to the person who performs the act. Psychological egoism is a
theory of human psychology which asserts that each person does in fact pursue his or
her own self-interest alone. It is theory of human nature that every human action is
motivated by self-interest. People are incapable of being unselfish because they are so
constituted to always look out only for their own self-interest. For example, a mother
sends her children to school. Is the act of sending her child to school consummates an
altruistic or egoistic act? But what are the consequences if the mother will not send her
child to school. The act of not sending the child to school looks like to the disadvantage
of her child. But psychological egoism will evaluate the act of not sending her child to
school an act more disadvantageous to the mother because she will not gain anything
if her child will be a liability to her and to the family. Further, the mother will be in pain
seeing her child a jobless moron or a goblin while other children of the neighbourhood
are successful honorable members of the society. Thus, the act of sending a child to
school is an act for the interest of the mother for the first place.

James Rachel (2002) in his book The Elements of Morality cites Thomas Hobbes‘s
(1588-1679) who affirms that psychological egoism is true. For Hobbes, altruistic act is an
illusion because human nature is self-interested or human acts are dictated by human
desires. In his thesis, people do charitable works because in the first place they will get
recognition or receive the reward of heavenly bliss. We will always do an action
because it makes us feel good. Hence, people sometimes seem to act altruistically, but
it is not hard to discover that the ‗unselfish‘ behavior is actually connected to some
benefit for the person who does it. Further, because of pity, man can do altruistic acts.
However, for Hobbes, pitiful acts are demonstration of one‘s power over the weak.
Hobbesian man is not a God-seeker but a power-seeker. Man is engaged in an endless
pursuit of power which ends only in death. So, by nature, men seek to possess and
enjoy power. What is the importance of this? Why do men seek power? The primary
reason is to ensure the preservation of their lives. Power is the tool used by men to
protect their selfish interests, the most important of which is to preserve their own lives.
 Psychological Egoism claims psychological altruism is impossible. People can act
to benefit the interests of others but only when there is something in it for themselves;
that they will get something out of it for themselves is the sole reason they benefit
others. Accordingly, people are never even partially motivated to help others for their
own sake. In the end, people care nothing for others; they care only about themselves.
People can‘t care for others for their own sake.

The other kind of egoism is Ethical Egoism. James Rachels (2002) explains that
Ethical Egoism is the radical idea that the principle of self-interest accounts for all of
one‘s moral obligations. Sometimes one‘s interests may happen to coincide with the
interests of others—in that by helping oneself, one will coincidentally help them, too. The
benefit to others is not what makes an action right, however. An action is right only
insofar as it is to one‘s own ‗advantage.‘ According to ethical egoism, however, we
have no duties to others; in fact, each person ought to pursue his or her own selfish
interests exclusively. A person ought to do what really is in his or her best interests, over
the long run. According to Ayn Rand (1905-1982), altruism leads to a denial of the value
of the individual (and his projects and goods). Rand argues that if a man accepts the
ethics of altruism, his first concern is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. Each
person has one life to live, but altruism rejects the value of the individual, whereas
ethical egoism views the individual‘s life as having supreme value, then ethical egoism
is the moral philosophy we ought to accept.

Ethical Egoism is a consequentialist ethical theory that contends that we act

morally when we act in a way that promises our own
best long-term interests. Ethics is concerned on
Motto of Utilitarianism:
personal needs which are relatively different from any
other persons. “Greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people.”
2. Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the
consequences of that action are more favorable than
unfavorable to everyone except the agent.

3. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are

more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.

All three of these theories focus on the consequences of actions for different
groups of people. But like all normative theories, the above three theories are rivals of
each other. They also yield to different conclusions.

Utilitarianism developed in England in the 18 th and 19th centuries. Its main

proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873). The
philosophy of utilitarianism is anchored on the doctrine that “the only motives of human
actions are pleasure and pain, the former prompting us to perform an act, the latter
compelling us to avoid an action.” A utilitarian‘s only motive of action is pain and
pleasure, ―seek good and avoid pain.‖ There are two kinds of utilitarianism. First, act
utilitarianism is the position that an action is moral if it produces the greatest happiness
for the most people. Second, rule utilitarianism is the ethical position that we should act
so that the rule governing our actions produce the greatest happiness for the most
people.

JEREMY BENTHAM: For Bentham, a person is selfish and acts to fulfill his/her
happiness. Man acts to gain pleasure or to avoid pain. Man is selfish and will not act
unless to procure his own pleasure. Pleasure is equated with happiness and the first
principle of ethics is the right and desirable goal of human action as happiness, that is,
pleasure and avoidance of pain.

It, therefore, follows that the rightness or wrongness of an action has to be judged
by its consequences and by the ability of the act to produce pleasure or remove pain.
An action that produces a mixture of pleasure and pain has to be judged according to
the quantity of pleasure or pain. Whichever is greater will determine moral character of
the action. He calls the property of any act that produces pleasure or happiness
―utility‖, hence, utilitarianism. In developing his calculus, Bentham distinguishes act
utilitarianism from rule utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of

utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed that
we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine on a
case by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of Bentham‘s
theory is known as act-utilitarianism. Second, Bentham also proposed that we tally the
pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For Bentham, pleasure and pain are
the only consequences that matter in determining whether our conduct is moral. This
aspect of Bentham‘s theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out
limitations in both of these aspects.

First criticism, according to act-utilitarianism, it

would be morally wrong to waste time on leisure activities
such as watching television, since our time could be spent
in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as
charity work. But prohibiting leisure activities doesn‘t seem
reasonable. More significantly, according to act-
utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be
morally permissible if the social benefit of these actions
outweighed the dis-benefit.

A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-utilitarianism addresses these

problems. According to rule-utilitarianism, a behavioral code or rule is morally right if the
consequences of adopting that rule are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the consequences of each particular action, rule-
utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as ―stealing is
wrong.‖ Adopting a rule against theft clearly has more favorable consequences than
unfavorable consequences for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying
or murdering. Rule-utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct.
A particular action, such as stealing a neighbor‘s car, is judged wrong since it violates a
moral rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because
adopting this rule produces favorable consequences for everyone. John Stuart Mill‘s
version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented.

Second criticism, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable

consequences are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though, seems
too restrictive since it ignores other morally significant consequences that are not
necessarily pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and friendship are
valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem, G.E. Moore
proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence that we
intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as pleasurable or painful). Also,
R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism, which involves tallying any consequence
that fulfils our preferences.

Hedonism is a philosophy on pleasure. “Hedone” in Greek means ―pleasure‖ as

the norm of action. There are two proponents of hedonism namely, Aristippus and
Epicurus: For Aristippus, happiness is based on sensual pleasure. Sensual pleasure as
motive of life – short term pleasure; motto: ―drink and be merry for tomorrow you will
die.‖ For Epicurus, happiness is based on rational pleasure. Intellectual pleasure is longer
in effect such as tranquility of the soul like friendship and education. In sum, an act is
neither theoretical, legalistic nor experimental; instead, it is only valuable with practical
and pleasure value. The counterargument: Practical ethics leads to hedonistic
tendencies, relativistic, no universality and can be ambiguous or even antinomian; it
lacks rational discernment.

Bentham is credited with founding the doctrine of utilitarianism. In brief, Bentham

argued that ―action is right if it will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest
number.‖ He believed that by calculating pleasures and pains, one can tell which
action is right and which is wrong. In concrete, Bentham‘s principle of utility translates
itself into what he called a ―felicific calculus,‖ that is, a ―happiness calculator, or
counter‖ which is a way of balancing the pros and cons of an envisaged act. Pleasure
and pain then is reducible to quantifiable units and the morally good act is the net
effect or outcome of maximum pleasure minus minimum pain.

The emphasis of J. Bentham is the Quantity of Pleasure which are quantified as

follows using the Modified Pleasure Calculus. There are Seven Variables of
Pleasure Calculus: 1) Intensity: How intense is the Pleasure and Pain? 2)
Duration: How does Pleasure and Pain last? 3) Certainty: What is the
probability of Pleasure and Pain to occur? 4) Propinquity: How far off in the
future is Pleasure and Pain? 5) Fecundity: What is the probability that
Pleasure and Pain will lead to another Pleasure and Pain? 6) Purity: How
sure is Pleasure or Pain truly experienced? And 7) Extent: How many persons
are affected by Pleasure and Pain?

For instance, wealth is proved or quantified by having a huge amount of money.

Intelligence is proved or quantified by highest correct answers in an exam. A product is
quantified by the largest amount ne can get or accumulate. A quantitative research is
proved to be valid by analyzing data through numbers.
Application of the felicific calculus.

For example, if one is invited to attend a dance party and birthday party that will
happen on the same day at the same time, then one may use the felicific calculus to
measure the pleasure and pain from the two alternatives of action. The intensity
element will ask the variability of the stronger pleasure and the lesser pain one may
derive from attending a dance party or a birthday party. Maybe the pleasure that is
taken in the birthday party is more intense because the foods prepared by the
celebrant, are more delicious; but one should also take into account the side effects of
fatty foods into one‘s blood pressure. In duration, it asks the length of time of pleasure
or pain one may derive from the two alternatives. Maybe, the dance party will have a
longer pleasure because it may end in a longer time. But one should also take into
account the length of pain one may experience in a dance party because it is possible
that nobody will dance with him/her until the end of the program.

In certainty or the ―sureness‖ of pleasure, it asks the probability of the occurrence

of pleasure and pain because it is not always a good option to choose from
uncertainty. The element of propinquity deals with the circumstances of ―nearness‖ and
―remoteness‖ of pleasure and pain to be achieved. This can be illustrated with the case
of an employee who is granted a one-month vacation leave on the following fiscal
year with the full benefits and complete allowances from the company. If the
employee accepts the offer, what month will the s/he spends his/her vacation? What
month will s/he select? The rule of propinquity demands that the opportunity should be
taken in the nearest time possible because one may not have the access of pleasure
as s/he pleases when other circumstances will occur. Hence, the first month of the year
should be selected. This is also true in applying a job. Also, to be considered is fecundity,
or the capacity to engender further pleasure; and purity, or the relative absence of any
admixture of painful counter effects. Finally, extent, or the number of people affected is
considered. Extent brings into balance the happiness of other people involved, hence,
the more, the merrier.

Further, if more than one of the elements are involved in an action, all the other
amounts of pleasure and pain must be accounted for. One is therefore reminded that
even a seemingly innocuous act might turn out to have ―systemic‖ effects (to the
environment, or to conditions elsewhere, etc.).

JOHN STUART MILL: Mill defended the Bentham‘s doctrine of ―Greatest happiness
for greatest number of people.‖ He accepted the greatest happiness principle of
Bentham and agreed with him that man seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and that
happiness is the goal of human life, which is identified with pleasure. JS Mill adds a
qualitative dimension to Bentham‘s purely quantitative one. Mill‘s Greatest Happiness
Principle is still hedonistic, since it ―…holds that actions are right in proportion as they
tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.‖
Mill asserts that by ‗happiness‘ is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by
‗unhappiness,‘ pain, and the privation of pleasure.‖ But Mill‘s version modifies
Bentham‘s utilitarianism. Mill observes that “It is quite compatible with the principle of
utility to recognize the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more
valuable than others. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who
have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of
moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”

Mill differentiates the pleasures of animals with those of humans; of those who
are intelligent with those who are ignorant: “…it is an unquestionable fact that those
who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying,
both, do give a marked preference to the manner of existence which employs the
higher faculties [….] Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of
the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no
intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an
ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even
though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better
satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.”

Mill would assert that character formation is necessary in the cultivation of high
quality pleasures: “Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general
cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefitted by
the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer
deduction from the benefit.” Moreover, subordinate rules are what we would normally
call ―common sense morality‖.

Mill identifies the main deficiency of people who are ―not happy‖: “Next to
selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is want of mental
cultivation. A cultivated mind…finds sources of inexhaustible interest in all that surrounds
it; in the object of nature, the achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry, the
incidents of history, the ways of mankind past and present, and their prospects in the
future.” For Mill, therefore, the ―greatest‖ in ―greatest happiness principle‖ does not just
refer to the quantity of happiness (or pleasure) but also to a higher quality or kind of
happiness (or pleasure) that everyone affected, regardless of status, could experience
as the consequences of the action in question. Applied to the body politic, utilitarianism
and its objective of ―the greatest happiness for the greatest number‖ should be the
goal of all laws and the ultimate criterion of all institution. Thus, he maintained that
pleasures do not only differ ―quantitatively‖ but also ―qualitatively.‖

The emphasis of J.S. Mill is the Quality of Pleasure and

pleasure differs qualitatively. His Motto is, “A good man would
rather be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” “A
person would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because
they only know their own side of the question. The other party to
the comparison knows both sides.” And aside from the qualitative
classification of pleasure, Mill stresses on the social character of
happiness. One has to seek the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people. The end of moral action is not merely one‘s
own happiness but the greatest amount of happiness for all.
 Quality is important in terms of durability, elegance, and longevity of anything
important. For instance, qualifying an intellectual capacity is based not on numbers but
on justification of intelligence through creativity and innovativeness. Qualifying a
product means the inherent value or worth of such product – a quality of time, of
peace and of tranquility, of enjoyment. A qualitative research deals with analysis based
on worth and value of the experiences in proving validity.