 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 neighborhood 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 Motto of Utilitarianism:

contends that we act morally when we act in a way that promises
“Greatest happiness for the
our own best long-term interests. Ethics is concerned on personal
needs which are relatively different from any other persons. 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.

This picture depicts that an old man who has lived a long life and enjoying music in
old age, signifies happiness.