Chapter 3: Ethical Theory: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham & John Stuart Mill

Jeremy Bentham’s Classic Version of Utilitarianism

The second and final theory of right action we will explore is Utilitarianism. The term “Utilitarianism” was coined by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Bentham’s theory presents an ethical perspective that contrasts sharply with the type recommended by Kant and many of his contemporaries. Whereas Kant’s ethical theory focused on abstract principles and philosophical formulas, Bentham, leading a group known as the “Philosophical Radicals,” introduced an approach emphasizing context and the concrete aspects of human experience. Bentham’s theory is arguably the dominant ethical theory among mainstream Western philosophers today. He stated this fundamental shift in the very first sentence of his seminal work, The Principles of Morals and Legislation: “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”

Bentham’s ethical theory is built on the Principle of Utility, also known as the Greatest Happiness Principle. He described this principle as follows: “By the Principle of Utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question; or, in other words, to promote or oppose happiness.”

How do you think Bentham would fill in the blanks in the diagram below?

According to Bentham, the right action is the one with the greatest utility—that is, the action that is expected to produce the most happiness for the greatest number. For Bentham, utility and happiness are defined in terms of pleasure. He developed a systematic ethical decision-making tool known as the “Hedonic Calculus” (a “hedon” is a unit of happiness). Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus includes seven key questions or “circumstances” to guide moral decisions:

1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure or pain?
2. Duration: How long will the pleasure or pain last?
3. Certainty: How likely is it to occur?
4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will it occur?
5. Fecundity: What are the chances of it being followed by sensations of the same kind (pleasures if it is a pleasure, pains if it is a pain)?
6. Purity: What are the chances of it not being followed by sensations of the same kind (pains if it is a pleasure, and pleasures if it is a pain)?
7. Extent: Who will be affected? How many will be affected?

Bentham’s focus was primarily on the quantity of pleasure (happiness) generated, essentially advocating “the more, the better.” This approach implies that all pleasures are morally equivalent. For instance, the pleasure derived from watching an episode of The Office is considered on par with the enjoyment one might get from an episode of South Park. This lack of differentiation can be problematic, especially when considering more extreme examples, such as the pleasure a pedophile might derive from harming children. It seems counterintuitive to suggest that such pleasure is on the same moral level as the pleasure derived from a loving relationship between consenting adults.

Many critics argue that Bentham’s failure to address the qualitative dimension of pleasure (i.e., the intrinsic value of different types of pleasure) is a fundamental flaw in his theory.

John Stuart Mill’s “New and Improved” Version of Utilitarianism

Although John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was not the originator of Utilitarianism, he significantly refined and expanded the theory. Mill’s contributions made Utilitarianism a more defensible and tenable ethical theory. His version of Utilitarianism continues to influence many prominent thinkers today, such as Peter Singer.

Mill’s most important contribution was to complement Bentham’s quantitative approach with a qualitative dimension. Mill argued that some pleasures are more valuable than others, introducing a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are those of the mind, while lower pleasures are those of the body. Mill’s perspective aimed to align Utilitarianism with the commonly held belief that humans are capable of experiencing pleasures that non-human animals cannot.

In the second chapter of Utilitarianism, Mill asserts:

“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. It would be absurd if, while estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.”

• Mill addresses the challenge of justifying the qualitative distinction between pleasures:
  “If I am asked what I mean by the difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. 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. If one of the two is so highly valued by those competently acquainted with both that they prefer it despite knowing it to be attended with more discontent and would not exchange it for any amount of the other pleasure, we are justified in ascribing a superiority in quality to the preferred enjoyment.”
• Mill famously argued,
  “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig are 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.”
• Mill also addressed the objection that Utilitarianism fails to account for our ordinary moral intuitions about concepts such as virtue, duty, obligation, and justice.
  He contended that Utilitarianism not only acknowledges these intuitions but also supports them due to their social utility.
• In the concluding paragraph of Utilitarianism, Mill explains:
  “Justice remains the appropriate name for certain social utilities which are vastly more important, and therefore more absolute and imperative, than any others are as a class (though not more so than others may be in particular cases); and which, therefore, ought to be, as well as naturally are, guarded by a sentiment not only different in degree but also in kind; distinguished from the milder feeling which attaches to the mere idea of promoting human pleasure or convenience, at once by the more definite nature of its commands, and by the sterner character of its sanctions.”

Practice Activity

Please read each multiple-choice question carefully and select the best answer from the options provided.