Critically assess the view that utilitarianism provides a helpful way to make moral
decisions.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that the morally right course of action in any
situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone
affected. The helpfulness of an ethical theory depends on its definition, and its ability to
provide a coherent framework for justifying/supporting moral decision making. Whilst
utilitarianism is a recognised ethical theory, there are significant difficulties in relying on it as
a sole method for moral decision-making. Therefore, it is not the only approach for making
moral decisions.
Classical forms of Utilitarianism originated from the philosopher/social reformer, Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832) and the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Modern
versions arise from Popper, Hare, Singer and Brandt.
The goal of utilitarian consequentialism according to Bentham’s “is the greatest happiness of
the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”1 For Bentham, utility was an
absolute concept to be interpreted impartially by individuals/agents when making moral
decisions.
John Stuart Mill, spoke of benefits and harms not in terms of pleasure and pain alone but in
terms of the quality or intensity of such pleasures and pain. The pursuit of higher
(intellectual) pleasures should be the basis of taking moral decisions. However, this could
lead to elitist decision making.
Peter Singer updated Utilitarianism by arguing for negative utilitarianism based for achieving
utility and making moral choices by pursuing individual and personal preferences.
Underpinning the concept of utility is the use “Act utilitarianism” favoured by Bentham
(calculating the consequences of each situation on its own merits) and its use in promoting
the greatest amount of good over evil, or pleasure over pain. This is contrasted with “Rule
Utilitarianism (favoured by Mill) in that following rules based on experience as guiding points
to promote the common good.
As a complete ethical system Utilitarianism is problematic. It does not explain why a person
should make moral decisions to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. It
does not take account that people do believe that some things are right and other things
regardless of their consequences. The notion of promoting the greatest happiness of the
greatest number is sometimes useful in making moral decisions. However, it is often
impossible to decide which actions will produce the greatest happiness, and often impossible
to weight the happiness of the individual against that of society at large. Utilitarianism leaves
open the question of what type of decision procedure we should follow in practice when
making moral decisions. Utilitarianism also does not regard acts and omissions in taking
moral decisions as being morally different and doing harm to others is instrumentally worse
than allowing harm.
The Hedonic Calculus requires sufficient time for a mathematical calculation to be applied to
work out happiness/pain by assigning values to the benefits and harms resulting from our
actions and comparing them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions.
However, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain
benefits and costs or the amount of people being affected by making moral decisions. In
applying Utilitarian theories it is difficult to make comparative moral judgements such as
comparing the value of money with, for example, the value of life, or the value of time, or the
value of human dignity.
1
BENTHAM J. IN: BENTHAM: A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT. Harrison R., editor. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK:
1988. (Original work published 1776), page 3.
decisions.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that the morally right course of action in any
situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone
affected. The helpfulness of an ethical theory depends on its definition, and its ability to
provide a coherent framework for justifying/supporting moral decision making. Whilst
utilitarianism is a recognised ethical theory, there are significant difficulties in relying on it as
a sole method for moral decision-making. Therefore, it is not the only approach for making
moral decisions.
Classical forms of Utilitarianism originated from the philosopher/social reformer, Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832) and the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Modern
versions arise from Popper, Hare, Singer and Brandt.
The goal of utilitarian consequentialism according to Bentham’s “is the greatest happiness of
the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong”1 For Bentham, utility was an
absolute concept to be interpreted impartially by individuals/agents when making moral
decisions.
John Stuart Mill, spoke of benefits and harms not in terms of pleasure and pain alone but in
terms of the quality or intensity of such pleasures and pain. The pursuit of higher
(intellectual) pleasures should be the basis of taking moral decisions. However, this could
lead to elitist decision making.
Peter Singer updated Utilitarianism by arguing for negative utilitarianism based for achieving
utility and making moral choices by pursuing individual and personal preferences.
Underpinning the concept of utility is the use “Act utilitarianism” favoured by Bentham
(calculating the consequences of each situation on its own merits) and its use in promoting
the greatest amount of good over evil, or pleasure over pain. This is contrasted with “Rule
Utilitarianism (favoured by Mill) in that following rules based on experience as guiding points
to promote the common good.
As a complete ethical system Utilitarianism is problematic. It does not explain why a person
should make moral decisions to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. It
does not take account that people do believe that some things are right and other things
regardless of their consequences. The notion of promoting the greatest happiness of the
greatest number is sometimes useful in making moral decisions. However, it is often
impossible to decide which actions will produce the greatest happiness, and often impossible
to weight the happiness of the individual against that of society at large. Utilitarianism leaves
open the question of what type of decision procedure we should follow in practice when
making moral decisions. Utilitarianism also does not regard acts and omissions in taking
moral decisions as being morally different and doing harm to others is instrumentally worse
than allowing harm.
The Hedonic Calculus requires sufficient time for a mathematical calculation to be applied to
work out happiness/pain by assigning values to the benefits and harms resulting from our
actions and comparing them with the benefits and harms that might result from other actions.
However, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to measure and compare the values of certain
benefits and costs or the amount of people being affected by making moral decisions. In
applying Utilitarian theories it is difficult to make comparative moral judgements such as
comparing the value of money with, for example, the value of life, or the value of time, or the
value of human dignity.
1
BENTHAM J. IN: BENTHAM: A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT. Harrison R., editor. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK:
1988. (Original work published 1776), page 3.
