MODULE 5

UTILITARIANISM

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this module, you should be able to:

1. Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics;

2. Distinguish between two utilitarian models: the lower pleasure model of
Jeremy Bentham and the higher pleasure model of John Stuart Mill; and
3. Apply utilitarianism in understanding and evaluating local and international
practices or policies.

Introduction

This module aims to give a comprehensive view of the utilitarian type of ethical
standard. Utilitarianism is grounded from the human experience of pain and
pleasure. It is beyond argument that humans prefer pleasure and they avoid pain or
suffering. From here, an ethical teaching is generated stating that what is good is that
which results to pleasure or happiness. What is bad is anything that leads to pain. Since
the focus is on the result, it is otherwise known as consequentialism. While it is
obvious that pleasure is largely understood as physical comfort and happiness common
also in ordinary animals, utilitarianism moves up by emphasizing on rights or
justice which is considered as the primary segment of our being humans.

Utility Based Moral Principle

“The late 18th and 19th centuries witnessed an astonishing series of upheavals:
The modern nation-state emerged from the French Revolution and the wreckage of
the Napoleonic empire; the revolutions of 1848 showed the transforming power of the
ideas of “liberty, equality, and fraternity”; in the New World, America was born, sporting
a new kind of constitution; and the American Civil War (1861–1865) would finish off
slavery in Western civilization. All the while, the Industrial Revolution was bringing about
a complete restructuring of society.”1

Ethics was likewise subjected into a new approach emphasizing on how it could
be understood objectively just like the rising of new ideas that time. In as much as the
sciences became attractive and convincing for the obvious reason that their gains are

_________________________
Rachels, Stuart. 2012. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 7th edition. New York: Mc Graw
Hill Companies, Inc. 2012.
2
easily seen and enjoyed, ethicists were challenged on how ethics could likewise be
presented in an objective or scientific manner. Ethics had to respond to the needs of
society on how the citizens’ need for material sufficiency could be effectively
worked out. In other words, the credibility of a certain science does not rely
anymore on how far it can demonstrate the truth; rather, it is now a question of
how a certain intellectual endeavor could help change the society to become a
better place for everyone. Such trend was understandable because economic
stagnation and destruction caused by widespread civil unrest forced the citizens to
prioritize material needs.

One thinker and social reformer who responded to the general sentiment of the
time was the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 –1832) who asserts that

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters,
pain and pleasure. They alone point out what we ought to do and determine
what we shall do; the standard of right and wrong, and the chain of causes
and effects, are both fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, all
we say, all we think; every effort we can make to throw off our subjection ·to
pain and pleasure· will only serve to demonstrate and confirm it.2
From the quotation above, Jeremy Bentham affirms the fact that every person
prefers pleasure over pain. Even ordinary animals share the same inclination. He
now uses this as his foundation for the type of ethical teaching that he popularized
known as utilitarianism. Its root word utility is from the “Latin term utilis "usable," from
uti "make use of, profit by, take advantage of." 3 It implies that the goodness of a thing
depends on how far it could be of use for beneficial purposes. Applied in human
actions, the benefit is on the degree of satisfaction or pleasure as a result of an act.
More precisely, “the principle of utility refers to the motivation of our actions as
guided by our avoidance of pain and our desire for pleasure. It is like saying that
in our everyday actions, we do what is pleasurable and we do not do what is
painful.”4 Something is bad if it results to pain or suffering. Conversely, if it results to
pleasure, then it is good. Since “Bentham equates happiness with pleasure” 5, it follows
that pleasure itself is desirable for the reason that humans by nature prefer happiness
over sadness or misery.
_________________________
2
Bentham, Jeremy. 1781. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
Kitchener: Batoche Books (2000), 14.
3
Online Etymology Dictionary (No Date). Retrieved October 18, 2020, from
https://www.etymonline.com/word/utility#:~:text=utility%20(n.),)).
4
Calano, Mark Joseph, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr., Albert M. Lagliva, Michael Ner E. Mariano and
Jesus Deogracias Z. Principe. 2018. Ethics: Foundations of Moral Valuation, 1st ed. Manila: Rex
Bookstore: 30.
5
Ibid.

3
Measuring Utility and Pleasure

Bentham believes that utility and pleasure which are commonly identified
with the good can be measured like the method being applied in science. Doing
so will gain the likelihood of better understanding. How did he do it? He did it by
presenting his method known as the Hedonistic Calculus or Felicific Calculus. Calculus
ordinarily implies calculation or something related to measurement while hedonistic or
“hedonism refers to the Greek word hēdonē, 'pleasure”.6 In Jeremy Bentham’s own
words, he said,

To a person considered by himself, the value of a pleasure or pain considered

by itself, will be greater or less, according to the four following circumstances:
1. Its intensity. 2. Its duration. 3. Its certainty or uncertainty. 4. Its propinquity
or remoteness.7

“Intensity --How intense is the pleasure or pain? Duration --How long does the
pleasure of pain last? Certainty --What is the probability that the pleasure or pain will
occur? Propinquity (nearness or remoteness) --How far off in the future is the pleasure
or pain? Fecundity --What is the probability that the pleasure will lead to other
pleasures? Purity --What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pains? Extent
--How many persons are affected by the pleasure?”8
An example can be given to further illustrate how the calculus is applied. For
instance is the feeding program in public schools. What food are we going to serve?
Would it be bread, corn soup, lugaw, puto, etc? If corn soup will greatly increase
the nutrition of children thereby enhancing their long range academic performance and
vitality including the income of the suppliers of corn, the farmers and transporters
gaining profit, then corn is the right choice. It is to be preferred because it is the one that
gives the greatest amount of benefit over the others.

Reforming Bentham’s Ethics of Pleasure

John Stuart Mill saw a deficiency in the ethical teaching of Jeremy Bentham. In
Mill’s own words, he lamented,

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be

Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.9
_________________________
6
Hedonism. (9 October 2020). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism#:~:text=The%20term%20hedonism%20derives%20from,(%2D
%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82%2C%20'ism').
7
Bentham, 31.
8
Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html
9
Mill, John Stuart. 1863. Utilitarianism. Kitchener: Batoche Books (2001), 13.
4
Mill’s comment on the morality of Bentham points to the type of pleasure that is
proper to a human person. In Bentham’s account, pleasure appears to be the same as
what ordinary animals like pigs experience. It is candidly obvious that human beings
have faculties higher than swine similarly indicating of a higher quality of gratification.
Mill is correct in asserting that human beings by their nature yearn for a higher quality of
pleasure. What is that higher level of pleasure that Mill wanted to emphasize for the
modification of Bentham’s teaching? Mill himself explained,

In all ages of speculation, one of the strongest obstacles to the reception of

the doctrine that Utility or Happiness is the criterion of right and wrong, has
been drawn from the idea of justice.10

Mill adds rights or justice. This is the case because when rights of people are
respected, justice is likewise observed. From the contention of Mill, he means that
the effort to achieve utility or pleasure cannot be justified when rights of people are
violated. This is reflected in the urbanization projects of the government where original
settlers are displaced most often by force thereby ignoring their rights. There is a
considerable group of people in the world today airing their opposition to
industrialization depriving their right to life or good health. In effect, Mill’s adherence to
justice humanizes Bentham’s teaching. From the level of animals, the human person
moves up having his/her rights protected and promoted.

Morality Based from the Happiness of the Greatest Number of People

Mill’s understanding of happiness differs to that of Bentham. While Bentham was

concerned of the physical aspect of pleasure, Mill was on the rational realm of
happiness. Mill further explained to clarify his point through the following quotation.

I have dwelt on this point, as being a necessary part of a perfectly just

conception of Utility or Happiness, considered as the directive rule of human
conduct. But it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of
the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent’s own greatest
happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may
possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its
nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that
the world in general is immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore,
could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of
character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness
of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer
deduction from the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as
this last, renders refutation superfluous.11
_________________________
10
Mill, 41.
11
Ibid., 14.
5
From the quotation above, Mill argues in point that the search for pleasure or
happiness cannot be only about one person. Instead, one has to take into account the
general good. In our present time, we have it as general welfare. In this sense,
utilitarianism teaches that “an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes
the good, that is, if and only if the total amount of good for all minus the total
amount of bad for all is greater than this net amount for any incompatible act
available to the agent on that occasion.” 12 It follows that someone is doing good
when after having infected by a contagious disease he/she decides for personal
isolation to avoid spreading the disease to others which is a greater good. Giving one
thousand pesos to the children of depressed families is of moral worth seeing that more
of them will be better off than myself. Sacrificing my addiction to soft drinks or
cigarettes is morally praiseworthy when my money for it is instead given to street
children who desperately need a piece of bread to appease their unforgiving hunger.

SUMMARY

Utilitarianism is popular because of its attention to pleasure or happiness. It is

also influential. Without their knowledge, people are mostly utilitarian. In buying things,
usability is assured. Friendship is set aside when it does not serve anymore the
happiness of those involved. In business, what is taken is the option that gains the
highest profit. Mill’s insistence to rights or justice humanizes utilitarianism. Applied in
society, the benefit of the greatest number of people is what determines the morality of
a certain action. It is indeed a democratic guideline. It has just to be kept in mind that
utilitarianism is not perfect. It has its limitations. One is, we cannot be sure of what is
going to happen. Another is that there is a danger of sacrificing the rights of the minority
for the sake of the majority.

_________________________
12(
Cf. Moore 1912, chs. 1–2.) Quoted in Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. (2019).
Consequentialissm. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

6
References

Bentham, Jeremy. 1781. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

Kitchener: Batoche Books (2000).

Calano, Mark Joseph, Oscar G. Bulaong Jr., Albert M. Lagliva, Michael Ner E. Mariano
and Jesus Deogracias Z. Principe. 2018. Ethics: Foundations of Moral
Valuation, 1st ed. Manila: Rex Bookstore.

Mill, John Stuart. 1863. Utilitarianism. Kitchener: Batoche Books (2001).

Rachels, Stuart. 2012. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 7th edition. New York: Mc
Graw Hill Companies, Inc.

Internet Sources:

Hedonism. (9 October 2020). In Wikipedia. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism#:~:text=The%20term%20hedonism%20derives
%20from,(%2D%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82%2C%20'ism').

Online Etymology Dictionary (No Date). Retrieved October 18, 2020, from
https://www.etymonline.com/word/utility#:~:text=utility%20(n.),)).

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. (2019). Consequentialissm. Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
https://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/calculus.html