MODULE 5 Readings

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

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.