UTILITARIAN ETHICS
“All action is for the sake of some end." (John Stuart Mill)

    Utilitarianism is part of a larger family of ethical theories called "consequentialism," and consequentialism is the view that whether an act is right or wrong is determined, directly or indirectly, by the act's consequences and not by its intrinsic features, or the doing of the act (McInerney & Rainbolt 1994). Not all philosophers during the 18th Century Enlightenment were utilitarians. Utilitarianism was a social reform movement and ethical theory which held that the morality of an act should be judged solely on the basis of results, and as such, was more of a political philosophy than an ethical one. The Enlightenment era saw many reactions to the metaphysics of Renaissance naturalism. Scholars of the Enlightenment saw naturalism as incomplete and inner-worldly, not far removed from reliance on divine inspiration and introspection. The Enlightenment era was characterized by progressive and liberal ideas about the perfectibility of human nature and society. Church influence was negligible and reason was elevated to the status of vanguard for a new society. There was an inexhaustible hope in the discovery of a rational system of ethics which would be useful for social reform and practical for all people, and in this latter sense, we are still living in the utilitarian era.

    In this lecture note, descriptions and explanations are provided of the little-known utilitarians and those of contemporary status.  It is important to get up-to-date with the contemporaries, and readers will have benefited from previous lectures which at least provided an overview of the classical utilitarians, like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.  Some of the advanced topics talked about here build on an assumed understanding of the basics.  For review purposes, some of those basic are discussed herein.

BENTHAM AND MILL: CLASSIC UTILITARIANISM

    From a political point of view, classic utilitarianism was a social reform movement which aimed  to improve the living conditions of the poor and unfortunate in society.  It was the first philosophy to show that Greek hedonism was capable of social application, and in a sense, utilitarianism attempted to combine individual hedonism (egoism) with social hedonism (altruism, or the altruistic obligation of each individual to society).  The hope was to create a civilized society where BOTH concern for self and concern for the common good could take place (Souryal 2003). 

    According to utilitarianism, UTILITY is the only intrinsic good.  Actions and precedents are judged right or wrong in proportion to their propensity to produce the most happiness or pleasure, for the greatest number.  Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) believed that utility could be measure quantitatively (in what he called a hedonistic calculus), and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) believed in a qualitative approach which essentially involved checking your perceived judgments with others for a second opinion, so to speak.  Later utilitarians, like Rashdall and Sidgwick, devised alternative ways of measuring utility. 

    Bentham believed that seeking happiness was an inherent part of human nature, and that happiness could be measured as a matter of quantity.  Each person is their own judge when it comes to happiness, but when it comes to the greatest happiness (or felicity, as he called it), a person can really only be so happy if others around them are happy, too.  He called this the greatest happiness (or felicity) principle.   The greatest happiness depended upon the circumstances, upon the community in which one finds themselves, and -- this is the reform impulse -- upon how they sought to maximize harmony, comfort, and happiness with their closest friends and neighbors.   It all depends upon circumstances, and this led Bentham to devise the HEDONISTIC CALCULUS, which had the following components:

• intensity -- the force or "shock value" of some happiness or pleasure

• duration -- the length of time some happiness or pleasure provides

• certainty -- the chance that some action will, indeed, lead to happiness or pleasure

• propinquity -- how near or close together are all the circumstances

• fecundity -- how much of a "spillover" effect some happiness or pleasure has

• purity -- how much there are no negative "side effects" from some happiness or pleasure

• extent -- the number of people affected by pursuit of some happiness or pleasure

    Whereas Bentham believed that the pursuit of pleasure could be measured in quantitative terms (more is better in the pursuit of Platonic merit), Mill insisted that some pleasures were more worthy than others, and that a refined person would pursue more refined pleasures (less is more in the pursuit of desert).  For example, Mill argued that given the corruptible nature of society and organizations, it is probably more important to look upon self-sacrifice and individual conscience as virtues in themselves, whereas Bentham argued that it's sometimes best to sacrifice individuals for the good of the organization.  This argument between the classic utilitarians gave way to future debates among modern utilitarians over the principle of SOCIAL JUSTICE, or how to distribute (minimize) the evils and harms in society.   

LOCKE: FOUNDER OF MODERN LIBERALISM

    The Oxford scholar, John Locke (1632-1704), was an early theological utilitarian, and one of the most influential philosophers in history. He became a hero of the Enlightenment for his original, fresh, and creative contributions. His major works include An Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatises of Government, both published in 1690. The Essay was a full-scale critique of man’s intellectual powers, and some of his ideas from Two Treatises found their way into the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

    Locke pushed the empiricism of Bacon and Hobbes to new limits. While these early empiricists were content to argue that all knowledge should be based on observation and experience, Locke argued that all knowledge, even the notions of causality and God, are derived from use of the five senses. Without exception, all our ideas come to us through the senses. Therefore, without this experience of sensation, there can be no experience of reflection. This means that each person’s mind is in the beginning a BLANK SLATE, or a tabula rasa, upon which experience writes knowledge. While this particular notion of the mind as a blank slate was to be influential in the development of sociological positivism, that people are a product of their environment rather than heredity, Locke had practical reasons for advocating it. He considered the opposite notion -- belief in innate ideas, as a dangerous tool in the hands of those who would misuse it. A skillful ruler could convince people that certain ideas are innate, thus taking away their right to think and examine things for themselves.  Locke placed great emphasis on the idea of inalienable rights, the main concept that found its way into the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

    Locke's ethical theory, which is sometimes treated as a form of theological utilitarianism (Frankena 1973), was expressed in his 1695 book, The Reasonableness of Christianity. There, he argued for the natural goodness and beauty of human nature, turning many state of nature assumptions in social contract theory on their head.  It was Locke who devised the notion that in the LONG RUN, if individuals rationally pursue their private happiness and pleasure, then the interests of the whole -- society or the general welfare will be looked after fairly automatically.  Concepts underpinning this belief in the goodness of long-term consequences include the notions of rationality, cooperation, and agapism (agape being the Christian word for love).  Locke argued that most of Christianity is utilitarian since concern is for rewards in the afterlife, and he argued for broad religious freedoms in three separate essays on toleration.  His essays on toleration are foundational documents for modern liberalism.

THE SIDGWICK & SINGER SOLUTIONS

    Another interesting character in the history of utilitarianism is Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900), and his most famous book is called Methods of Ethics, which compared egoism, intuitionism, and utilitarianism, and concluded that utilitarianism could use some of the concept of DUTY as found in rationalist or intuitionist ethics.  The principle of self-interest alone would probably not be enough to sustain either the individual or the public welfare.  Egoism strives for excellence; intuitionism strives for perfection; and utilitarianism strives for happiness.  The key words are to strive, and the concept of STRIFE (as conflict or struggle) becomes an important part of Sidgwick's ethics as well as a basic principle in managing democracies.  Strife is a by-product of many individuals pursuing their own sense of justice, and has many implications, not the least of which is how to manage what different social classes may perceive or want.  Sidgwick's solution is to propose the idea of "negative utilitarianism" which means to minimize the harmful effects of public policy (like war) as much as possible.  A focus on the minimization of harm brings a welcome aspect to utilitarian philosophy which previously had solely focused on the maximization of good, and Sidgwick proposes that, in a democracy, it is everyone's ethical duty to consider both the pros (maximizations) and cons (minimizations) of public policy, and not take a one-sided stance solely for the basis of conflict.

    The importance of DUTY was resurrected by a later (and living) philosopher, Peter Singer (1946-), who has written many books, most notably the best-seller, Practical Ethics, and is also known as the world's foremost animal rights activist.  Singer takes on the "is-ought" problem left unresolved by Sidgwick (the is-ought problem refers to the so-called "political correctness" of rhetoric or how to convince people that the "ought" ought to become the "is"), and proposes that the best way to universalize the unfettered pursuit of happiness is not simply to minimize harms (such as racism and speciesism), but to require people to act out of a sense of duty which forces them to sacrifice for the benefit (maximum interests) of all.  For example, Singer's solution is for every American family who can afford it to donate a portion of their earnings (a "tithe" if you will) to help feed and clothe poor children in Africa.  Whatever cause one donates to doesn't matter as much as the act of donating, and such CHARITY or philanthropy represents the highest expression of utilitarian principles in practice.  Singer's ideas are sometimes called a combination of classical and "preference utilitarianism," although a better term might be "evolutionary utilitarianism" since Singer is also known for some rather extreme viewpoints on bioethics, such as euthanasia (mercy killing of mentally defective infants) and vegetarianism.  Evolution is not about perfecting the species, it is about creating new species, and individualism (or the pursuit of pleasure) should (and normally will) see to it that whatever gets done is what helps the organism and its offspring survive and produce more offspring - regardless of any system of ethics.  There are a number of important issues in BIOETHICS, and a short list would include: animal rights; cloning; genetic engineering; assisted suicide, euthanasia, abortion, and eugenics.

JOHN RAWLS (1921-2002): TOWARD SOCIAL JUSTICE

    Rawls recently passed away, but was without a doubt, the most influential philosopher of the 20th century.  His 1971 book, A Theory of Justice, was published at the height of the Vietnam era, and quickly became required reading in colleges and law schools.  It is one of the best books ever written about civil liberties, the limits of political obligation, and the justice of economic and other inequalities.  It draws upon the utilitarian insights of Mill and Sedgwick, the social contract ideas of Locke, and even the categorical imperative ideas of Kant.  At the heart of his theory is the idea that certain civil rights are inviolable, most notably the right to freely choose our own ends.  It follows, then, that the government's first DUTY is to protect this right -- to AUTONOMY, to live according to our own lights, or as Kant said "never merely as a means, but at the same time as an end."  Rawls is most known for shifting the utilitarian focus from a concern for "good" to a concern for "right."  The difference is significant.  Whereas previous utilitarians were overly concerned with the weighing and measuring of which "good" things were better than others, Rawls came along and said "the loss of freedom by some can never be made right by a greater good shared by others."

    In affirming the priority of right over good, Rawls then turned to an examination of how to reconcile our basic and most fundamental RIGHTS, or in other words, to ask "What is the most basic civil right?"  He called this question the "original position."  He then asked us to imagine something he called a "veil of ignorance" which refers to an open-minded position where we don't know anything about another person's race, gender, social class, talents and abilities, religious beliefs or conception of the good life.  He argued that from such an unbiased position, human nature would be such that everyone would freely choose a low-risk strategy (to pursuit of happiness) that would be fundamentally egalitarian (fundamentally equal).  In other words, the basic distribution of EQUALITY would ensure that everyone got the minimum possible level of guarantees about their freedom, their wealth, and their opportunity (the Liberty Principle).  These ideas are very similar to the notions of a "safety net" in society or a welfare state.  The well-being of the least advantaged in society always need to be looked out for, and this is the most fundamental right and the most important principle of justice. 

    In a second book, Rawls (2001) denies that he is a "welfare state" advocate, and proposes that ownership of property and higher education must also be guaranteed.  Some have said that he moved leftward in this book toward a socialism model of redistribution of wealth, but he simply revised his Liberty Principle and said that governments must ensure more than one single right.  Rawls articulated notions of "reasonable pluralism" and "stability for all the right reasons" which people are still debating today, but what he is probably most well-known for is his sophisticated version of JUSTICE which systematically combines elements from previous notions of justice, most notably, egalitarian, merit, libertarian, and socialist notions.  These notions are reproduced below for an appreciation of how complex it is to combine them.

    The need for implementing as many kinds of justice as possible in this world is a Rawlsian idea.  To ensure equality among basic liberties, one cannot overlook the fundamental importance of AUTONOMY, that is, the notion that it is highly important to promote what is essential for the fullest development of the powers of responsibility in individuals.  Reasonable pluralism may mean freedom of consciousness and freedom of thought, but it also means enabling things like the right to privacy -- and whatever gives control of how people present themselves to society.  Many of Rawl's ideas have found their way into the area of business ethics (specifically the area of social responsibility for corporations).   

INTERNET RESOURCES
Applied Ethics Center at O'Connor Hospital
Encyclopedia Article on Consequentialism
Ethics Update: Utilitarianism
Justice: A Word with Many Meanings
Rawl's Mature Theory of Social Justice
The Ethics of Vegetarianism by Prof. S. Best
The Morality of Strife by H. Sidgwick
Utilitarianism. COM
Utilitarianism.ORG

PRINTED RESOURCES
Bentham, J. (1789/1961). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Broome, J. (1991). Weighing Goods. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Feldman, F. (1997). Utilitarianism, Hedonism, and Desert. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Frankena, W. (1973). Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goodin, R. (1995). Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. NY: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Locke, J. (1690/1975). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
Locke, J. (1690/1980). Second Treatise on Government. NY: Hackett Publishing.
Locke, J. (1695/1965). The Reasonableness of Christianity. Chicago: Regnery.
McInerney, P. & Rainbolt, G. (1994). Ethics. NY: HarperCollins.
Mill, J. S. (1861/1998). Utilitarianism. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
Nozik, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. NY: Basic Books.
Pollock, J. (2004). Ethics in Crime and Justice, 4e. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rawls, J. (1955). "Two Concepts of Rules," Philosophical Review 64: 3-32.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. NY: Belknap Press.
Ross, W. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Scarre, G. (1996). Utilitarianism. London: Routledge.
Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Sidgwick, H. (1874/1907). Methods of Ethics. NY: Macmillan.
Singer, P. (1979). Practical Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Slote, M. (1985). Common-Sense Morality and Consequentialism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Smart, J. & Williams, B. (Eds.) (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Souryal, S. (2003). Ethics in Criminal Justice, 3e. Cincinnatti: Anderson LexisNexis.

Last updated: Sept. 30, 2006
Not an official webpage of APSU, copyright restrictions apply, see Megalinks in Criminal Justice
O'Connor, T.  (Date of Last Update at bottom of page). In Part of web cited (Windows name for file at top of browser), MegaLinks in Criminal Justice. Retrieved from http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/rest of URL accessed on today's date.