Mark M.

Gatus, LPT
Marck Zaldy O. Camba, LPT

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, BU Philosophy Department
 Introduction

What Is This Lesson About?

Utilitarianism is a Consequentialist theory of ethics. Consequentialist theories

judge the rightness (or wrongness) of an action, by what occurs as a result of doing
something. The principle of utility - or Utilitarianism - is a moral test for the rightness of
actions, based on how much pleasure or pain they produce. The most well-known (and
developed) versions of it are found in the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
However, the 'principle of utility' is also found in the work of David Hume, and can trace
its origins back to Epicurus.

To have a better understanding of this ethical theory, this lesson will elaborate on
its basic elements and examine its various forms, such as; a. hedonistic Utilitarianism,
and b. Act and Rule utilitarianism. Alongside of the discussion of the various forms of
Utilitarianism, the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill will also be
included.

Learning Objective

After completing the lesson, you will be able to:

• Explain the principles of utilitarianism;

• Make use of the fundamental principles of utilitarianism to analyze and address
moral cases.

Activities

Let’s try this!

Direction: Answer the question below.

1. Do you agree with view that happiness is the ultimate goal of humans? Briefly,
explain your answer.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, BU Philosophy Department
 2. In choosing or doing a human act, do you consider the amount of happiness it
will cause to others? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Utilitarianism
(The discussion is taken from the book of F.J. Evangelista and N. Mabaquiao Jr titled “Ethics: Theories
and Applications.)

Let’s Read!

Following Richard hare (2009, 85-90), what utilitarianism claims about morality is
best understood by examining its three main elements: 1. Consequentialism, 2.
Welfarism, and 3. Aggregationism.

1. CONSEQUENTIALISM • Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory for it

determines the morality of an action base on the kind of
consequences that the action has or results in.
2. WELFARISM • Utilitarianism is a welfarist theory because the
consequences that it considers to be morally relevant are
those that affect the welfare (or well-being) of persons.
• Welfare here generally means whatever that benefits the
persons affected by an action or improves the quality of
their life.
• Hare (2009, 85) explains: “we may define ‘welfare’ as the
‘obtaining to a high or at least reasonable degree of a
quality of life which on the whole a person wants or
prefers to have”.
• For some, it means the experience of pleasure and/or
beauty, or the attainment of knowledge; but for some, it
is the fulfillment of desires or satisfaction of preferences.
3. AGGREGATIONISM • Utilitarianism is an aggregationist theory since the
welfare that it considers to be morally relevant is the
maximum aggregate or sum total of welfare of all
affected persons.
• The morally good act is the one that produces the
maximum aggregate or the greatest sum total of welfare
of all affected persons.

Utilitarianism is not a number game in terms of persons who will benefit from an
action. It is rather a calculation of which action maximizes aggregate welfare for all the
persons involved. If the calculations happen to show that one person’s welfare far

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, BU Philosophy Department
 exceeds the other’s combination, then the action that promotes this person’s welfare is
the morally good action.

HEDONISTIC AND NON-HEDONISTIC UTILITARIANISM

There are two general divisions of Utilitarianism: thee first is between hedonistic
and non-hedonistic utilitarianism; the second is between act and rule utilitarianism. In
this section, we shall focus on the first general division, which arises from the question of
what constitutes the intrinsic good that ought to be maximized. Under each of these two
general types of utilitarianism (hedonistic and non-hedonistic types) are specific forms
arising from further considerations.

Hedonistic Forms of Utilitarianism

Hedonistic utilitarianism, just like hedonistic consequentialism in general, claims

that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic bad. This kind of
utilitarianism is best represented by the ethical views of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill.

Bentham writes that “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which
approved or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears
to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question:
or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness”.

Mill (2004, 196), at one hand, states:

“Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are

right in promotion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and
the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.
Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and
all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in
themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of
pain.

While being both hedonistic and utilitarian, their ethical views, however, have
important differences. Bentham’s version of hedonistic utilitarianism emphasizes the
quantitative differences among types of pleasures; and for this reason, may be called
quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism or quantitative utilitarianism. On the other hand,
Mill’s version emphasizes the qualitative differences among types of pleasures and for
this reason may be called qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism or qualitative
utilitarianism.
For quantitative utilitarianism there is no significant differences physical and
mental pleasures, while qualitative utilitarianism, there is. For instance, for Bentham
there is no difference between pleasure one derives from playing a simple children’s
game (Bentham gives the game of pushpin as an example) and the pleasure one derives
from reading a poem; but for Mill, there is.
To quantitatively calculate which among the alternative pleasures ought to be
preferred, Bentham comes up with a set of criteria called calculus of felicity or hedonistic
calculus. As listed below, these criteria are intended to serve as a guide for measuring
the quantity of pleasure that actions may produce.
1. Intensity: the more intense the experience of pleasure, the greater the value of the
pleasure.
2. Duration: the longer the experience of pleasure, the greater the value of pleasure.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, BU Philosophy Department
 3. Certainty: the greater the probability that the desired pleasure will be experienced,
the greater the value of the pleasure.
4. Propinquity (or remoteness): the shorter the temporal distance between an act and
the pleasure that it will produce, the greater the value of the pleasure.
5. Fecundity (the chance a sensation will be followed by sensations of the same kind:
pleasure, if it is be pleasure; pains, if it is pain): the higher the probability an
experience of pleasure will be followed by further experiences of pleasure, the
greater the value of pleasure.
6. Purity (the chance a sensation will not be followed by sensations of the opposite
kind: pains, if it is pleasure; pleasures, if it is be pain): the higher the probability
that the experience of pleasure will not be followed by an experience of pain, the
greater the value of the pleasure.
7. Extent (the number of persons affected by the sensation): the higher the number
of persons to experience the pleasure, the greater the value of pleasure.

Hedonistic utilitarianism claims that the action that produces the greatest amount
of pleasure is the morally correct action. The greatest amount of pleasure, for Bentham,
is determined quantitatively by means of hedonistic calculus. For example, between
action X and action Y, if action X results in an experience of pleasure that has a greater
intensity or duration than of action Y, action X is the morally correct action. If both actions
involve more criteria, then we need to calculate which action X and Y will produce
pleasures of different kinds in varying degrees which can be measured by the criteria of
the hedonistic calculus in the following way.
Mill, on the other hand, develops his own version of utilitarianism, what we have
called qualitative utilitarianism, in the course of answering certain objections to
utilitarianism.
First objection. Utilitarianism allegedly endorses a “swinish doctrine”, for it is
taking pleasure and pain as the only intrinsic good and evil, respectively, it in effect puts
the value of human pleasures and pains on the same level as the value of animal pleasure
and pains. Since both humans and animals are capable of experiencing pleasures and
pains, making pleasure and pain as the fundamental bases of moral values is allegedly
tantamount to saying that in terms of moral values, humans are no different from
animals.
According to Mill, as rationality is a higher faculty than sentience, the pleasures of
rationality (the mental pleasures) are higher in quality than the pleasures of sentience
(bodily pleasures). To emphasize this point, Mill famously remarks that “it is better to
be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied”. Meaning, some pains of humans are better than the pleasures of
animals, or some pains of humans who use their reason are better than the pleasures of
humans who do not. Mill, consequently, rejects Bentham’s view that the pleasures
derived from playing a board game and from reading poetry are qualitatively the same.
Second objection. Utilitarianism is bound to fail because there is no objective way
by which we can decide on which type of pleasure is superior or more valuable than the
other types. Mill responds that an objective way to settle this issue is provided by the
competent judges on the relative values of pleasures. These competent judges are those
who have experienced the entire spectrum of pleasures. The competent judge who can
objectively say which between pleasure A and B is the superior pleasure is the person
who has experienced both pleasures.

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, BU Philosophy Department
 Third objection. Utilitarianism cannot account for the moral goodness of acts of
martyrdom or self-sacrifice. If pleasure is the basis of moral goodness, how can acts that
renounce one’s pleasure (as in the case of martyrdom) be morally good? Mill answers
that this objection misinterprets utilitarianism to be a doctrine that gives priority to the
pleasures of the person who does the action.
Utilitarianism, Mill clarifies, is after the happiness of the greatest number of
people, which will sometimes require individuals to sacrifice their own personal
happiness. Furthermore, Mill notes that self-sacrifice is not always morally good; it is
only so when it promotes the greatest happiness principle. Mill (2004, 1997-98) explains:
“the utilitarian morality does not recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their
own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself
a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of
happiness, is wasted.”

Act and Rule utilitarianism

Another general division in utilitarianism is between act and rule utilitarianism.
This division arises from the question as to which the utilitarian principle of maximizing
aggregate good or welfare should be applied to determine the morality of an act—the act
itself or the rule that governs the act.
According to act utilitarianism, the utilitarian principle should be applied to the
act itself; while according to rule utilitarianism, it should be applied to the rule governing
the act (see Brandt, 2004).
A rule can be good in various ways. For the utilitarian viewpoint, rule is good if
following it produces the maximum aggregate good or welfare. To determine whether
action X is morally good or bad, act utilitarianism asks, does performing action X
maximize aggregate good? If it does, then it is morally good; if not, then it is morally bad.
On the other hand, rule utilitarianism asks, does action X follow an optimific rule (say
the rule “thou shall not lie”)? If it does, then, it is morally good; if not, then it is morally
bad. Let us conveniently refer to a good rule in this utilitarian sense as an optimific rule.
An optimific rule is a rule which when generally followed (or conformed to) produces
the maximum aggregate good.
It will be observed that the morality it will be observed that the morality of the act
in consideration, whether it is morally good or bad, will sometimes vary in these two
versions of utilitarianism. For rule utilitarianism, even if the act maximizes aggregate
good but follows a non-optimific rule, then it is morally bad. Act utilitarianism, on the
other hand, does not care about the rules that an act may follow or violate; as such, if the
act maximizes aggregate good, then it is morally good, regardless of whether the rule that
it follows or violates is optimific or not.

For further readings, read:

• Chapter 5: Utilitarianism by Frank Aragbonfoh Abumere in

Matthews, G. (2020). Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics. pp. 44-50. Available online:
https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/
• The History of Utilitarianism by Julia Driver. Available online:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Here are some guide questions for your readings:

1. What is Utilitarianism?
2. What are the varieties or types of Utilitarianism?
4. What is the significance and relevance of Utilitarian Ethics in contemporary times?
Prepared by:
Is it persuasive and reasonable?
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, BU Philosophy Department
 Learning Output no. 6

INSTRUCTIONS

1. After reading the module, discuss significant ideas you have learned among the
member of the group.
2. Reflect and compose an essay paper to the case (trolley problem) written below;

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on

the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is
headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train
yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a
different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the
side track. You have two options:

1. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main
track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill
one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing
to do?
Analyze this case using the utilitarian principle.

3. Collaborate and brainstorm among your group members the situation given and
compose a 400 to 1000 words essay. If you have conflicting opinions and
disagreements, make sure that you will discuss them and decide who has a sound
or better opinion before writing the essay paper.
4. In writing, use Tahoma, Arial, or Times New Roman font style and use font size
12. Write your reflection paper on a short bond paper with a margin of 1 inch on
each side, single spacing.
5. Do not forget to write the members of the group. Write the name of the members
in alphabetical order. Take note that members of the group whose name is not
written will not earn any points from the score of the group.
6. After, turn-in your essay paper in our google classroom on or before the set
deadline of submission.

References

Mabaquiao, N., Jr., & Evangelista, F. (2020). Ethics: Theories and

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, BU Philosophy Department
 Applications. Manila: Anvil Publishing.

_____________. Trolley Problem. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Prepared by:
Mark M. Gatus & Marck Zaldy O. Camba
Faculty Members, BU Philosophy Department