=======================================================================

Unit II – Utilitarianism
=======================================================================

When a corporation makes decisions on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, they are basing
their decisions on the criteria that is calculated and weighted on the basis of qualitative and
quantitative justifications. Utilitarianism operates in this understanding of ethical actions as suppose
to be always aiming at the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Indicative Contents

 LESSON 1: Principle of Utility

 LESSON 2: Principle of the Greatest Number
 LESSON 3: Justice and Rights

========================================================
=

LESSON 1
Principle of Utility

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. understand the principle of utility:

2. distinguish Benthan from Mill's understanding of the said principle; and
3. apply the distinction

THINK

In the book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Jeremy
Bentham begins by arguing that our actions are governed by two sovereign masters-which he calls
pleasure and pain. These "masters" are given to us by nature to help us determine what is good or
bad and what ought to be done and not; they fasten our choices to their throne.

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what
we shall do. On the one hand, the standard of right and wrong, on the other, the chain of
causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in
all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to
demonstrate and confirm it. In words a man may pretend to abjure their empire: but in reality,
he will remain subject to it all the while. The principle of utility recognizes this subjection,
and assumes it for the foundation of that system, the
object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the
hands of reason and of law.?

The principle of utility is about our subjection to these

sovereign masters: pleasure and pain. On the one hand, the
principle refers to the motivation of our actions as guided by
1
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. On the other hand, the principle also refers to
pleasure as good if and only if they produce more happiness than unhappiness. This means that it is
not enough to experience pleasure, but to also inquire whether the things we do make us happier.
Having identified the tendency for pleasure and the avoidance of pain as the principle of utility,
Bentham equates happiness with pleasure.
Mill supports Bentham's principle of utility. He reiterates moral good as happiness and,
consequently, happiness as pleasure. Mill clarifies that what makes people happy is intended
pleasure and what makes us unhappy is the privation of pleasure. The things that produce happiness
and pleasure are good; whereas, those that produce unhappiness and pain are bad. Mill explains:

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, utility or the greatest happiness
principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong
as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the
absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of
the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what
things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure, and to what extent, this is left an open
question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this
theory of morality is grounded-namely, that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only
things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian
as in any other scheme) are desirable either for pleasure inherent in themselves or as a means
to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.

Clearly, Mill argues that we act and do things because we find them pleasurable and we avoid
doing things because they are painful. If we find our actions pleasurable, Mill explains, it is because
they are inherently pleasurable in themselves or they eventually lead to the promotion of pleasure
and the avoidance of pain. Bentham and Mill characterized moral value as utility and understood it
as whatever produced happiness or pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The next step is to understand
the nature of pleasure and pain, to identify a criterion for distinguishing pleasures, and to calculate
the resultant pleasure or pain; it is in relation to these aforementioned themes that a distinction occurs
between Bentham and Mill.

What Bentham identified as the natural moral preferability of pleasure, Mill refers to as a
theory life. If we consider, for example, what moral agents do and how they assess their actions, then
it is hard to deny the pursuit for happiness and the avoidance of pain. For Bentham and Mill, the
pursuit for pleasure and the avoidance of pain are not only important principles-they are in fact the
only principle in assessing an action's morality. Why is it justifiable to wiretap private conversations
in instances of treason, rebellion, espionage, and sedition? Why is it preferable to alleviate poverty or
eliminate criminality? Why is it noble to build schools and hospitals? Why is it good to improve the
quality of life and the like? There is no other answer than the principle of utility, that is, to increase
happiness and decrease pain.

What kind of pleasures is morally preferable and valuable? Are all pleasures necessarily and
ethically good? Does this mean that because eating or exercising is good, it is morally acceptable to
eat and exercise excessively? While utilitarian supporters do not condone excessive pleasures while
others are suffering, it cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds why some persons indulge in
extravagant pleasures at the expense of others. Suppose nobody is suffering, is it morally permissible
on utilitarian principles to maximize pleasure by wanton intemperance? While Bentham and Mill
agree on the moral value of pleasure, they do not have the same view on these questions.

John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in Pentonville, London,
United Kingdom. He was the son of James Mill, a friend and disciple
of Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart Mill was homeschooled. He studied
2
Greek at the age of three and Latin at the age of eight. He wrote a
history of Roman Law at age 11, and suffered a nervous breakdown
at the age of 20. He was married to Harriet Taylor after 21 years of
friendship. His ethical theory and his defense of utilitarian views are
 In determining the moral preferability of actions, Bentham provides a framework for
evaluating pleasure and pain commonly called felicific calculus. Felicific calculus is a common
currency framework that calculates the pleasure that some actions can produce. In this framework, an
action can be evaluated on the basis of intensity or strength pleasure, duration or length of the
experience of pleasure; certainty, uncertainty, or the likelihood that pleasure will occur, and
propinquity, remoteness, or how soon there will be pleasure. These indicators allow us to measure
pleasure and pain in an action. However, when we are to evaluate our tendency to choose these
actions, we need to consider two more dimensions: fecundity or the chance it has of being followed
by sensations of the same kind, and purity or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of
the opposite kind. Lastly, when considering
the number of persons who are affected by pleasure or pain, another dimension is to be considered-
extent. Felicitic calculus allows the evaluation of all actions and their resultant pleasure. This means
that actions are evaluated on this single scale regardless of preferences and values. In this sense,
pleasure and pain can only and pain accordingly.

Mill dissents from Bentham's single scale of pleasure. He thinks that the principle of utility
must distinguish pleasures qualitatively and not merely quantitatively. For Mill, utilitarianism cannot
promote the kind of pleasures appropriate to pigs or to any other animals. He thinks that there are
higher intellectual and lower base pleasures. We, as moral agents, are capable of searching and
desiring higher intellectual pleasures more than pigs are capable of. We undermine ourselves if we
only and primarily desire sensuality; this is because we are capable of higher intellectual pleasurable
goods. For Mill, crude bestial pleasures, which are appropriate for animals, are degrading to us
because we are by nature not easily satisfied by pleasures only for pigs. Human pleasures are
qualitatively different from animal pleasures. It is unfair to assume that we merely pursue pleasures
appropriate for beasts even if there are instances when we choose to pursue such base pleasures. To
explain this, Mill recognizes the empirical fact that there are different kinds of pleasures:

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. It would be absurd that while, in
estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of
pleasure should be supposed to depend on quantity alone.?

Contrary to Bentham, Mill argues that quality is more preferable than quantity. An excessive
quantity of what is otherwise pleasurable might result in pain. We can consider, for example, our
experience of excessive eating or exercising. Whereas eating the right amount of food can be
pleasurable, excessive eating may not be. The same is true when exercising. If the quality of pleasure
is at least sometimes more important than quantity, then it is important to consider the standards
whereby differences of pleasures can be judged. The test that Mill suggests is simple, in deciding
over two comparable pleasures, it is important to experience both and to discover which one is
actually more preferred than the other. There is no other way of determining which of two pleasures
is preferable except by appealing to the actual preferences and experiences. What Mill discovers
anthropologically is that actual choices of knowledgeable persons point to higher intellectual
pleasures as more preferable than purely sensual appetites.

In defending further, the comparative choice between intellectual and bestial pleasures, Mill
offers an imaginative thought experiment. He asks whether a human person would prefer to accept
the highly pleasurable life of an animal while at the same time being denied of everything that makes
him a person. He thinks that few, if any, would give up human qualities of higher reason for the
pleasures of a pig. In the most famous quote in Mill's Utilitarianism, we read:

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

dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is
3
 because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison
knows both sides.
While it is difficult to understand how Mill was able to compare swinish pleasures with
human ones, we can presume that it would be better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.
Simply put, as human beings, we prefer the pleasures that are actually within our grasp. It is easy to
compare extreme types of pleasures as in the case of pigs and humans, but it is difficult to compare
pleasures deeply integrated in our way of life. The pleasures of an Ilonggo eating chicken inasal and
an Igorot eating pinikpikan is an example. This cannot be done by simply tasting inasal or
pinikpikan. In the same way, some people prefer puto to bibingka, or liking for the music of
Eraserheads than that of the APO Hiking Society.

EXPERIENCE
Imagine that you find yourself in dire circumstances that forces you to kill an innocent person in
order to prevent many innocent people from dying. Considering the principle of utility, what do
you think is the right thing to do? This question arose in The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens
(1884), an English law case involving four men stranded in a lifeboat without food or water. If
we are the judge, how should we judge the action of Dudley and Stephens? Was it morally
justified or morally wrong? Go to the website and read the case: https://a.utexas.edu/users/
jmciver/357L/Queen_DS.PDF

ASSESS (5pts) (Expound your answer)

Consider discussing the following case: If fifteen thousand informal settlers live next to a
nuclear factory in a country torn by civil war, will you bomb the nuclear factory? If you do not bomb
it, it will produce nuclear bombs that can annihilate one hundred thousand innocent civilians in
another country.

CHALLENGE
Considering the principle of utility, when the only way to prevent harm to the large number of
people is to harm a smaller number of people like Duterte's War on Drugs), is it always
permissible to harm a smaller number in order to prevent harm to a large number?

HARNESS
Discuss with your classmates: According to Jeremy Bentham's principle of utility, we should
always do whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness. Is that right? Suppose we have to
choose between building a sports stadium and building a hospital. Should we build the biggest
stadium in the country because there are many sports fans compared with sick people? What do you
think?

4
========================================================
=
LESSON 2
Principle of the Greatest Number

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. understand the principle of the greatest number;

2. distinguish higher from lower pleasures; and
3. apply the distinction in understanding utilitarianism.

THINK

Principle of the Greatest Number

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone
and independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how
high, intellectual, or in other ways noble it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number
affected by the consequences of our actions. Mill explains:

I have dwelt on this point, as being 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
5
 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 immediately a
gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of
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 refutations
superfluous."

Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone;
it cannot be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a
moral good. If we are the only ones who are made happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally
good. In this sense, utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for
others.

This means that it is necessary for us to consider everyone's happiness, including our own, as
the standard by which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies that utilitarianism is not at all
separate from liberal social practices that aim to improve the quality of life for all persons.
Utilitarianism is interested with everyone's happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest
number. Mill identifies the eradication of disease, using technology, and other practical ways as
examples of utilitarianism. Consequently, utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure over
displeasure for the greatest number. Because of the premium given to the consequences of actions,
Mill pushes for the moral irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions:

He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his
motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays the friend that trusts
him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to serve another friend to whom he is under
greater obligations. But to speak only of actions done from the motive of duty, and in direct
obedience to principle: it is a misapprehension of the utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive
it as implying that people should fix their minds upon so wide a generality as the world, or
society at large. The great majority of good actions are intended, not for the benefit of the
world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the
thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular
persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he
is not violating the rights--that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations-of anyone else.

Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It is
not interested with the intention of the agent. Moral value cannot be discernible in the intention or
motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively on the difference it makes
on the world's total amount of pleasure and pain. This leads us to question utilitarianism's take of
moral rights. If actions are based only on the greatest happiness of the greatest number, is it
justifiable to let go of some rights for the sake of the benefit of the majority?

EXPERIENCE (5pts) (Explain your choice)

The utilitarianism of Bentham seems to argue that the interest of a few persons can be sacrificed
if it benefits a greater number. In this case, is it more preferable to build a church rather than
build a firing range (say because there are more churchgoers than soldiers in need of firing
ranges). Do you agree?

ASSESS
Discuss with your classmates:
6
 1. Is every good commensurable? Can we weighed different goods using a common scale, or is
it possible that the value of some goods, such as love or hope, is not comparable with the
value of other goods, like money?

2. Do you think that pleasures should be counted-even objectionable pleasures, like the
pleasures that terrorists derive from being fundamentalists?

CHALLENGE
John Stuart Mill revises Benthamite utilitarianism and its common calculus by referring to a
hierarchy of pleasures. But who or what pleasures are considered higher or more preferable? Mill
argues that the determination of the better pleasure is dependent on the decision of a majority of
people who experienced both pleasures. But does it mean that the majority really aims at higher
pleasures?

HARNESS
When listening to the Philippine government's argument in favor for the anti- terror law, to
what extent do you think are these based on utilitarian grounds? Identify three arguments and
demonstrate why these are utilitarian.

========================================================
=
LESSON 3
Justice and Rights

Most Essential Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you are expected to:

1. understand utilitarianism’s understanding of rights;

2. situate rights in relation to justice; and
3. apply this understanding of rights and justice.

THINK
What is a right? Mill understands justice as a respect for rights directed toward society's
pursuit for the greatest happiness of the greatest number. For him, rights are a valid claim on society
and are justified by utility. He explains:
I have, throughout, treated the idea of a right residing in the injured person and violated by
the injury, not as a separate element in the composition of the idea and sentiment, but as one
of the forms in which the other two elements clothe themselves. These elements are, a hurt

7
 to some assignable person or persons on the one hand, and a demand for punishment, on the
other. An examination of our minds, I think, will show that these two things include at that
we mean when we speak of violation of a right. When we call anything a person's right, we
mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the possession of it, either by the
force of law, or by that of education and opinion. If he has what we consider a sufficient
claim, on whatever account, to have something guaranteed to him by society, we say that he
has a right to it.

Mill expounds that the abovementioned rights referred are related to the interests that serve
general happiness. The right to due process and the right to free speech or religion among others are
justified because they contribute to the general good. This means that society is made happier if its
citizens are able to live their lives knowing that their interests are protected and that society (as a
whole) defends it. Extending this concept to animals, they have rights because of the effect of such
principles on the sum total of happiness that follows as a consequence of instituting and protecting
their interests. It is not accidental, therefore, that utilitarians are also the staunchest defenders of
animal rights. A right is justifiable on utilitarian principles inasmuch as they produce an overall
happiness that is greater than the unhappiness resulting from their implementation.

Utilitarian’s argue that issues of justice carry a very strong emotional import because the
category of rights is directly associated with the individual's most vital interests. All of these rights
are predicated on the person's right to life. Mill describes:

To have a right, then is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in
the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask why it ought, can give him no other reason
than general utility. If that expression does not seem to convey a sufficient feeling of the
strength of the obligation, nor to account for the peculiar energy of the feeling, it is because
there goes to the composition of the sentiment, not a rational only but also an animal
element, the thirst for retaliation; and this thirst derives its intensity, as well as its moral
justification, from the extraordinarily important and impressive kind of utility which is
concerned. The interest involved is that of security, to everyone's feelings the most vital of
all interests."

In this context, our participation in government and in social interactions can be explained by
the principle of utility and be clarified by Mill's consequentialism. Mill further associates
utilitarianism with the possession of legal and moral rights,

We are treated justly when our legal and moral rights are respected. Mill enumerates different
kinds of goods that he characterized as rights and that are protected by law. Mill understands that
legal rights are neither inviolable nor natural, but rights are subject to some exceptions:

... It is mostly considered unjust to deprive any one of his personal liberty, his property, or
any other thing which belongs to him by law. Here, therefore, is one instance of the
application terms just and unjust in a perfectly definite sense, namely, that it is just to
respect, unjust to violate, the legal rights of anyone. But this judgment admits of several
exceptions, arising from the other forms in which the notions of justice and injustice present
themselves. For example, the person who suffers the deprivation may (as the phrase is) have
forfeited the rights which he is so deprived of: a case to which we shall return presently....

Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and their justification. He points out that when
legal rights are not morally justified in accordance to the greatest happiness principle, then these
rights need neither be observed, nor be respected. This is like saying that there are instances when
the law is not morally justified and, in this case, even objectionable.
8
 ... The legal rights of which he is deprived may be rights which ought not to have belonged
to him; in other words, the law which confers on him these rights may be a bad law. When it
is so, or when (which is the same thing for our purpose) it is supposed to be so, opinions
will differ as to the justice or injustice of infringing it. Some maintain that no law, however
bad, ought to be disobeyed by an individual citizen; that his opposition to it, if shown at all,
should only be shown in endeavoring to get it altered by competent authority. This opinion
(which condemns many of the most illustrious benefactors of mankind, and would often
protect pernicious institutions against the only weapons which, in the state of things existing
at the time, have any chance of succeeding against them) is defended, by those who hold it,
on grounds of expediency: principally on that of the importance, to the common interest of
mankind of maintaining inviolate the sentiment of submission to law. When, however, a law
is thought to be unjust, it seems always to be regarded as being so in the same ways in
which a breach of law is unjust, namely, by infringing somebody's right; which, as it cannot
in this case be a legal right, receives a different appellation, and is called a moral right. We
may say, therefore, that a second case on injustice consists in taking or withholding from
any person that to which he has a moral right.

Mill seems to be suggesting that it is morally permissible to not follow, even violate, an
unjust law. The implication is that those who protest over political policies of a morally
objectionable government act in a morally obligatory way. While not always preferred, Mill thinks
that it is commendable to endure legal punishments for acts of civil disobedience for the sake of
promoting a higher moral good. At an instance of conflict between moral and legal rights, Mill points
out that moral rights take precedence over legal rights.

EXPERIENCE (5pts) (Yes or No defend your answer)

John Stuart Mill thinks that educating children properly with appropriate laws and public opinion
can prevent people from developing questionable and objectional desires? Do you agree?

ASSESS

1. Are some pleasures objectionable? If a culture tolerate dog eating, should it be allowed or
not?

2. If a group of friends derive pleasures from being sexist and giving sexist comment should it
be tolerated?

3. John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian, says that we should protect individual rights because, in the
long run, that it the best way to increase the sum of happiness. Is that true? Is that really the
reason why you should not imprison and torture innocent people?

CHALLENGE
Does utilitarianism sacrifice individual rights in favor of communal ones? Can the prospect of
constructing a dam and benefiting millions or urban settlers tolerable at the expense of indigenous
claims to ancestral domains?
9
HARNESS
John Stuart Mill denies that utilitarianism sacrifices individual rights. He thinks that the
principle of utility is the very foundation and basis for the justification for protecting individual
rights. Was Mill right? If yes or no, provide newspapers cutouts to make your point.

10