Utilitarianism: Meaning and Basic Principles
Chapter Sixty-Three
Syllabus topic 3.2, "Utilitarianism"; 3.2.1, "Meaning and Definition, Basic Principles, Arguments in Favour and Against."
Pages 325 to 329 of 506
In one line
Utilitarianism says the right action is the one that produces the most happiness, counting everybody's happiness equally, and nothing else matters at all.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: utilitarianism is the moral and political doctrine that the rightness of an action, a law or an institution is determined solely by its consequences for the happiness of all those affected, the standard being the greatest happiness of the greatest number, each person's happiness counting equally; its distinguishing features are therefore consequentialism, hedonism, aggregation and impartiality.
The principle of utility
Bentham defines the principle of utility as that principle which approves 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. He notes that the principle was latterly called the greatest happiness principle, and Mill uses that name.
Mill's own observation about how widely it operates is worth having: since men's sentiments of approval and aversion are greatly influenced by what they suppose to be the effects of things on their happiness, the principle of utility has had a large share in forming the moral doctrines even of those who most scornfully reject its authority, and no school of thought denies that the influence of actions on happiness is a material and often predominant consideration.
The four components
The meaning of utilitarianism is exhausted by four propositions, and any definition of utilitarianism that drops one of them is describing something else.
Every question on utilitarianism can be answered by taking these apart, because every criticism attacks one of them.
1. Consequentialism
The rightness of an act depends entirely on its consequences. Nothing about the act itself, no promise given, no right violated, no duty owed, counts except through its effects.
What this excludes. Desert, rights, promises and duties as independent considerations. They matter only if and so far as respecting them produces good consequences.
2. Hedonism, or welfarism
The consequence that counts is happiness, understood by Bentham as pleasure and the absence of pain. Later utilitarians substituted preference satisfaction or wellbeing, which avoids some objections and keeps the structure.
3. Aggregation
The happiness of everybody affected is added together, and the option with the largest total is the right one. Gains to some are offset against losses to others.
What this permits. Imposing a loss on a few to produce a larger gain for many, which is the source of nearly every objection at chapter 660.
4. Impartiality
Each person's happiness counts equally. Bentham's formula, as reported by Mill, is that everybody is to count for one and nobody for more than one.
The fourth component is why utilitarianism was a radical doctrine and not a conservative one. In a society organised by rank, caste, sex and property, the proposition that a labourer's pain counts exactly as much as a landowner's was an attack on the whole arrangement, and Bentham's followers used it to argue for legal reform, prison reform, the extension of the franchise and the equal treatment of women.
Utilitarianism: Meaning and Basic Principles
The two versions
Act utilitarianism applies the principle to each act: do whatever produces the most happiness on this occasion.
Rule utilitarianism applies it to rules: follow the rule whose general observance produces the most happiness, even where breaking it on this occasion would produce more.
Why the distinction matters. Most objections to utilitarianism are objections to the act version. Rule utilitarianism answers many of them, since a rule permitting the punishment of the innocent, or the breaking of promises when convenient, would produce dreadful consequences if generally followed. It is criticised in turn for collapsing: if the rule is to be broken whenever breaking it produces more good, it is act utilitarianism; and if it is never to be broken, it has stopped being utilitarian and has become rule worship.
What utilitarianism produced
An answer that treats the doctrine only as a target for objections misses why it mattered, and MU's syllabus places it beside liberalism precisely because of what it did.
Legal reform. Bentham's life work was the reform of law by the test of utility: codification, the abolition of archaic offences and procedures, and the redesign of punishment on the lines of chapter 480.
Prison and asylum reform, because a practice inflicting suffering that produced no compensating benefit could not be defended.
The extension of the franchise, since each person's interest counts equally and each is the best judge of it.
The equal treatment of women. Mill's argument for it is straightforwardly utilitarian: excluding half the population wastes their capacities and inflicts avoidable misery.
The beginnings of animal welfare. Bentham's question is the famous one, and it is a direct application of the principle: the question is not whether they can reason or talk, but whether they can suffer.
Modern policy analysis. Cost benefit analysis, quality adjusted life years in health, and the whole apparatus of impact assessment are utilitarianism applied by governments.
Utilitarianism in India
Its influence is greater than students expect and is worth a paragraph.
In the codes. The nineteenth century Indian codes, and the Penal Code in particular, were drafted in a period when Bentham's ideas dominated English legal reform, and their design, a systematic code with graded offences and calibrated punishments, is Benthamite in conception.
In policy today. Every scheme justified by the number of beneficiaries against the cost is a utilitarian argument.
Utilitarianism: Meaning and Basic Principles
And its Indian critic is Gandhi, whose Sarvodaya at chapter 670 is a direct answer to the greatest number.
A worked example
A city must decide whether to build a metro line whose route requires demolishing four hundred houses in a low income settlement.
The utilitarian analysis. Count the happiness. Two million commuters save forty minutes a day for thirty years. Four hundred families lose their homes and their neighbourhood. Add compensation, resettlement and the cost. Sum it. If the total is positive, the metro is not merely permitted but required.
What the doctrine gets right here. It forces the decision maker to count the commuters' time, which no rights-based analysis does well; it counts the four hundred families equally, which a political process would not; and it makes the compensation an item to be got right rather than an afterthought.
What is troubling about it. The four hundred families' loss has been outweighed rather than answered. On the aggregative test, if the number of commuters were large enough, no level of loss to the four hundred would block the project, and there is no point at which the doctrine says stop. That is objection three at chapter 660.
And the rule utilitarian reply. A society that expropriates without limit whenever the arithmetic favours it produces insecurity for everybody, so a rule protecting homes, subject to compensation and to due process, produces more happiness overall than case by case calculation. Notice what has happened: the rule utilitarian has arrived at something that looks exactly like a right.
Distinctions that carry marks
| Utilitarianism | Kantian ethics | |
|---|---|---|
| Right action determined by | Consequences | The nature of the act and the maxim behind it |
| The individual | A site where happiness occurs | An end in themselves, never merely a means |
| May a person be sacrificed for a larger gain? | Yes, if the sum favours it | Never |
| Rights are | Useful rules that generally maximise happiness | Fundamental |
| Test of a punishment | Does it prevent more evil than it inflicts? | Is it deserved? |
| Act utilitarianism | Rule utilitarianism | |
|---|---|---|
| Applies the principle to | Each individual act | Rules of conduct |
| Question asked | What should I do now? | What rule should be generally followed? |
| Handles the promise-breaking objection | Badly | Well |
| Criticism | Permits any act if the sum favours it | Either collapses into act utilitarianism or becomes rule worship |
What utilitarianism is NOT
It is not selfishness. The principle counts everybody's happiness equally including one's own, and requires sacrificing one's own interest whenever that increases the total. It is one of the most demanding doctrines in ethics.
It is not the same as pragmatism or expediency. It is a strict and impartial standard, not a licence to do what is convenient.
Utilitarianism: Meaning and Basic Principles
"The greatest good of the greatest number" is a loose formula and a source of confusion, because it appears to state two maximands. The accurate statement is the greatest aggregate happiness, counting each person equally.
It is not indifferent to distribution by design, though it is by construction: because it counts totals, it can be satisfied by an unequal distribution, and its answer, that a rupee is worth more to a poor person than to a rich one, gives it a distributive tendency without a distributive principle.
Quick revision
- The principle of utility approves or disapproves of every action according to its tendency to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. Bentham later called it the greatest happiness principle.
- Four components: consequentialism, hedonism or welfarism, aggregation, impartiality. Every criticism attacks one of them.
- Impartiality made it radical: everybody to count for one and nobody for more than one, in a society organised by rank, caste, sex and property.
- Act against rule utilitarianism: the rule version answers most objections and is charged with either collapsing into the act version or becoming rule worship.
- What it produced: legal codification and reform, prison reform, the extension of the franchise, the argument for the equal treatment of women, animal welfare, and modern cost benefit analysis.
- In India: the nineteenth century codes are Benthamite in design, and every scheme justified by beneficiaries against cost is a utilitarian argument. Its Indian critic is Gandhi.
- Not selfishness, not expediency, and the loose slogan about the greatest good of the greatest number should be replaced by the greatest aggregate happiness, counting each equally.
Test yourself
1. State the principle of utility and its four components. The principle of utility approves or disapproves of every action according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. Its components are consequentialism, since rightness depends entirely on effects; hedonism or welfarism, since the effect that counts is happiness, understood as pleasure and the absence of pain; aggregation, since everybody's happiness is summed and the largest total wins; and impartiality, since each person counts for one and nobody for more than one.
2. Why was utilitarianism a radical doctrine? Because of its fourth component. In a society organised by rank, caste, sex and property, the proposition that every person's pleasure and pain counts exactly the same, so that a labourer's suffering weighs as much as a landowner's, was an attack on the entire arrangement. Bentham's followers used it to argue for the codification of law, for prison and asylum reform, for the extension of the franchise, for the equal treatment of women, and for the consideration of animals, on the ground that the question is not whether they can reason but whether they can suffer.
Utilitarianism: Meaning and Basic Principles
3. Distinguish act from rule utilitarianism and state the objection to each. Act utilitarianism applies the principle to each act, requiring whatever produces the most happiness on the occasion. Rule utilitarianism applies it to rules, requiring the rule whose general observance produces the most happiness even where breaking it would produce more on this occasion. Act utilitarianism is objected to because it permits any act, including punishing the innocent or breaking a promise, whenever the sum favours it. Rule utilitarianism is objected to on a dilemma: if the rule may be broken whenever breaking it maximises happiness it collapses into the act version, and if it may never be broken it has ceased to be utilitarian and become rule worship.
4. What has utilitarianism produced in practice? The reform and codification of law by the test of utility, which was Bentham's life work and shaped the nineteenth century Indian codes. Prison and asylum reform, since a practice inflicting suffering without compensating benefit could not be defended. The extension of the franchise, since each person's interest counts equally and each is the best judge of it. Mill's argument for the equal treatment of women. The beginning of concern for animals. And in modern government, cost benefit analysis, health measures such as quality adjusted life years, and impact assessment generally.
5. Why is "the greatest good of the greatest number" an unsatisfactory formula? Because it appears to require the maximisation of two different things at once, the amount of good and the number of people, which can conflict: an option producing a great deal of good for many is not obviously to be preferred to one producing slightly less for slightly more people, and the slogan does not say. The accurate statement of the doctrine is the greatest aggregate happiness, with each person's happiness counted equally, which makes clear that there is a single maximand and that the equality lies in the counting rather than in the distribution.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.