Utilitarianism is an ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham and developed and popularized by John Stuart Mill. As the term suggests, utilitarianism is founded on the principle of utility, which adheres to the belief that an act is good or morally right if it promotes happiness and bad or immoral if it tends to produce pain.
The key, therefore, in utilitarianism is the principle of happiness. Hence, again, in utilitarianism, an act is good or morally right if it produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of people; and bad or immoral if it produces more harm or pain than benefits or happiness to the greatest number of people. This explains why the utilitarian would not care whether the action is done out of deception, lie or manipulation as long as it produces maximum benefits to many people.
For example, the act of condemning a terrorist to death is morally right (that is, good) for the utilitarian because this action produces equal benefits or greatest happiness to the greatest number of people concerned.
Let us take the famous case of Robinhood as another example.
As is well known, Robinhood steals properties from wealthy people and give them to the poor. From the vantage point of Christian ethics, Robinhood’s act is immoral because it deprived the wealthy people of the right that is due them. However, from the vantage point of utilitarianism, Robinhood’s act is morally good because it produces maximum benefits, that is, greatest happiness, to the majority of the people.
Jeremy Bentham’s Model of Utilitarianism
How does Bentham view happiness?
For Bentham, happiness is simply the absence of pain. Bentham introduced the “felicific” calculus to measure the degree of happiness or pleasure that a specific action may produce. The felicific calculus is also called the utility calculus or hedonistic calculus. It includes intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent.
For Bentham, the intense (intensity) the pleasure, the better; the longer (duration) it lasts, the better; the more certain (certainty) that it will happen, the better; the closer (propinquity) that it will occur, the better; the greater the possibility (fecundity) that it will be followed by another pleasure, the better; the purer (purity) the pleasure, the better; the greater the number of people that it benefits (extent), the better.
The formula of Bentham’s felicific calculus goes like this:
Happiness – Pain = Balance.
For Bentham, the Balance is the basis of the morality of an action. In other words, for Bentham, if the balance is in favor of happiness, then the act is morally right, and if it is in favor of pain, then it is morally wrong. How do we do this?
Bentham said we just need to sum up all the pleasures and pains produced by the action. If the balance is in favor of please, then the act is morally right. If the balance is in favor of pain, then the action is morally wrong. Put in simple mathematical calculation,
…if an act produces 12 pleasures and 6 pains, then the balance is 6 which is in favor of pleasure or happiness.
Hence, if this is the case, then for Bentham the action is morally right. However,
…if the act produces 20 pains and just 5 pleasures, then the balance is 15 which is in favor of pain. If this is the case, then for Bentham the act is morally wrong.
John Stuart Mill’s Model of Utilitarianism
Mill disagrees with Bentham. Mill argues that we cannot calculate the amount of pleasure or pain that an act produces. Thus, for Mill, the felicific calculus cannot be the basis of morality but the majority of the people that attains happinessꟷthus the famous utilitarian claim: an act is morally right if it produces greatest happiness to the greatest number of people and it is morally wrong if it produces more pain than pleasure to the greatest number of people concerned.
As we can see, Mill’s utilitarianism is considered qualitative since the philosopher emphasizes intellectual pleasure than sensual pleasure. Thus, his famous saying goes: “It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”
ACT and RULE Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism holds that the utilitarian principle should be applied to a particular act in a particular situation or circumstance. It takes into account the possible result of each act. Hence, as the name suggests, in Act utilitarianism, the basis of the morality of an action is the act itself. Hence, in Act utilitarianism, we should perform those “actions” that produce greatest happiness to the greatest number of people concerned.
Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, holds that the principle at issue should be used to test moral rules, and then such rules can be utilized in judging what is right and wrong under the circumstance. Here, we consider the possible results in light of the rule(s). Thus, in Rule utilitarianism, an act is morally right if it conforms to a justified moral rule. And of course, we know that moral rules are justified if such rules produce greatest happiness to the greatest number of people concerned.
Let us take the act of condemning a terrorist to death as an example.
An Act utilitarian would ask the question “What possible good or evil results from this act?”. If the majority of the people are benefited by the act itself, then it is moral.
A Rule utilitarian, on the other hand, would ask whether there is a rule or law that condemns terrorists to death and whether this rule was formulated based on the utility principle. If this is the case, then it may be morally right to sentence a terrorist to death.