Utilitarianism
According to the ethical theory of utilitarianism, an action is right if it promises to produce better results than—or maximize the expected utility of—other action possible in the circumstances. Although there are earlier examples of utilitarian reasoning, the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) gave utilitarianism its first full formulation. "Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters," Bentham declared, "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." The ethical person, then, will act to increase the amount of pleasure (or utility) in the world and decrease the amount of pain by following a single principle: promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
As later utilitarians discovered, this principle is not as straightforward as it seems. The very notion of happiness is problematical. Are all pleasures intrinsically equal, as Bentham suggested? Or are some inherently better or "higher" than others, as John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), the English philosopher and political economist, insisted? A related problem is the difficulty—some say the impossibility—of making interpersonal comparisons of utility. If people want to promote the greatest happiness (or good or utility) of the greatest number, they need a way to measure utility. But there is no ruler that can assess the utility of various actions in the way that weight, height, or distance are quantified.
Another problem is the ambiguity of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Stressing "the greatest number" implies that the utilitarian should bow to the majority. But "the greatest happiness" may mean that the intense preferences of the minority may override an equivocal majority. Utilitarians have typically taken the second tack by reformulating the principle as "maximize aggregate utility."
Either interpretation seems to call for an ever-increasing population. The more people there are, the more happiness there will be. This has led some utilitarians to argue that people should try to promote average rather than total utility. Since the average amount of happiness could decline in an overcrowded world even as the total amount increased, the "average utilitarian" could consistently argue for population control.
Finally, who counts when happiness or utility is calculated? Everyone counts equally, Bentham said, but does "ev eryone" include only those people living in this place at this time? The expansive view is that "everyone" embraces all those who may be affected by one's actions, even people who may not yet be born. If so, should today's people count the preferences of future generations equally with those presently living? For that matter, should they restrict their concern to people? According to Bentham, the test of inclusion should not be: "Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" This emphasis on sentience has led some contemporary utilitarians to advocate "animal liberation," including vegetarianism, as part of a consistent attempt to promote utility.
Animal Rights; Environmental Ethics; Intergenerational Justice
Resources
Books
Bentham, J. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Hafner, 1948 (originally published 1789).
Mill, J. S. "Utilitarianism." In Utilitarianism, Liberty, Representative Government. New York: Dutton, 1951.
Smart, J. J. C., and B. Williams. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
This is the complete article, containing 524 words
(approx. 2 pages at 300 words per page).
