The Benefits of Utilitarianism as an Ethical Theory

Since the advent of philosophy, thinkers have attempted to derive an ethical theory that can be used to guide the conduct of humans. Starting with the earliest theories on human behavior, the field of ethics has concerned itself with distinguishing the good from the bad and determining how individuals and society can promote what is good. Though utilitarianism is a modern theory by many accounts, it also shares this traditional aim and determining what is good in society and how the good can be promoted. Yet, as a consequentiality theory, utilitarianism is distinct from preceding theories because it provides a method for measuring what is good. The features that make utilitarianism an attractive and enduring ethical theory is its emphasis on result-based definitions of morality, its flexible approach to assessing moral dilemmas, and its ability to be applied at the societal level.

Overview of Utilitarianism and Consequentialist Theory

Utilitarianism is a leading ethical theory that emerged during the 19th century. Like preceding ethical theories, utilitarianism concerns itself with the question of determining what is good. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes, utilitarianism as a normative ethical theory that considers the pleasure of an action when weighing the overall good that is produced by the action (“The History of Utilitarianism”). As utilitarian theory holds, an action that produces the most good is most desirable from an ethical standpoint. While egoism, an ethical theory that dates back to ancient Greek philosophy, also places an emphasis on producing individual pleasure as the aim of human conduct, utilitarianism is distinct because it also considers the consequences that are produced by pleasure-maximizing actions (“The History of Utilitarianism”). Additionally, modern theorists developed utilitarianism into a theory that is more elaborate than the similar moral philosophies that preceded it.

Two theorists are credited as the forefathers of modern utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham developed the first systematic approach to applying utilitarianism and presented the concept of utility, which can be defined as the happiness or pleasure that is produced by an action (“The History of Utilitarianism”). As Bentham asserted, morally desirable behavior was that which increased one’s utility while avoiding harm or displeasure (“The History of Utilitarianism”). Mill contributed to utilitarianism by elaborating on the concept of pleasure. As Mill asserted, happiness could be conceived as the “good to the aggregate of all persons” (“The History of Utilitarianism”). Additionally, Mill applied utilitarianism to broader moral considerations by using the theory to address the morality of laws and social policies (“The History of Utilitarianism”). Because of its emphasis on moral implications of the consequences that are produced by an action, utilitarianism is classified as a consequentialist ethical theory.

There are several approaches that consequentialist ethical theories take to assessing the morality of an action. First, there is actual consequentialism, which determines the wrongness or rightness of an action depending only on the actual consequences of the act (“Consequentialism”). Actual consequentialism only considers the consequences that can be empirically observed, and discounts any likely consequences or foreseen consequences that cannot yet be measured. Second, direct consequentialism considers whether an act is morally right based on only the consequences of the act itself (“Consequentialism”). Similar to actual consequentialism, this approach only considers the results that can be weighed after observing the actions that the individual has taken. Third, evaluative consequentialism considers the moral rightness of an event depending on the value of the consequences (“Consequentialism”). This form of consequentialism varies from the other forms because it enables the philosopher to consider what might have occurred or what can potentially occur in making an ethical assessment.

Further, consequentialism offers approaches to ethical decision-making that can be applied at the societal level. For example, total consequentialism considers the total net good of the consequences that an action produces while universal consequentialism considers how the consequences of an action impact all beings (“Consequentialism”). When applying a consequentialist theory, it is necessary to determine which of these criteria are being used to determine whether the results of an action are morally desirable. Further, as these categories of consequentialism highlight, there is a significant dispute over which approaches are the best for evaluating the ethical implications of the results of an accident.

The main appeal of utilitarianism and all consequentialist branches of ethics is that they provide a results-based method of examining morality. Consequentialism is often contrasted with deontological ethics, which considers whether the intent behind an action is sound in assessing the action’s morality (“Deontological Ethics”). For example, leading deontological ethicist Immanuel Kant asserts that the morality of an action can be determined by assessing the principles that form the basis of the action (“Deontological Ethics”). For example, the principle that no one should steal might form the basis of an individual’s decision not to shoplift a sweater from a store. While many of the principles that inform deontological ethics are considered to be sound, consequentialism highlights the drawbacks to solely focus on the intentions behind an action when assessing modern moral decisions.

As consequentialists recognize, in most scenarios, individuals are often presented with scenarios where their actions cannot realistically conform to universal principles. For example, while it might be easy for an affluent individual to refrain from stealing on principle, a homeless child who is starving would find it less beneficial to abide by the maxim that it is wrong to steal. Further, an innate sense of justice leads most individuals to believe that the starving child is morally entitled to steal food in order to survive. Additionally, modern ethical dilemmas often force individuals to choose the lesser of two evils. For example, social policy often requires policymakers to consider whether resources will be devoted to conflicting interest groups who will be harmed or benefited by the policy in different ways. Because modern society presents many situational dilemmas, consequentialist theories are viewed as a practical method of applying moral principles to contemporary problems.

The Benefits of Utilitarian Theory

While utilitarianism has emerged as an appealing alternative to deontological theory, it is also effective when compared to the other main approaches to consequentialism. As the assessment of the other categories of consequentialism revealed, result-based ethical theories can also face limitations in their scope. Consequentialists who take a narrow approach to assessing the moral merits of the outcome of an action risk overlooking factors that are critical to informing the benefits of an action. At the surface, it initially appears that utilitarianism also shares this limitation. As a form of rule consequentialism, utilitarianism is a form of total consequentialism that considers the net benefit of the consequences of an action (“Rule Consequentialism”). Yet, utilitarianism is unique because it blends many of the traditional categories of utilitarianism. For example, while utilitarianism considers the societal benefits of an action, it is not merely a form of universal consequentialism because utilitarianism takes the benefit or harm that an action causes the individual into account (“Rule Consequentialism”). However, utilitarianism can also be applied at the individual level as well. For example, an individual can determine the merit of his or her own life by assessing how much pleasure he or she has experienced after subtracting the pain that has been experienced (“Rule Consequentialism”). Depending on the specific theorist that a utilitarian approach points to, utilitarianism can conform to a narrow category of consequentialist theory, or it can span multiple categories of consequentialism. The ability to bridge these different categories makes utilitarianism a desirable choice among the other consequentialist theories.

While an individual can utilize utilitarianism to assess the morality of his or her individual actions, a primary appeal of utilitarianism is that it can also be applied at the societal level. Mill’s most significant contribution to utilitarian theory was his elaboration on the expansions of the theory to inform social policy. As Mill asserted, utilitarianism could be used to reduce causes of displeasure in society, and Mill was especially convinced that utilitarianism could serve as a force for promoting gender equality in society (“The History of Utilitarianism”). By distinguishing between forms of pleasure and displeasure, Mill enhances the efficacy of utilitarianism is promoting the individual dignity of all human beings. As a result of Mill’s achievement, utilitarianism provides theorists with a method of determining how the utility of society as a whole can be maximized.

Yet, there are further distinctions of utilitarianism that make it more desirable than deontological ethics as a guiding ethical approach at the societal level. While deontological ethical systems appeal to universal principles, it is exactly this feature that makes them less desirable as a broader ethical philosophy. As the case example of the individual who finds it necessary to steal reveals, applying universal and binding rules to humans, regardless of their individual circumstances, is a difficult proposition. This can be even more difficult to achieve at the macro level of decision-making where there are conflicting interests that a leader or policymaker must consider. Often, the approach of settling public disputes calls for the benefits, or utility, behind the action under consideration to be weighed against the consequences, or pain, that will be caused. Typically, an appeal to universal principles is insufficient to solving modern policy dilemmas because conflicting values create different principles that people adhere to. For example, a debate on the illegality of abortion causes participants to conjure up conflicting sets of values. In a public arena where conflicting principles make universal consensus impossible to achieve, utilitarianism provides the most effective approach to assessing the public good. Thus, utilitarianism is best suited to address the problems that societies face in the modern world.

Summary and Conclusion

Utilitarianism is a modern ethical system that emerged during the 19th century. Though the theory is not new in its focus upon human happiness as the source of morality, the theory contributes to a systematic framework for evaluating the morality of an action. As utilitarians assert, moral actions are those which maximize a person’s utility while reducing his or her pain. Because utilitarianism is situational in its approach to evaluating ethical scenarios, it offers flexibility that distinguishes it from preceding ethical theories that focus primarily on identifying the principles behind an action. Further, because there are several approaches that consequentialists can take to evaluating the morality of actions, utilitarianism is able to combine these approaches in order to remain applicable at different levels of decision-making. Both individuals and policymakers can utilize the principle of utility in order to promote moral decision-making individually or collectively. Through the contribution of Mill, utilitarianism has developed into an adaptable ethical system that can be used to promote the rights of individuals who are downtrodden by society and increase the utility of society as a whole. Because utilitarianism provides a systemic approach for societal improvement, it remains a leading philosophical system for addressing modern ethical dilemmas.

Works Cited

“Consequentialism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 20 May 2003. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.

“Deontological Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 27 Mar. 2003. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.

“The History of Utilitarianism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 20 May 2003. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.

“Rule Consequentialism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 27 Mar. 2003. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.