Exploring Utilitarianism: Balancing Happiness and Consequences

In the quest for a moral compass to navigate the complex waters of ethical decision-making, utilitarianism emerges as a beacon of practicality. This philosophical doctrine, rooted in the pursuit of happiness, offers a straightforward yet profound criterion: the greatest good for the greatest number. It is a theory that does not dwell in the abstract but plunges into the real-world consequences of our actions.

As we peel back the layers of utilitarian thought, we uncover a system that champions happiness as the ultimate end, scrutinizes the outcomes of our choices, and demands equality in the consideration of each individual’s well-being. This article invites you on an exploratory journey through the tenets of utilitarianism, a path walked by the likes of Bentham and Mill, where the measure of right and wrong is intricately tied to the balance of joy over sorrow. Join us as we delve into the heart of utilitarianism, examining its principles, applications, and the enduring questions it poses to the ethical dilemmas of our time.

Introduction

Utilitarianism is a significant ethical theory that focuses on the outcomes of actions to determine their moral worth. Utilitarianism is best known by the maxim Do whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Basically, “utilitarianism examines possible results and picks the one that produces the most blessing over the greatest range” (Kidder, 2009). Utilitarianism is an end-based, or consequential style of moralism.

The foundational concept is seeking an end state which provides the greatest common good.

History of the Philosophy of Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832): Bentham generally is credited with developing the first systematic utilitarianism, noted that the measure of the rightness of an action was to be found in the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

John Stuart Mill (1806–73): Mill further developed utilitarianism by focusing particularly on issues of personal conduct. Refining Bentham’s quantitative assessments of pleasures and pains, he argued that “some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others,” and noted that the highest pleasure lay in the desire for unity with others.

Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900): Sidwick added to Mill’s utilitarianism by introducing three “axioms of the practical reason” under the headings of prudence, benevolence, and justice.

Basic Principles of Utilitarianism

Pleasure or Happiness Is the Only Thing That Truly Has Intrinsic Value: Utilitarianism is derived from the term “utility,” which in this context refers to pleasure or happiness. This principle posits that happiness is inherently valuable, and a world with happiness is better than one without it.
Actions Are Right Insofar as They Promote Happiness, Wrong Insofar as They Produce Unhappiness: This principle is a form of consequentialism. It suggests that the morality of an action is determined by its consequences. The more happiness an action produces, the more morally right it is considered.
Everyone’s Happiness Counts Equally: When considering the consequences of actions, utilitarianism asserts that everyone’s happiness should be given equal consideration. This principle emphasizes impartiality and the equal consideration of interests.

These principles were articulated by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, and they continue to influence moral reasoning and ethical decision-making in various fields today.

Bentham and Utilitarianism

Much of Jeremy Bentham’s writing about utilitarianism is focused on government legislation. He posits that:

“The happiness of the individuals, of whom a community is composed, that is then pleasures and then security, is the end and the sole end which legislator ought to have in view” (Bentham, 1789).

Pleasure and pain, or the hedonic principle, has a prominent role in psychology. We see in Bentham’s writings that the concept lived long before Freud’s pleasure principle. Bentham wrote that nature has placed “mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” Pain and pleasure motivate action. They set the “standard of right and wrong.” The entire structure of consequences is “fastened to their throne” (Bentham, 1789a).

Bentham proposed that we can evaluate pleasure and pain by certain criteria. He proposed four criteria for evaluation:

Intensity: The strength or magnitude of a pleasure or pain.
Duration: How long the pleasure or pain lasts.
Certainty (or Uncertainty): The likelihood that the pleasure or pain will occur.
Propinquity (or Remoteness): How soon the pleasure or pain will happen (Bentham, 1789, p. 29).

Additionally, when assessing the overall impact of an action on a community, Bentham considered two more factors:

Fecundity: The chance that the pleasure will be followed by similar sensations (pleasures) or that the pain will be followed by similar sensations (pains).
Purity: The chance that the pleasure won’t be followed by pain (and vice versa).

These criteria help determine the value of pleasures and pains in utilitarian calculations.

Mills and Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, economist, and exponent of utilitarianism, made significant contributions to this ethical theory. Mill opposed Bentham’s weight he placed on the natural experience of pleasure.

Mills wrote that a feeling that is “bestowed on us by nature, does not necessarily legitimate all its promptings.”

Mills explains:

“The feeling of justice might be a peculiar instinct, and might yet require, like our other instincts, to be controlled and enlightened by a higher reason. If we have intellectual instincts, leading us to judge in a particular way, as well as animal instincts that prompt us to act in a particular way, there is no necessity that the former should be more infallible in their sphere than the latter in theirs: it may as well happen that wrong judgments are occasionally suggested by those, as wrong actions by these.”

Mill was keenly aware of the subjectiveness of feeling. He posits that mankind is “always predisposed to believe that any subjective feeling, not otherwise accounted for, is a revelation of some objective reality” (Mill, 1963).

Let’s explore some of his key contributions:

Utilitarianism (1963): In this work, Mill refined and redefined utilitarian philosophy. He emphasized both the quantity and quality of pleasure in determining moral actions. Mill focused on maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people, providing a comprehensive ethical framework that addresses the complexities of moral decision-making.
Promotion of “Higher Pleasures“: Mill advocated for the idea that happiness consists of both “higher pleasures” (such as cultural, intellectual, and spiritual experiences) and “lower pleasures” (physical sensations). He sought to elevate the overall well-being of individuals by emphasizing these higher forms of happiness.
Critique of Bentham’s Theory: While remaining a utilitarian throughout his life, Mill became critical of Bentham’s “theory of human nature.” His articles, “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy” (1833) and “Bentham” (1838), contributed to the development of utilitarian thought by questioning certain aspects of Bentham’s approach.

In summary, Mill’s work significantly shaped utilitarianism, emphasizing the nuanced evaluation of pleasure and promoting a more holistic view of happiness.

Moral Conflicts and Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism addresses moral conflicts by applying its core principle of maximizing happiness or utility. When faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarians evaluate the potential outcomes of different actions and choose the one that they believe will produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness for the greatest number of people.

This process involves several steps:

Identifying the Potential Outcomes: Utilitarians consider all possible consequences of the available actions to determine which ones will lead to positive outcomes and which ones to negative outcomes.
Evaluating the Consequences: The next step is to assess the intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, and extent of the potential happiness or unhappiness that each action might produce.
Considering Everyone Affected: Utilitarianism requires that the happiness of every individual affected by the decision be considered equally. This means that one person’s well-being is not prioritized over another’s.
Making a Decision: After evaluating the consequences and considering everyone affected, the individual then chooses the action that they expect to result in the greatest net utility.

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

In cases where moral rules conflict, utilitarianism offers two approaches: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. First, Act utilitarianism focuses on the effects of individual actions, while rule utilitarianism considers the effects of following general rules of conduct.

Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that suggests the rightness or wrongness of an action should be determined by its consequences. According to act utilitarianism, theorists consider an action morally right if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people affected by the action. In other words, it bases the moral worth of an action on its ability to maximize utility, which utilitarianism typically defines as happiness or well-being.

Act utilitarians believe that individuals should evaluate each situation independently. Accordingly, the decision-maker should choose the action that will result in the greatest net benefit in terms of happiness or pleasure. This means that there are no fixed rules or principles to follow in act utilitarianism. Instead, the utilitarian should make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis of the likely outcomes of various actions.

Critics of act utilitarianism argue that it can lead to morally questionable decisions if followed strictly, as it may justify actions such as lying or harming certain individuals if doing so maximizes overall utility. Additionally, opponents point out that predicting all possible consequences of an action can be difficult and subjective, making it challenging to apply act utilitarianism consistently in practice.

Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that is based on the principle of utility, similar to act utilitarianism. However, while act utilitarianism focuses on determining the morality of individual actions based on their consequences, rule utilitarianism emphasizes following moral rules or principles that, when consistently applied, lead to the greatest overall happiness or well-being for society.

In rule utilitarianism, societies establish moral rules based on their ability to maximize utility over time and in various situations. These rules are considered general guidelines for behavior that promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Rule utilitarians argue that by adhering to these rules consistently, individuals can create a more stable and predictable social environment that ultimately maximizes overall utility.

Unlike act utilitarianism, which evaluates each action independently, rule utilitarianism considers whether an action conforms to a set of general rules that a society deems will produce the best outcomes in terms of common happiness or well-being. Rule utilitarians believe that following these established rules leads to better long-term consequences than making decisions solely based on individual circumstances.

Critics of rule utilitarianism argue that subjective evaluations still determine the rules. Accordingly, rules still may incorporate biases. Additionally, opponents question whether prioritizing adherence to rules over consideration of specific consequences could lead to morally questionable outcomes if certain rules do not align with maximizing overall utility in particular cases.

Arguments Against Utilitarianism

Several theorists raise arguments against utilitarianism. Here are some key objections:

Justice and Individual Rights:
- Issue: Utilitarianism may require violating standards of justice to maximize overall happiness.
- Example: Punishing an innocent person to prevent social unrest, even though it violates their rights, could be justified under utilitarianism.
Incommensurability of Utility:
- Issue: Comparing utility or happiness across different people is challenging. Whose happiness matters more?
- Example: Prioritizing majority happiness might lead to unfair discrimination or slavery.
Hypocrisy and Non-Compliance:
- Issue: Critics argue that even committed utilitarians often don’t follow their principles consistently.
- Example: Hypocrisy undermines the theory’s practical application.
Breaking Promises and Trust:
- Issue: Utilitarian calculations might justify breaking promises or violating trust if it maximizes overall happiness.
- Example: Keeping a promise might lead to less overall happiness, but it conflicts with common moral intuitions.

In summary, while utilitarianism offers a clear framework, these objections highlight its limitations and the need to consider other moral principles alongside consequences.

A Poor Example of Utilitarianism

Let’s step into a scenario where utilitarianism guides a decision:

In a bustling hospital, where life and death intersect. Dr, Emily Lawson, a chief surgeon, encounters an ethical dilemma. Four lives hang in the balance, tethered to failing organs. The heart, the lungs, the kidney, and the liver—they all need replacements. The transplant list stretches like an unending scroll, and time is a merciless adversary.

In the waiting room, Alex Harris, a stranger with a beating heart and functioning organs is blissfully unaware of the drama unfolding around him. His organs—unclaimed, unspoken for—could save four lives. The math is stark: one life sacrificed for the greater good.

Dr. Lawson grapples with her oath, her duty. She knows the utilitarian calculus—the greatest good for the greatest number. But ethics, like surgical incisions, cut deep. She imagines Alex’s family, their grief, their loss. She envisions the joy of four recipients, their second chances.

Theoretical Concepts and Complex Systems

Perhaps, the greatest error with utilitarianism is when we strictly use of it in the complex world of reality. The theory breaks down when examined within the framework of complex systems. In a strict limited argument, one life has less value than four lives. However, Dr. Lawson’s dilemma is much deeper and complex than four is greater than one. In true utilitarian philosophy, she would have to determine the happiness attached to each of these five lives.

Moreover, determining happiness would not be a simple calculation of current happiness gained and deprived in the immediate aftermath of the organ donations, but the impact on future happiness (or deprived happiness). What would have Alex done with his life if he didn’t donate his organs? Would he been instrumental in finding the cure for cancer or would he instigate a world war?

What will the four saved lives do with the remainder of their lives? Will they be tyrants spreading misery or loving contributors to life?

The primary problem is all these intricate evaluations of present and future are subjective. No one has the ability to unravel the complex intwinging of current and future impact of a major decisions such as presented by this over-simplified example of Dr. Lawson.

Basically, our ability to logically arrive at the correct utilitarian answer is impossible. We can best use the theoretical framework of utilitarianism as an exercise to investigate the widespread impact of behavior, pushing our minds to mentally contrast a choice from different angles.

Subjective Interpretations

One of this largest stumbling blocks of strict utilitarianism is the measurement of happiness (or prevention of sorrow). Happiness is a slippery term. It is a concept. For true utilitarianism, there must be an exact measurement of happiness. Is happiness equivalent to subjective well-being (SWB)? How would a utilitarianism account for culturally different valuations of happiness?

I routinely receive articles on places to live and visit on my Google newsfeed. For example, the ten best places to retire in the United States. The article will then list ten ‘best’ towns and articulate why they are on the list. However, within a week, I will receive a similar article from a different source listing ten completely different cities. The difference is not that the authors are randomly selecting different towns but they are choosing different criteria for the basis of their evaluations. The point is that we can do the same thing with our calculations of happiness. If we slightly adjust the criteria, the entire equation changes.

Since we will never have universally accepted criteria to measure happiness, we will never have a completely just utilitarian equation.

Enforcement of Utilitarian Judgements

Because subjective interpretation, we encounter a supreme dilemma. Who decides the criteria for utilitarian judgements and who enforces the rules? For example, one political party in the United States posits that by enacting laws that benefit corporations and the rich, it has a overarching common good. We know this philosophy as the trickle down affect. The rich and powerful love it and donate to political candidates that vow to enact laws that prescribe to this philosophy. Of course, once the rich and powerful gain from these laws, they decide how and when they will open the spigot to let the wealth flow downward.

The royalty during the middle ages also felt that they were endowed with the intelligence and compassion to best provide for the peasants. Accordingly, they believed that the peasants would suffer if they allowed them to dictate their own lives. As Mill explains that we should be “glad to see just conduct enforced and injustice repressed, even in the minutest details, if we were not, with reason, afraid of trusting the magistrate with so unlimited an amount of power over individuals” (Mill, 1863).

The sad truth is that whenever we afford a person the unlimited power to dictate to others what will enhance the common good, they quickly adopt a position that secretly establishes criteria that notably first considers what will elevate their position, power, and riches. Balance of power through checks and transparency is necessary.

Associated Concepts

Hedonic Principle: This principle is a concept in psychology that suggests that people are motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain. It is based on the idea that the pursuit of positive experiences and the avoidance of negative experiences drive human behavior.
Value Theory: This is a branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and evaluation of human values and moral principles. It explores questions about what constitutes intrinsic value, the source of value, and how value influences human behavior.
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development: Individuals progress through these stages as they mature. Kohlberg’s theory emphasizes the importance of reasoning and thinking processes in moral development, and it has been influential in shaping our understanding of how individuals develop their sense of right and wrong.
Eudaimonia: This is a Greek term we translate as “happiness” or “well-being.” It represents a state of flourishing, where an individual experiences a sense of fulfillment, purpose, and overall thriving in life. In philosophical terms, Scholars associate eudaimonia with Aristotelian ethics. It emphasizes the importance of virtuous action and the pursuit of personal excellence for achieving a truly fulfilling and meaningful life.
Morals and Ethics: Morals refer to an individual’s beliefs about what is right and wrong, guiding their behavior and decision-making. Ethics, on the other hand, pertains to the principles and values that govern the conduct of a group or profession, often involving more formalized standards of behavior. Both concepts play crucial roles in shaping personal and societal conduct.
Social Exchange Theory: This theory is a social psychological perspective that explains social change and stability as a process of negotiated exchanges between parties. According to this theory, individuals evaluate their relationships and interactions based on the perceived rewards and costs involved.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we navigate the intricate terrain of human behavior, utilitarianism stands as both beacon and challenge. Its pragmatic calculus—weighing pleasure against pain, happiness against suffering—shapes ethical decisions in psychology. Yet, beneath its rational facade lies a tension: Can we truly quantify well-being? Can we reduce the human experience to a ledger of utility?

As we conclude this exploration, let us grapple with these questions. Utilitarianism, like any theory, invites critique and adaptation. Perhaps, in our pursuit of the greatest good for the greatest number, we find room for empathy, nuance, and the whisper of individual stories.

For now, let us step back, survey the landscape, and acknowledge that ethics, like psychology itself, thrives in the gray areas—the spaces where formulas yield to compassion, and numbers yield to narratives.

May your ethical compass guide you, dear reader, as you navigate the labyrinth of choices.

Last Update: August 27, 2025

References:

Bentham, Jeremy (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
(Return to Main Text)

Bentham, Jeremy (1789a). Utilitarianism.
(Return to Main Text)

Kidder, Rushworth M. (2009). How Good People Make Tough Choices. Rev Ed. Harper Perennial; Updated edition. ISBN: 9780061743993
(Return to Main Text)

Mill, John Stuart (1863). Utilitarianism. London, Parker, son, and Bourn. Retrieved from the Library of Congress. (PDF)
(Return to Main Text)

Mill, J. S. (1833). Remarks on Bentham’s philosophy. The Westminster Review.
(Return to Main Text)

Mill, J. S. (1838). Bentham. The Westminster Review.
(Return to Main Text)