This essay is about utilitarianism and will evaluate whether it is a useful way of resolving
moral dilemmas.
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory (contrasting with applied ethics and meta-ethics)
which deals with how we work out what we should do - in this case, resolving moral
dilemmas. It is a form of ethical universalism, which refers to doing what creates the greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, contrasting ethical egoism which
refers to doing what creates the greatest amount of happiness for yourself. Moreover, it is a
consequentialist theory as it is concerned with the end or goal of an action unlike
deontological arguments which are focused on the actual action rather than the
consequence. It relies on a posteriori reasoning as concepts are derived from experience
rather than a priori theories where the concepts are derived from reason. It also is a
relativistic theory as it explains that the right action can change depending on the situation,
contrasting absolutist theories where the right action does not change. Essentially,
utilitarianism is an effort to produce the best consequences possible.
Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher and the founder of utilitarianism. His
utilitarianism is known as Act Utilitarianism as he believed that every act should be
considered differently according to its consequences. Furthermore, his theory is hedonistic,
meaning that the only intrinsic good is pleasure and the only intrinsic bad is pain. Bentham
explained the Greatest Happiness Principle, describing how to create the greatest amount of
happiness for the greatest amount of people, which can be seen as useful to resolve moral
dilemmas. In fact, Bentham created what he called a ‘hedonic calculus’ which allows people
to calculate what actions create the greatest amount of happiness, hence useful for resolving
moral dilemmas. The hedonic calculus works out whether an action creates this in many
ways: the propinquity, intensity, purity, extent, duration, fecundity and certainty of the action.
Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism is deemed as successful because hedonic calculus can allow
for resolving moral dilemmas in a detailed and precise way. However, Act utilitarianism is
criticised in three main ways: it is too complex to be useful as the hedonic calculus is too
complex to be applied to every action. This links to philosophy of religion and the teleological
argument because our inability to calculate the consequences of our actions efficiently
explains the lack of design from the universe. Furthermore, there is a ‘tyranny of the majority’
where, according to Act Utilitarianism, the minority do not need protection as long as the
majority benefit; and that it does not account for the quality of pleasure, instead it only
focuses on the quantity.
John Stewart Mill was a philosopher who saw the problems in Bentham’s form of
utilitarianism and created another form of utilitarianism to solve them: Rule Utilitarianism.
This is a form of utilitarianism where general rules are created by using the hedonic calculus
and can be applied to most situations, instead of having to calculate whether the action
causes intrinsic pain or pleasure, hence resolving the problem of act utilitarianism being too
complex. Through these general rules, the tyranny of the majority problem is also solved as
general rules protect the minority regardless of if the majority benefit or not, showing how
rule utilitarianism may offer a useful way of resolving moral dilemmas. Mill also solved the
problem of Act utilitarianism not accounting for the quality of pleasure by creating a
distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mill described that these higher and lower
pleasures are determined by, what he called, ‘competent judges’: people who have
experienced both higher and lower pleasures and can differentiate. However, Mill’s Rule
utilitarianism is criticised through this introduction of higher and lower pleasures as people’s
opinions on pleasure are subjective, hence higher and lower pleasures cannot be objectively
established. This introduces another level of complexity, undermining the usefulness of Rule
utilitarianism in resolving moral dilemmas.
