Utilitarianism or Consequentialism Good actions are those that result in good consequences. The moral value of an action is extrinsic to the action itself.

Classical Utilitarianism The view of classical utilitarianism is advanced by Jeremy Bentham ( ) and John Stuart Mill ( ) Utilitarianism is most basically distinguished from consequentialism in holding that good consequences are those that maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Greatest Happiness Principle Bentham originally put forward the principle that an action is good if and only if it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This principle results in the ‘utilitarian calculus’: we measure the goodness of an action by the amount of happiness it promotes and the amount of unhappiness it avoids.

What is happiness? Happiness is defined as the presence of pleasure and the absence of displeasure or pain. For this reason, classical utilitarians are called “hedonistic consequentialists.” Bentham held that only the intensity and duration of pleasure could determine the quantity of pleasure. (cf. “Push-pin vs. Poetry”, 94) Mill held that the difference in the quality of the pleasure (whether it is more highly valued) ought to also be considered (Utilitarianism, ).

Classical Utilitarians also hold Total consequentialism: when calculating the good of any action, we must consider the total, or net, good of the action. Universal consequentialism: good actions depend on the amount of pleasure and pain produced for all sentient beings involved. Equal consideration: when determining the value of an action, the good to one individual must count the same as an equivalent good to another. Agent-neutrality: whether an action produces good consequences should not depend on the perspective of the agent performing the action.

Act vs. Rule Consequentialism Act consequentialism holds that every action should be considered on its own in terms of the quantity of good it produces. Rule consequentialism holds that actions that follow general rules should be more highly valued than actions that do not follow such rules. Some consequentialists also advocate a theory of rights which states that actions that maintain certain rights should be more highly valued than those that don’t. The classical utilitarians are act consequentialists, though Mill seems to allow some social norms to function like rules and he articulates a persuasive defense of civil liberties or individual rights.

Not enough time… One possible criticism of consequentialism is that no one possibly has the time to consider all of the effects of each action he or she performs. But this criticism misses the point. Consequentialism does not describe the way we make decisions; it simply tells us which kinds of decisions are morally right and which ones are not. Mill makes a similar point when he says that “there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species,” meaning that social norms, passed down over time are the products of extensive calculation and observations of the consequences of those actions (Utilitarianism, 113).

How would a Utilitarian treat our obligations to keep promises: The consequentialist only considers the consequences not the nature of the action, so the fact of a prior promise should bear no weight in considering whether or not to keep that promise. However, breaking a promise may cause pain to the person to whom you made the promise; Or we may determine the general rule of promising- keeping to be of significant value to society. Promises are not intrinsically valuable, but they may provide many valuable consequences for society or prevent harmful consequences to individuals.

Implications of Consequentialism Counter-intuitive results: –Trading lives, trading pleasures: trolley cases, organ donors, and “death panels.” –No one person’s pleasure counts more than any other person’s pleasure. –There is no moral distinction between doing and permitting.

Real-World Influence Animal rights: Peter Singer, Animal Liberation Health care rationing (the British system): Quality Adjusted Life Years Women’s rights World poverty: Peter Singer, The Life You Could Save