Introduction to Utilitarianism
- Garrett Gan
- Apr 22
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 22
Introduction
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that evaluates actions based on their consequences, specifically in terms of maximising overall happiness or well-being and minimising suffering for the greatest number of people.
It is a form of teleological ethics (or consequentialism), meaning the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its results rather than intentions or inherent nature.
Key Points
The Greatest Happiness Principle
The core idea of utilitarianism is that an action is morally right if it produces the greatest happiness (or pleasure) for the greatest number. Conversely, an action is wrong if it causes unnecessary pain or suffering.
Hedonism
Utilitarianism is rooted in the idea that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and pain is the only intrinsic evil. All moral decisions should aim to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
Impartiality and Equal Consideration
Utilitarianism holds that everyone's happiness is equally important, regardless of personal relationships, social status, or identity. Moral decisions should be unbiased and consider the well-being of all affected individuals.
Act vs Rule Utilitarianism
There are two significant forms of utilitarianism:
Act Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham) - Each action should be judged individually based on whether it maximises happiness.
Rule Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill) - Moral rules should be established based on their general tendency to maximise happiness, rather than evaluating each action separately.
Utility Calculation and the Hedonic Calculus
Bentham proposed a method called the Hedonic Calculus to measure the moral worth of actions. It considers factors such as:
Intensity - How strong is the pleasure or pain?
Duration - How long does it last?
Certainty - How likely is it to occur?
Propinquity - How soon will it happen?
Fecundity - Will it lead to further pleasure?
Purity - Is it free from pain?
Extent - How many people are affected?
Criticisms
Justification of Immoral Acts
Utilitarianism focuses solely on consequences, meaning it could justify morally questionable actions if they lead to greater overall happiness. For example:
Lying or stealing may be deemed acceptable if they produce a net positive outcome.
In extreme cases, even acts like torture or sacrificing an innocent person could be justified if they maximise overall well-being.
This raises concerns that utilitarianism lacks a strong moral foundation to protect individual rights and human dignity.
Neglect of Individual Rights and Justice
Utilitarianism prioritises collective happiness over individual rights, which can lead to injustice. Some key issues include:
A minority’s suffering may be justified if it benefits the majority.
It does not inherently protect fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech or the right to life unless they contribute to greater happiness.
For example, under pure utilitarian reasoning, punishing an innocent person to prevent public unrest could be justified, even if it violates justice.
The Problem of Measuring Happiness
One of the biggest challenges of utilitarianism is that happiness is subjective and difficult to measure accurately. Problems include:
Different people value different things - One person’s pleasure may not be the same as another’s.
Happiness is not easily quantifiable - There is no clear way to compare the intensity of one person’s joy to another’s suffering.
Future consequences are uncertain - Predicting long-term outcomes is difficult, making moral calculations unreliable.
The Hedonic Calculus, proposed by Bentham to measure pleasure and pain, is criticised for being too impractical and simplistic.
Excessive Demands on Individuals
Utilitarianism can be extremely demanding, requiring people to prioritise the greatest happiness even at great personal cost. This means:
People would be morally obligated to sacrifice their happiness for others if it increases overall well-being.
Acts of charity and altruism may no longer be considered optional but moral duties.
For example, a wealthy individual might be required to donate most of their income to help others, as it would generate more overall happiness.
Application of Utilitarianism to Resource Distribution
Utilitarianism can be seen in the COVID-19 vaccine distribution during the pandemic. Governments and health organisations prioritised vaccine distribution based on a utilitarian principle, maximising overall well-being for the greatest number of people by reducing hospitalisations and deaths.
The dilemma is this: Who should get the vaccine first when the supply is limited?
This is where the utilitarian approach is applied, where high-risk groups (healthcare workers, elderly, immunocompromised individuals) are prioritised to minimise deaths and the burden on hospitals, rather than distributing vaccines equally or on a first-come, first-served basis.
Even though this meant younger, healthier people had to wait, the overall benefit to society (fewer deaths, less strain on hospitals, faster return to normal life) outweighed individual inconvenience.
This decision aligns with act utilitarianism, where each action is judged by its immediate consequences.
Vaccinating a vulnerable person reduces the chance of severe illness or death, which brings a higher utility than vaccinating someone at low risk.
It also reflects rule utilitarianism—following a general rule like prioritising high-risk individuals in emergencies usually leads to better outcomes for society overall.
In the long term, this prioritisation helped preserve essential services, protect healthcare capacity, and speed up economic and social recovery. From a utilitarian perspective, these wider benefits—beyond immediate health outcomes—demonstrate why vaccine distribution based on utility maximisation can be seen as ethically justified.
Further Reading
Henry Sidgwick - The Methods of Ethics (1874)
R.M. Hare - Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point (1981)
Peter Singer - Practical Ethics (1979)
Derek Parfit - Reasons and Persons (1984)
Comments