What Is Utilitarianism?

To begin an exploration in ethical philosophy and build a foundational knowledge and understanding of how such thinking has evolved and progressed in humans over time, one must look to possibly one of the most influential approaches to ethics in history: Utilitarianism (Driver). In order to understand what Utilitarianism is and how this system of thought developed and can be applied in society, one must look back to the writings of thinkers who began to discover a clearer definition of the concept in the early nineteenth century. Ideas of John Stuart Mill and his predecessor Jeremy Bentham must be examined as well as the criticisms of their work by more modern thinkers such as Peter Singer and John Rawls. Through the careful examination
of the work of these men, one can begin to understand all facets of Utilitarianism and why it has played such and important role in the development of ethics today. As the investigation of Utilitarianism begins, one must look to the core values of the system that are best defined by John Stuart Mill. In Mill’s essay Utilitarianism published in 1879, Mill outlines the root foundation of Utilitarianism as the “Greatest Happiness Principle” (aka the Principle of Utility). As defined by Mill, “Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness,” (Mill). In order to understand Mill’s meaning, one must break down each part of this statement in a complex nonlinear manner. First, when approaching at surface level and examined in layman’s terms, Mill is stating that the things people do are right morally if they make us (people) happy and wrong morally if they make us or other people unhappy. While this is a little easier to comprehend it only marginally helps to uncover Mill’s meaning if at all; There must also be an understanding of what is meant by happiness and how morally right and wrong actions relate to it. Before Mill, Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy on human nature helped form his and Mills views on what happiness is and how humans feel the need to be happy. Bentham, and then Mill saw a direct correlation between individual pursuit of pleasure as happiness and absence of pleasure along with pain as cardinal motivators of unhappiness. Mill states that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only true desirable ends in life; therefore, the pursuit of these ends the pursuit of happiness is morally right (Mill). Mill’s conclusion that all pursuits of pleasure or pleasurable ends are happiness is the basis of correct morality in Utilitarian belief. Contradictory to the moral correctness of happiness is the incorrectness of unhappiness and existence of pain. According to Mill, if we are to pursue happiness and divert from unhappiness and pain we are morally correct, and in that correctness we are not only bettering ourselves but our society as a whole (Mill). Knowing this and therefore knowing more about what Mill is getting at, the question of pleasure and morality can be explored deeper. While it is true that Mill and Bentham before him have hedonistic beliefs and that pleasure and happiness are man’s greatest ends (as individuals and as society), Mill makes it clear that there are different kinds of pleasure and consequently they relate to morality differently. These higher and lower pleasures as Mill defines them can be categorized by how happy they make us and how much effort and time we need in their pursuit. The lower include bodily pleasures, food and the like and are those that may require less effort to attain happiness; however, the happiness brought about by these lower pleasures is transient and short-lived. The higher pleasures involve the mind and the use of intellect such as an appreciation of nature, art, or music. While it may take a man more time and effort to hone these appreciations, they are higher pleasures because the reward of happiness is lasting and fulfilling throughout life and that makes the initial pain or frustration worth it according to Mill (Mill). While Mill’s expression of his and Bentham’s ideas are at the core of Utilitarianism, their writings and basis of thought have been constantly scrutinized.
Modern thinker Peter Singer points out the flaws in the “Greatest Happiness Principle” in his 1971 essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality. In his essay Singer begins by telling the story of the current (1971) refugee situation in Bengali. He makes a point of demonstrating how relief coming from affluent countries such as Great Britain and Australia are superficially seen as being beneficial when in reality we, as a society, are morally and practically approaching the problem the wrong way. To argue this point, Singer uses two main assumptions; his first being that the things happening in Bengali, e.g. suffering from lack of food, shelter, medical care etc. are bad. He is to the point in that he outlines that these are assumed to be bad things by a majority of people and that is the end of his first assumption; it is there simply for clarification and to set up the second assumption and main argument of his essay. Singer states his second assumption, “… if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it,” (Singer). So according to Singer, if it is in man’s power to prevent bad things from happening we need to do it, not only in Bengali in the instance of refugees, but in all areas of life. He explains how
doing good things even if it means making smaller sacrifices benefits man and therein shows how there can be pain and privation of pleasure in Mill’s “Greater Happiness Principle” that is unaccounted for. To demonstrate, Singer gives the example of rescuing a drowning child. He points out that by wading into the pond where the child is drowning he would be making the sacrifice of getting muddy and wet; however, this sacrifice would be insignificant when realizing that he had just saved the child’s life, (Singer). Singer continues by stating how relief fund efforts by affluent nations look satisfactory on the surface but in reality not enough is being done. To prove this point Singer introduces the concept of ‘Marginal Utility’. His example for the demonstration of this point involves a theoretical example involving the donation of £5 to the Bengali Relief Fund. Singer states that, in theory, if everyone with the same means (affluence) gave £5 to the fund then there would be enough money to provide food, shelter, care etc.; therefore, no one would be obligated to give more than £5. However Singer notes that the keyword is theoretically because in reality everyone with the same means does not give the same amount if at all; therefore, there is not necessarily enough money currently to support the Bengali Refugees. Finally, Singer concludes that because of this reason, we are obligated to give as much as we can until the point that we cause ourselves and or our dependents more pain than is currently being suffered in Bengali (Singer). I find Singers logic to be sound. He clearly and concisely shows how donating to charity is morally obligatory. In his logic there is honesty and honor derived from helping others as much as we are able. As Singer pointed out that there is pain in the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, in his essay Classical Utilitarianism, John Rawls examines this further.
He criticizes Singer and Mills, stating that while Utilitarian beliefs and the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, are held with happiness and pleasure as the end goal, the actions to achieve these ends can often involve individual pain and suffering (Rawls). He gives examples of how societies use individuals, such as in an agrarian society, to benefit their advancement as a whole, but the workers and farmers are often subject to nothing remotely near pleasure for their entire
lives. While Rawls makes valid points as well, just as I don’t see Singer’s argument fatal to Mill’s, I don’t see Rawls’ argument fatal to Singers. Singer understands that there is pain in the pursuit of pleasure; Rawls simply outlines that there is a limit and a boundary where the means don’t justify the end. Understanding all the facets of Utilitarianism is no small task. There are many building blocks and stepping-stones to a full understanding of this ideology. Through the investigation of the “Greatest Happiness Principle” from John Stuart Mill and the ideas of Jeremy Bentham and being able to grasp the end goal as happiness and the pursuit of pleasure we gain a base knowledge. By examining the layers of criticism from Peter Singer and the subsequent remarks of John Rawls one gains a well-rounded idea of how pain and pleasure are never truly apart. In this discovery we can truly understand what Utilitarianism is, how it has been defined and what it means to us.
Works Cited

Driver, Julia, "The History of Utilitarianism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Raleigh, N. C.: Alex Catalouge, 199. Print
Singer, Peter. Famine Affluence and Morality. 1971. New York. Print
Rawls, John. Classical Utilitarianism. 1971. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Print.