Themes and analysis informed by B&C, Principles of Biomedical Ethics

The Concept of Utilitarianism

For many utilitarians, an act is right when it is useful in bringing about a good end (something with intrinsic value). For Bentham and Mill these intrinsic goods (things every rational person values) are pleasure and happiness. Although these terms are often interchangeable, we can distinguish hedonistic utilitarianism (Bentham) from eudaemonistic utilitarianism (Mill). Other utilitarians include friendship, health and knowledge among the intrinsic ends that utilitarianism ought to bring about.

Still other utilitarians hold that we ought to weigh individual preferences such that "we ought to maximize the overall satisfaction of the preferences of the greatest numbers of individuals." (B&C, 342)

Finally, we can distinguish egoistic utilitarianism (what is my greatest utility?) from universalistic utilitarianism (what is the greatest overall utility?). The latter concept applies to utilitarianism qua normative ethical theory (the former is simply egoism).

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

"The act utilitarian asks 'What good or bad consequences will result from this action in this circumstance?' For the act utilitarian, moral rules are useful in guiding human actions, but are also expendable if they do not promote utility in a particular context. … For the rule utilitarian…an act's conformity to a justified rule (that is, a rule justified by utility) makes the act right, and the rule is not expendable in a particular context…" (B&C, 344)

JJC Smart, an act utilitarian, argues that it's OK to follow rules, but that we can justifiably break them if it is for the benefit of the person affected and if this occasion for breaking a rule does not "undermine general conformity to moral rules. According to Smart, selective obedience does not erode either moral rules or general respect for morality." (B&C, 344)

A Critical Evaluation of Utilitarianism

There are problems with how one actually measures utility. Imagine utility as quantified by "utiles" -- how many "utiles" would a good conversation be worth (7.5 or 3.2?)? And utilitarianism based upon (subjective) preferences needs to account for those individuals whose preferences seem to violate our considered judgments about what is right and wrong (e.g., should racial bias create segregation in public schools?).

Act utilitarians have problems when particular immoral actions (e.g., torture of innocents) become justified by the principle of utility. And " utilitarianism, in principle, permits the interests of the majority to override the rights of minorities, and cannot adequately disavow unjust social distributions. The charge is that utilitarians assign no independent weight to justice…" (B&C, 347)

Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it demands too much. Foregoing life-support for a frail elderly person might lead to a "duty to die" if such life support requires considerable expenses. Alternatively, "heroic" or supererogatory actions (actions 'above and beyond the call of duty') might become morally obligatory (a relative might be morally required to donate one of her kidney's if another family members needs one).

A Constructive Evaluation of Utilitarianism

Despite its problems, utilitarianism is helpful in formulating public policy since it "requires an objective assessment of everyone's interests and of an impartial choice to maximize good outcome for all affected parties…". (B&C 348) It also "sees morality primarily in terms of the goal of promoting welfare." Finally, as "political economist Amartya Sen notes, 'Consequentialist reasoning may be fruitfully used even when consequentialism as such is not accepted. To ignore consequences is to leave an ethics story half told.'" (From Sen, On Ethics and Economics quoted by B&C 348)