utilitarianism essay questions

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Utilitarianism

Bentham’s act utilitarianism.

Jeremy Bentham invented the first form of Utilitarianism – Act utilitarianism. He was one of the first atheist philosophers and wanted to devise a morality that would reflect an atheistic understanding of what it meant to be human. Such an understanding involved no longer considering ourselves as a special part of creation, but as just a part of nature. On this basis, Bentham made this claim:

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure’” – Bentham.

This means that it is human nature to find pleasure good and pain bad, which Bentham goes on claim suggests that it is pleasure and pain which determine what we ought to do as well as what we will do. We can say that we value something other than pleasure, but Bentham claims we would just be pretending. It is the nature of the human animal to seek pleasure and avoid pain, so that’s all there is for morality to be about. From this, Bentham devised the principle of utility:

An action is good if it leads to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory because it is what an action “leads to”, i.e. its consequences, that determines whether it is good.

Bentham’s felicific/hedonic calculus

The principle of utility holds that the ‘greatest’ pleasure is the goal of ethical action. It follows that a method for measuring pleasure is required. Bentham devised the hedonic calculus to do this. It is a list of seven criteria which each measure a different aspect of the pleasurable consequences of an action. In order to decide which action to do, you need to know in advance which action will result in the greater amount of pleasure. The hedonic calculus is what allows you to calculate that.

• How strong the pleasure is.
• How long the pleasure lasts.
• How likely it is that the pleasure will occur.
• How far away in time the pleasure will occur.
• The likelihood that the pleasure will lead to further pleasure.
• The likelihood that the pleasure will be followed by pain.
• How many people are affected.

Mill’s qualitative Utilitarianism; higher & lower pleasures

The claim of Utilitarianism, that the morality of an action reduces entirely to how far it maximises pleasure, provoked many to criticise it for degrading morality and humanity; that it is a “doctrine worthy only of swine”.

Mill combated this objection by distinguishing between lower pleasures gained from bodily activity, such as food, sex and drugs, and higher pleasures gained from mental activity, such as poetry, reading, philosophy, music. Swine are not capable of experiencing higher pleasures, so to combat this objection Utilitarianism need only show that higher pleasures are superior to the lower.

Mill points out that Utilitarian thinkers had already successfully defended against this issue by showing that higher pleasures are overall superior at producing a greater quantity of happiness than lower. Lower pleasures are fleeting, lasting only for the duration of the action that produce them. Furthermore, lower pleasures are costly because they are addictive and tempt people to choose instant gratification, or what Mill calls a ‘nearer good’ over greater goods like health, for example by consuming sugar or drinking alcohol. Higher pleasures of the mind have no such ill effects and can have a lasting enlightening effect on a mind which has cultivated a habit of appreciating them.

Bentham claimed that all pleasures were equal, that the pleasure gained from poetry is just as valuable as that gained from playing pushpin (a children’s game). Yet even Bentham’s quantitative approach will judge higher pleasures superior for tending to produce more durable pleasure with less cost than lower pleasures.

However, Mill goes further than Bentham and claims that the superiority of higher pleasures can be proven not only on quantitative grounds, but a ‘higher ground’ than that, their superior quality.

“It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others” – Mill

Higher pleasures are of greater quality than lower pleasures. That is why they are worth more. We can determine whether a pleasure is of greater quality than another based on which is preferred over the other. Through education in the collective experience and choices of humanity we can discover which pleasures are desired over others.

‘Competent judges’ are people with experience of both higher and lower pleasures. Mill claims they always prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures, thus demonstrating their greater quality. Mill now has his full answer to those who say Utilitarianism is a doctrine fit only for swine:

“it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides” – Mill.

Humans can experience mental pleasures of a higher quality than the low pleasures that both humans and pigs can experience. Socrates illustrates that some humans can experience mental pleasures of a higher quality than other humans. Mill’s claim is that when we investigate such cases, we find that beings prefer the highest mental pleasure they are capable of experiencing over lower pleasures. In fact, people acquainted with both higher and lower pleasures show such a great preference for the higher that they will put up with discontent to get them and would not lose it even for any quantity of a lower pleasure. Mill concludes:

“we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account” – Mill.

When we study what types of pleasure are preferred over others by those with the capacity to experience many types, we find that it is those higher pleasures of the mind that are preferred and are often pursued while sacrificing comfort. We can thus conclude of their greater quality.

For example, consider the case of an artist who suffers from financial deprivation to produce their art. A piano player who arduously wades through hours of practice to finally experience the pleasure of playing some composition of genius. A student who avoids short-term pleasures and indolence by diligently studying for their exams, to avoid a monotonous life and pursue the pleasure that comes from development, exercise and eventual mastery of their interests and talents.

Many will object to Mill’s claim that a person who can and has experienced higher pleasures will always prefer them to lower ones. There are plenty of times when mentally cultivated people will occasionally give in to instant gratification or even sink into complete addiction to lower pleasures.

However, Mill responds that this objection misunderstands his argument. Everyone prefers the highest pleasures they have been able to experience, but it doesn’t follow that everyone always chooses them over lower ones. The ability to experience higher pleasures requires careful cultivation which is easily lost, either due to falling into addiction, weakness of will/character, external pressures or lack of internal support.

“Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying.” – Mill.

Rule Utilitarianism

Generic Rule Utilitarianism adds the idea of following rules to the principle of utility. So, an action is good if it conforms to a rule which maximises happiness.

We need to determine whether following a rule, e.g., like not lying, will promote more happiness than not following it. If so, then following that rule is good.

This then typically splits into strong and weak rule Utilitarianism. Strong Utilitarianism is the view that the rules should be stuck to no matter the situation. Weak Utilitarianism is the view that the rules can be broken if it maximises happiness to do so.

Strong Rule Utilitarianism is typically criticised for simply becoming deontological, for abandoning the principle of utility and its consequentialism and becoming an empty deontological theory that follows rules for no good reasons, having abandoned its own supposed meta-ethical grounding.

Weak Rule Utilitarianism is typically criticised for in effect reducing into act utilitarianism, since they would judge every action the same. If following a rule such as telling the truth maximises happiness in a situation, then both Act and weak Rule would say to tell the truth. If breaking the rule and lying maximises happiness in a situation, then both act and weak rule would say to lie.

Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism

Mill’s version of Rule Utilitarianism was an attempt to improve on Bentham’s and arguably also avoids the issues of the strong and weak varieties.

The principle of Utility holds that the goal of moral action is to maximise happiness. Mill says he “entirely” agrees with Bentham’s principle of Utility, that what makes an action good is the degree to which it promotes happiness over suffering. Mill calls this the principle of Utility the ‘first principle’.

However, Mill disagreed with Bentham’s approach of judging every action by the principle of utility. Mill claimed that happiness is ‘much too complex and indefinite a goal’ for that.

“Although I entirely agree with Bentham in his principle, I do not agree with him that all right thinking on the details of morals depends on its explicit assertion. I think that utility or happiness is much too complex and indefinite a goal to be sought except through various intermediate goals” – Mill.

This is an attempt to solve the issue of calculation. It is extremely difficult to calculate which action will maximise happiness. Even though that is what constitutes the moral rightness of an action, nonetheless because of our limited knowledge our actual moral obligation is to follow whatever secondary principles humanity’s current level of understanding has produced regarding how to gain happiness and minimise suffering. We can draw on the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of our species on what avoids suffering and produces satisfaction and happiness.

This gives us ‘secondary principles’ which are more general rules and guidelines. These are the product of our civilisation’s current best attempt to understand how to produce happiness. They are therefore subject to improvement. As particularly obvious examples, Mill points to murder and theft as being injurious to human happiness.

Another secondary principle Mill thought important enough to be adopted as the practice of government was the harm principle. It essentially states that people should be free to do what they want so long as they aren’t harming others. Mill argued that each individual is in the best position to make themselves happy and so if we all allowed each other to do what made us happy, society would overall be the happiest it could be.

Of course, secondary principles will sometimes conflict. Another secondary principle could be helping others. In the case of the trolly problem, where killing one person is the only way to save five people, the harm principle conflicts with the principle of helping others. In the case of theft, which is a harm, if it is the only way to save a starving family then the secondary principles of not harming and not stealing come into conflict. Mill explains that to resolve conflicts we need to apply the first principle:

“ Those who adopt utility as a standard can seldom apply it truly except through the secondary principles … It is when two or more secondary principles conflict that a direct appeal to some first principle becomes necessary” – Mill

If we appeal to the first principle of utility, it looks like we should steal to save starving people or inflict harm (to the point of killing) by pulling the leaver in the trolly problem, to save five people.

It’s debated whether Mill is a Rule Utilitarian. He clearly thinks that it is morally right to do an action that conforms to a rule which experience has shown to maximise happiness. However, Mill clearly also thinks that sometimes individual actions should be judged to resolve a conflict or applicability issue in rules/principles. Arguably the question of how exactly to categorise Mill is irrelevant and we could simply conclude that Mill’s Utilitarianism is the perfect synthesis of Act and Rule Utilitarianism. It does avoid the problem of generic Rule Utilitarianism, that it either becomes a meta-ethically empty deontological theory or collapses back into Act Utilitarianism.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Problems with calculation.

Utilitarianism seems to require:

• That we know can the future.

If the goodness of an action depends on whether it maximises pleasure, then we need to know the consequences of the action before we do it. That seems to require that we know the future. Yet, predicting the future is often incredibly difficult.

Worse, we need to know not only the consequences of an action, but of all the possible actions we could do in a situation.

• That we can make incredibly complex calculations about the range of possible actions, sometimes under time-constraints.

Once we know the consequences of all the actions we could do, we then need to calculate the impact they will have on pleasure and pain. Not just in the short, but in the long-term. Worse, we might need to make these calculations in time-sensitive situations.

• That these calculations include the objective measuring of subjective mental states like pleasure and pain.

We can only make objective measurements of objective things. For example we can measure a thing’s length by putting a tape measure next to it. The calculations about the amount of pleasure and pain an action will lead to require that we measure subjective feelings, which seems impossible. There is no objective way to measure subjective feelings because we can’t put a ruler next to them.

All three of these conditions are plagued with difficulty, and yet each seems absolutely necessary if we are act on the principle of utility.

Bentham’s response to issues with calculation. Bentham claims that an action is right regarding “the tendency which it appears to have” to maximise happiness. So, we actually only need to have a reasonable expectation of what the consequences will be based on how similar actions have tended to turn out in the past.

To further defend Bentham, we could argue that we can measure subjective feelings. In hospital, doctors ask patients how much pain they are in out of 10. Doctors will admit that this is never a perfect indicator, but it is accurate enough to be informative.

Mill’s response to issues with calculation. Mill’s version of Utilitarianism seems to avoid these issues regarding calculation. We do not need to know the future, nor make incredibly complex calculations, nor measure subjective feelings. We only need to know the secondary principles that our civilisation has, through its collective efforts and experience, judged to be those best conducive to happiness. We then need to simply follow those principles as best we can. For Mill, the moral rightness of an action depends on maximise happiness, but because of the immense complexity of that, our only moral obligation is to just do our best to follow the principles geared towards producing happiness of our society, which are themselves only the best current principle that our current stage of civilisation and culture has managed to develop.

Mill is admitting that to perfectly act on the principle of utility is currently impossible. However, he denies that this means Utilitarianism fails in its requirement as a normative theory to successfully guide action. For that, Utilitarianism can rely on the principles and rules that, to the best of our current knowledge, most produce happiness. Society also ought to be progressive, meaning it should retrospectively assess and improve its principles and rules. This works well enough and in principle can continue to work better as we discover more, biologically, psychologically, sociologically and politically how to maximise happiness.

In cases of a conflict of rules, Mill adopts the same approach as Bentham and says we must judge the individual action by the principle of utility, though Mill adds that we should consider the quality not only quantity of the pleasure it could produce. He agrees with Bentham’s point that when judging individual actions, we can base our calculations on what we know of the ‘tendencies’ actions have. We do not need to exactly predict their consequences.

Regarding how to calculate or measure the quality of a pleasure, Mill explains that we need only investigate people’s preferences and we see that people always prefer higher pleasures to lower ones, except when falling into addiction or weakness of character.

Mill’s response to issues with calculation is quite amusing in how dismissive he is, so I’ve been tempted to quote part of it in full:

“Again, defenders of utility often find themselves called upon to reply to such objections as this—that there is not time, previous to action, for calculating and weighing the effects of any line of conduct on the general happiness. This is exactly as if any one were to say that it is impossible to guide our conduct by Christianity, because there is not time, on every occasion on which anything has to be done, to read through the Old and New Testaments. The answer to the objection is, that there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species. During all that time, mankind have been learning by experience the tendencies of actions; on which experience all the prudence, as well as all the morality of life, are dependent … Men really ought to leave off talking a kind of nonsense on this subject, which they would neither talk nor listen to on other matters of practical concernment. Nobody argues that the art of navigation is not founded on astronomy, because sailors cannot wait to calculate the Nautical Almanack. Being rational creatures, they go to sea with it ready calculated; and all rational creatures go out upon the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong” – Mill.

Utilitarianism justifies bad actions and is against human rights

The moral basis of human rights is deontological because human rights are intrinsically good. This seems incompatible with consequentialist ethics like Utilitarianism, which argue that something is only good not because of anything intrinsic but depending on whether it leads to happiness. So, Utilitarianism could never say ‘X is wrong’ or ‘X is right’. They can only say that ‘X is right/wrong if it leads to/doesn’t lead to – the greatest happiness for the greatest number’. In that case they couldn’t say ‘torture is wrong’. In fact, if 10 people gained happiness from torturing one person, a Utilitarian it seems would have to say that was morally right as it led to the greatest happiness for the greatest number. When a majority of people decide, for their benefit, to gang up on a minority, that is called the tyranny of the majority.

Bentham didn’t accept that his theory had this consequence. In a case like 10 torturers gaining pleasure from torturing one person, that is certainly more pleasure than pain – but Bentham’s theory is not simply about producing more pleasure than pain. It is about maximising pleasure. An action is good if it maximises pleasure, meaning if it is the action which produces the maximum amount of pleasure possible. The action of allowing torture produces less pleasure than the action which finds a way to make everyone happy – not just the torturers.

However, what if, since we have limited resources, the best action we can possibly do is not one which enables everyone to be happy? In that situation, which does seem to be our actual situation, it looks like the logic of Bentham’s theory would justify the sacrifice of the well-being or even deliberate infliction of pain on some minority of the sake of the pleasure of the majority.

Mill’s Rule utilitarianism attempts to solve those kinds of issues too. The rule of the harm principle will result in a happier society than one which doesn’t. Since torture is harm, Mill’s utilitarianism can overrule individual cases where torture might result in happiness. Mill does not believe in rights. He thinks that everyone should be free to do whatever they want except harm others. The justification for this freedom from harm is not that people have a ‘right’ to be unharmed, but that it is for the greatest happiness for the greatest number that we live without harming each other. So, while Mill doesn’t believe in intrinsic rights, he proposes rules which seem identical to rights in their ethical outcome. Arguably that is sufficient.

It’s questionable whether Mill’s harm principle really is what would make people happiest. Arguably individuals are not in the best position to figure out and follow through on what will make them happy. This can be seen by the various mistakes and bad life choices people make when trying to achieve happiness.

Many argue that the problem with secular society is that people have become selfishly focused on their own happiness. The hyper-individualism that comes from capitalism and the oversexualisation of western culture are argued to be the result of Mill’s liberalism and his utopian belief that individuals best know how to make themselves happy.

Mill was writing in a time when religion and culture created a huge pressure of social conformity. Mill thought that because people were actually so different, each person would be much better off trying figure out what made them happy than if they were forced to behave the way others might prefer.

The issue of intentions and character

  Utilitarianism only views the consequences of actions as good, not the character (integrity) of the person who performs them. This goes against the intuition that a person can be a good person. It also has the bizarre effect that e.g stabbing someone could be good if after being rushed to hospital it was found, coincidentally, they had a brain tumour. Or someone who attempts to do good but bad consequences result which were unforeseeable, such as the priest who saved Hitler’s life when he was a child. The way we’d normally solve this problem is to claim that although the action had good consequences, the person’s intentions or character was bad. However, consequentialist theories seem unable to claim that because for them, it is only consequences which are good or bad, not intentions/character.

Mill responds firstly that a person’s character does matter because it will determine their future actions. The stabber should be condemned for his motive because that will prevent them stabbing others in future. The priest should be forgiven because he’s not likely to do anything bad in the future as his character is good. Secondly, Mill argues that having a good character helps you become happy. Motives and character therefore do matter ethically, though not intrinsically but only insofar as they result in good consequences, in line with consequentialism.

Kant vs consequentialism

If a Nazi asked whether we were hiding Jews and we were, it seems Kant is committed to the view that it’s wrong to lie. That seems to go against most people’s moral intuitions because of the obvious terrible consequences to telling the truth in that situation. This puts Kant at odds with consequentialist theories like Utilitarianism.

Kant could respond that each person is ultimately responsible for what they do. As a rational agent, you are responsible for what you do, and the Nazi is responsible for what they do. Lying to prevent the Nazi from killing is to act as if you were responsible for the Nazi’s action, but you are not. You are responsible for what you do, and so you should not lie.

Kant points out that we cannot control consequences in the example of the murderer at the door. If we lied about where the victim was, yet unknown to us the victim had actually moved there, then we would be responsible for their death. So Kant is arguing that we cannot control consequences and thus cannot be responsible for them. So, they cannot be part of our moral equation.

Arguably we are responsible for what others do. Kant pictures a human being as a rational agent who is ultimately an individual, responsible only for what they do. This arguably overlooks the fact that we exist in complex webs of social influence such that part of who we are depends on our interactions with other people. We exist in deep connection to other people and thus to that extent are in fact responsible for each other’s actions.

Furthermore, just because we can’t control consequences completely, does that mean they don’t matter ethically? Also, consequentialism isn’t arguing we can completely control the consequences, just that we should consider them when acting. Furthermore, we can control consequences to a degree. Shouldn’t we therefore be responsible for them to that degree?

The issue of partiality

Utilitarianism argues that we should do whatever action leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. It does not consider an individual’s particular emotional ties to their family or friends as relevant to that ethical calculation. E.g most parents would save their child’s life over the life of two random people. However, Utilitarianism would not regard that as the most moral action as saving two rather than one would lead to the greatest happiness. Therefore, Utilitarianism seems to be against the foundation of familial relationships which is at least a practical impediment to its implantability because family relationships define so much of our social existence. It is arguably also a conceptual flaw since family is intuitively thought of as a good thing.

Mill tried to respond that most people don’t have the opportunity to help a multitude of people so it’s good to just focus on those in our lives.

However, these days we have extensive charities all over the world so Mill’s argument seems outdated.

Peter Singer makes the point that being brought up in a loving family is the best way to ensure children grow up to be as happy as they can. Singer points out that there have been experiments at bringing up children without parents and that they haven’t worked out well. So, if no one had a family, people would be much less happy therefore perhaps the happiness we gain from family is worth the unhappiness caused by our exclusion from our consideration of those who are not our family.

But, if you think about how much parents in the west spend on their children, if half that money were given to charity instead, actually the amount of suffering that reduced might outweigh the happiness the world gains by its having family relationships.

The burning building

If you were in a burning building and had a choice between saving a child and an expensive painting, which would you choose? Most people on first hearing this scenario would say the child, but utility based ethics seems to suggest that saving the painting is better because we could sell the paining for enough money to save the life of a hundred children. Giles Fraser argues that saving the painting suggests a lack of sympathy for the child and thus Utilitarianism encourages us to be immoral.

William MacAskill responds that actually saving the painting suggests a more cultivated sympathy which is able to connect to the many more children elsewhere who are in just as much need of saving and outnumber the single child there now. Their needs are greater than the individual needs of the one child.

Arguably it is practically impossible to expect people to act in the way utilitarianism wants, even if we admitted it was right in theory. Human emotions, especially empathy, are thus a practical impediment to the implementation of utilitarianism.

Possible exam questions for Utilitarianism

Easy Does utilitarianism provide a helpful method of moral decision-making? Can moral judgement be based on the extent to which, in any given situation, utility is best served?

Medium Is it possible to measure good or pleasure and then reach a moral decision? “The moral action is the one which has the greatest balance of pleasure over pain” – Discuss. Is moral action a matter of following accepted laws that lead to the greatest balance of pleasure over pain? Is an action morally justified if it produces the greatest amount of good over evil? Assess whether rule utilitarianism successfully improves on act utilitarianism. Critically compare act and rule utilitarianism

Hard How morally valid is the hedonic calculus? “Morality is not based on utility” – Discuss. Should Utilitarianism aim to promote the greatest overall balance of good over evil or the greatest amount of good over evil?

Quick links

Year 12 ethics topics: Natural Law. Situation ethics. Kantian ethics. Utilitarianism. Euthanasia. Business ethics. 

Year 13 ethics topics: Meta-ethics. Conscience. Sexual ethics. 

OCR Philosophy OCR Christianity OCR essay structure OCR list of possible exam questions

Utilitarianism Theory Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Utilitarianism is an ethical movement that began in 18th century. It dictates that the best course of action is the one that benefits majority. Here, you will discover an essay about utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism theory argues that the consequence of an action determines whether that particular action is morally right or wrong. Philosophers behind this theory include Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, R.M. Hare and Peter Singer. All these philosophers evaluate morality of actions depending on overall happiness or well-being. Thus, they see utilitarianism as a consequentialist ethic.

Consequentialist ethics holds that in determining whether an act, policy, rule or motive is morally right, we should check whether it has good consequences for all affected persons. Rather than asking if an action has good consequences for a person, we should just inquire whether that action adds to the person’s happiness.

Therefore, utilitarianism is an ethical theory that centers on happiness, not just the happiness of one person, but happiness of many people. Thus, the greatest happiness principle is synonymous with the principle of utility. The principle of greatest happiness states that a person should do things that will have the most happiness for all involved persons.

Critics of utilitarian ethics argue that because utilitarianism emphasizes on results, utilitarian theorists should agree that the theory of ethical relativism solves the problem of relativism. These critics claim that since utilitarian theorists argue that morality of an action depends on what the product of the action will take to all affected persons, then almost every action is moral. That is to say, utilitarianism is a consequentialistic ethic and thus, we cannot know whether an action is immoral until we see its bad consequences.

Given that, utilitarian ethics in some ways holds morality of an action hostage to the result, morality of the action appears relative. However, we refute ethical relativism since utilitarian ethics is a type of universalism, given its grounds in trust in universal human nature. Utilitarian theorists say that all people have altruistic and egoistic elements, and all people seek to evade pain and augment pleasure. Then, instead of ethical relativism, they support a liberal ethics that acknowledges there are universal principles and values.

The utilitarian perspective that ethics is more inclined to our feelings and not our rationality may seem to give evidence that utilitarianism is a type of relativism. Obviously, people have different outlooks about different matters. However, description of ethics may not always be from this perspective. Think about a cruel act such as premeditated murder.

How comes that this act immoral? Is it due to societal, divine, or natural laws? The truth is that human beings cannot make the moral judgment that premeditated murder is immoral until they experience negative sentiments about such acts. If there are human beings who do not get negative sentiments after reflecting on the idea of premeditated murder, or other monstrous acts, it is because those persons have something wrong with them and thus, cannot feel others pain.

Desensitization is the contemporary psychological word that describes why some people may not have feeling for the pain of others. People become desensitized making them not feel others pain. This psychological thought matches perfectly well with the utilitarian idea of sentience. However, human nature is universal and a universal ethics rests upon nothing more than human sentiments.

At the center of the utilitarian argument that shifts from the concern we physically have for our personal feelings of pain and pleasure, to others feelings of pain and pleasure, is the belief that this is the nature of human beings. When we hear about calamities happening to others, we may find ourselves flinching or grimacing. However, to go from a claim about our human nature to a moral claim that we ought to do this, and it is correct that we do this, and wrong when we fail to do this, includes an extra step in the argument.

The crucial step is to ask ourselves whether there is actually a difference between our pains and joys and other peoples’ pains and joys. This, for instance, is a problem to any racist. If dissimilar races experience equal pleasures and pains, then how come one race sees itself as superior to another race? If there is actually no difference between our pains and pleasures with others pains and pleasures, then we ought to, just due to consistency, view their suffering as just as significant as ours.

This is the heart of the justification of the theory of utility; we should do what will have the best outcomes for all persons involved, not only for ourselves, since there actually is no significant difference involving our welfare and other people’s welfare.

It is clear that equality is a main concept involved in this reasoning. A different way to portray the central utilitarian concept is just to say humans are equal; your pain or happiness is equal to another person’s anguish or happiness. However, another person’s happiness, well-being, suffering, pleasure and pain are not more crucial than yours. Hence, considering ethics along utilitarian line takes us from egoism through altruism to equality.

Other critics of utilitarianism argue that it is difficult and impossible to apply its principles. Those that hold that it is difficult to apply utilitarian principles argue that calculating the outcomes for all persons is impractical due to uncertainty and the big number involved. The truth, however, is that utilitarianism offers a clear way of determining whether an action is moral or not, and this does not involve calculations.

As mentioned earlier, a morally right action should have pleasurable consequences. Therefore, a person who says that it is difficult to apply this theory should support his/her claims with examples of actions that produce pleasurable outcomes, but are wrong. Therefore, the argument that it is difficult to calculate what is right does not hold any water, since it has no harm to the principle of utility. Rather, this is a problem of the human condition.

Other critics that oppose the application of utilitarian principles argue that it is not possible to gauge or quantify happiness and there is no defined method of weighing happiness against suffering. However, the truth is that happiness is measurable and comparable through words like happier and happiest. If it were not measurable, then these words would have little meaning.

In conclusion, the theory of utilitarianism is sound, logical and consistent. Utilitarian ethics follow the law of greatest happiness. According to this law, human beings seek to decrease suffering and maximize happiness. Hence, an action that is correct morally must lead to the greatest possible pleasure. This also implies that actions that cause pain on human beings are morally wrong. As seen in the arguments above, this theory is beyond reproach, as it caters for all possible objections.

• Principles of Utilitarianism
• Machiavelli and a Notion of Virtue as an Innovation
• A Critique of Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism Critique From Kantian Perspective
• Moral Relativism and Moral Universalism
• Ethics in Philosophy: Discussing Theories, Evaluating Key Concepts. In Search for the Truth
• Ethics is not Based on Religion
• Euthyphro: Concept of Holiness and Piety
• Humanity Theories: Utilitarianism
• Famine, Affluence, and Morality
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 19). Utilitarianism Theory Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/

"Utilitarianism Theory Essay." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Utilitarianism Theory Essay'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Utilitarianism Theory Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/.

1. IvyPanda . "Utilitarianism Theory Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Utilitarianism Theory Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarianism-theory/.

Utilitarianism

26 pages • 52 minutes read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapters 1-2

Chapters 3-4

Key Figures

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

“Utilitarianism” is a philosophical essay written by English philosopher John Stuart Mill in 1863. In this long essay, Mill seeks to provide a definition for the moral philosophy of utilitarianism , which was originally developed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham . As a philosophy, utilitarianism argues that a desire for happiness lies at the heart of all moral considerations. Mill’s essay expanded on the philosophical ideas initially proposed by Bentham and specifically sought to respond to common criticisms or misunderstandings of utilitarianism. This guide follows the version of “Utilitarianism” collected in the 2015 edition of the Oxford University Press anthology of Mill’s writings, titled On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Other Essays . The essay “Utilitarianism” is divided into five chapters.

In the first chapter, Mill describes some of the general questions that concern any moral philosopher. Mill believes that the field of moral philosophy has not significantly developed since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers; the general and first principles upon which morality is based remain unknown. Most moral philosophers prior to Mill belong to two different schools of thought concerning ethics, intuitive ethics and inductive ethics; these schools of thought differ on the question of whether morality is inherent in human nature or learned through experience. While both forms of ethics agree that morality must be based upon foundational principles, neither have succeeded in outlining what those principles are. “Utilitarianism” fills this gap by arguing that all moral questions are based upon what Mill calls the Utility Principle , which holds that morality is based on the desire to increase happiness (or pleasure) and avoid pain. 

Chapter 2 focuses on the meaning of utilitarianism and the Utility Principle. Throughout the chapter, Mill responds to a series of common misconceptions about utilitarianism. Mill explains that utilitarianism seeks to increase pleasure in people’s lives, not avoid or prevent it. Mill also clarifies the definition of pleasure; he does not mean pleasure in the form of satisfying animalistic desires, but the higher forms of pleasure that only humans are able to appreciate. Mill also explains that the Utility Principle is concerned less with actions that improve individual happiness than with actions that improve the general happiness of society as a whole.

In Chapter 3, Mill describes the sanction by which society is obligated to follow the ideas of utilitarianism. Mill argues that the sanction for any moral philosophy, including utilitarianism, is an individual’s conscience, which creates a feeling of pain or remorse whenever an individual commits actions that break the moral code. Utilitarianism has a special sanction, however, due to its connection to humanity’s natural inclination to exist as social beings. Because humans have an inherent desire to be a part of a community, they are inclined to follow the code of utilitarianism as their social desires lead them to seek the betterment of society as a whole.

Chapter 4 contains Mill’s outline of what he believes is the proof of utilitarianism. Mill argues that it is impossible to prove that happiness is desirable beyond the fact that experience shows that people desire to increase their happiness. For Mill, this fact demonstrates that the goal of an individual’s actions is that individual’s own happiness or pleasure, which, he argues, proves the Utility Principle.

The final chapter of “Utilitarianism” examines the relationship between utility and justice. Mill notes that many people believe that a desire for justice is the basis for morality, rather than a desire for happiness or pleasure. Throughout this chapter, Mill attempts to prove that the desire for justice is a subcategory of the desire for happiness. Mill investigates the ideal of justice, which, he argues, is a feeling connected to people’s legal rights; the notion of justice includes laws that do exist and laws that should exist. Mill contends that justice is a feeling based in an individual’s animal instinct for self-preservation, and this instinct applies to entire communities through humankind’s sympathetic nature. As such, Mill argues that justice is analogous to the utility principle, as it is ultimately concerned with the happiness and good of society as a whole. 

Related Titles

By John Stuart Mill

The Subjection of Women

Featured Collections

Essays & Speeches

View Collection

Philosophy, Logic, & Ethics

• Register or Log In
• 0) { document.location='/search/'+document.getElementById('quicksearch').value.trim().toLowerCase(); }">

Assessing Utilitarianism Essay Questions

• Does utilitarianism entail that it is better to kill an innocent person to save the lives of twenty others? Explain.
• State an objection to utilitarianism that you think the rule utilitarian can answer but that the act utilitarian cannot. Explain why this is the case.
• Do you find utilitarianism attractive as a moral theory? Explain.

Select your Country

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Consequentialism and Utilitarianism

Author: Shane Gronholz Category: Ethics Word Count: 1000

1. Consequences Matter

Think about something you did today. Chances are, you did it because you wanted to make something happen, to accomplish some goal, to achieve some end, to bring about certain  consequences . It could have been an important end: maybe you gave someone CPR to save their life. Or it could have been relatively insignificant: maybe you had Cap’n Crunch cereal for breakfast because you knew you would enjoy it.

Upon reflection, it starts to seem as though everything we do is to bring about some consequence. What does it mean to  bring about a consequence ? This is a way of changing the world, in a small or a large way: I want the world to be thus-and-so, but it’s not currently thus-and-so, so I will perform this action.

We often, maybe always, do things to bring about certain consequences. 1  Why would you do anything if you didn’t think it was going to have some result? 2

If all our actions are done for the sake of bringing about some consequence, and the consequences are ultimately what we care about, then it makes sense to judge actions, that is, to determine the  moral status  of actions (e.g., wrong, permissible, obligatory), by their consequences.

This view is known as  consequentialism : that the consequences of an action are all that matter in moral assessment. What should we do, according to consequentialism? Consequentialists typically argue that we are obligated to do whatever action has the best  overall  consequences, for all who are affected by the action. Utilitarianism, the most prominent version of consequentialism, makes a further claim about what consequences actually count as good, namely, those that increase the total sum of happiness in the world and/or decrease the total amount of pain.

This essay introduces consequentialism. 

2. Problems for Consequentialism

Consequences  do  seem to dominate our moral thinking. Why should I donate to a charity? Because people in need will be made better off. Why is it wrong to vandalize property? Because you will likely make the space uglier, and it would be costly to fix it. It’s difficult to think of an immoral action that has no bad consequences. Why is lying often wrong? Because if I lie, it might cause you to not trust me in the future, or it might hurt your feelings were you to find out. But many of us think that if a lie would truly be harmless, with no bad consequences, then there wouldn’t be anything wrong with it. That is just what a “white lie” is, and many of us think there is usually nothing wrong with white lies.

While consequentialism sounds appealing at the outset, it has some troubling implications. If you’ve ever said, “The ends do not justify the means,” you were expressing a non-consequentialist sentiment. There are many actions that consequentialism entails are perfectly fine, or even obligatory, that many people think are very wrong.

Suppose your friend, on her deathbed, makes you promise to spread her ashes in the Rocky Mountains. After her death, you realize it would be much more convenient to simply flush her ashes down the toilet. You would save a lot of time and money, and no one would be harmed. Since this act appears to have no bad consequences, consequentialism entails there would be nothing wrong with this. But most of us think there would be.

Another example: five “A-list” celebrities need transplant organs, or they will soon die. No viable organs have been found so far, but while reviewing your medical records for a routine physical, doctors notice that your organs are perfect matches. A plan is hatched to kill you, in secret, making it look like an accident, to save the celebrities. This is thought to be an  overall better consequence  than your living and the five celebrities dying, and their millions of fans devastated. It’s hard to see how a consequentialist could explain how this is wrong. And yet, we tend to think this would be profoundly wrong.

There are many more examples philosophers have considered. I invite you to try to think of some of your own.

How might a consequentialist respond to these cases? One strategy is to show that, in fact, these actions will have bad consequences. Perhaps your friend’s mother will find out what you did with her daughter’s ashes. You might be good at keeping secrets, but keeping secrets is mentally and emotionally taxing. And suppose someone found out that the hospital killed an unsuspecting patient. That would have terrible consequences: fewer sick people would visit hospitals now, for fear of being killed.

But these are fairly weak responses. We can sometimes be pretty certain our actions won’t have any bad consequences. 3  In that case, the consequentialist must admit that flushing the ashes down the toilet was the right thing to do. But perhaps that’s not so bad. If nothing bad whatsoever follows from your action, why not do it after all? No harm, no foul. This response is more satisfying in some cases than others. It might satisfy some in the ashes case, but it’s much less satisfying when it comes to killing innocent people.

3. Rule-Consequentialism

Another way to avoid these problems is to resort to rule-consequentialism. 4  According to rule consequentialism, we should not simply perform the  individual action  that will produce good consequences. Instead, we should follow rules that, when followed, lead to good consequences.

For example, in general, torture has terrible consequences. Always following the rule “do not torture” would have good consequences, 5  so we should follow that rule, even if there could be cases of torture that do not have the terrible consequences torture tends to have.

But this view has a major problem. If what you care about are indeed the consequences, and you realize you could bring about  better  consequences by breaking the rule, why would you continue to abide by the rule? This view seems to undercut its very motivation.

4. Conclusion

Consequentialism initially seems a promising and intuitive moral theory, but it can yield strange moral results. This might show that consequentialism is false, or that consequences aren’t all that matter in moral assessment. Or maybe consequentialism is true after all, and true morality doesn’t always jibe with our everyday intuitions.

1  Of course, sometimes we’re bad at anticipating the consequences of our actions. Maybe I make a bad investment because I am shortsighted. But even in that case, I was thinking about the consequences (getting more money) – I just wasn’t doing a very good job of predicting the consequences.

2  This has led some thinkers, such as John Stuart Mill, to reason, “All action is for the sake of some end, and rules of action, it seems natural to suppose, must take their whole character and colour from the end to which they are subservient.”

3  For example: Maybe your friend has no other loved ones, so there is no one who would know about what you did, no one who would get upset, no one from whom you would have to keep it secret.

4  The view we have been discussing so far is known as act-consequentialism.

5  Or would at least avoid bad consequences.

Bentham, Jeremy,  An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1823).

Mill, John Stuart,  Utilitarianism (1861).

Moore, G. E.,  Principia Ethicia  (1903).

Ross, W. D.,  The Right and the Good . Ed. Philip Stratton-Lake. Oxford: Clarendon (2002).

Sidgwick, Henry,  The Methods of Ethics (1874).

Related Essays 

Mill’s Proof of the Principle of Utility  by Dale E. Miller

John Stuart Mill on The Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures  by Dale E. Miller

Happiness by Kiki Berk

“Can They Suffer?”: Bentham on our Obligations to Animals  by Daniel Weltman

Saving the Many or the Few: The Moral Relevance of Numbers by Theron Pummer

The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? by Gabriel Andrade

W.D. Ross’s Ethics of “Prima Facie” Duties  by Matthew Pianalto

The Repugnant Conclusion by Jonathan Spelman

Introduction to Deontology: Kantian Ethics  by Andrew Chapman

Virtue Ethics  by David Merry

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF

About the Author

Shane Gronholz has a doctorate in philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He holds a B.A. from Whitworth University where he double majored in philosophy and religion. Shane is interested in metaethics, ethical theory, practical rationality, and philosophy of religion. He lives in Washington with his wife (Stephanie), son (Maxwell), and dog (Benny). TrivialorFalse.com

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook , Twitter and subscribe to receive email notice of new essays at the bottom of 1000WordPhilosophy.com

Share this:, 30 thoughts on “ consequentialism and utilitarianism ”.

• Pingback: The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: G. E. M. Anscombe’s “Modern Moral Philosophy” – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Business Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Virtue Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Longtermism: How Much Should We Care About the Far Future? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Happiness – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethics and Absolute Poverty: Peter Singer and Effective Altruism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: John Stuart Mill on The Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethics: A collection of articles, videos, and podcasts. - The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes - The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Ethics and the Expected Consequences of Voting – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: The African Ethic of Ubuntu – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethical Egoism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Mill’s Proof of the Principle of Utility – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: The Death Penalty – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Reparations for Historic Injustice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ignorance and Blame – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Theories of Punishment – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: CAN WE SEPARATE THE ART FROM THE ARTIST? | AESTHETICS FOR BIRDS
• Pingback: Evolution and Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: (Im)partiality – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: The Repugnant Conclusion – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Introduction to Deontology: Kantian Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Responding to Morally Flawed Historical Philosophers and Philosophies – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Because God Says So: On Divine Command Theory – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: What Is Consequentialism? - The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Introduction to Deontology: Kantian Ethics | 1000-Word Philosophy

Comments are closed.

• Women's Rights Research Topics Topics: 140
• Deontology Research Topics Topics: 72
• Immanuel Kant Topics Topics: 159
• Virtue Topics Topics: 112
• Allegory of the Cave Topics Topics: 60
• Ethics Paper Topics Topics: 617
• Aristotle Paper Topics Topics: 125
• Plato Paper Topics Topics: 185
• Color Blindness Topics Topics: 49
• Animal Rights Research Topics Topics: 55
• Socrates Research Topics Topics: 115
• Animal Cruelty Essay Topics Topics: 107
• Animal Abuse Topics Topics: 97
• Gender Inequality Topics Topics: 75
• Animal Testing Topics Topics: 111

145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on utilitarianism, 🔎 easy utilitarianism research paper topics, 👍 good utilitarianism essay topics to write about, 🎓 most interesting utilitarianism research titles, 💡 simple utilitarianism essay ideas, ❓ questions about utilitarianism.

• Human Trafficking from Perspectives of Deontology, Utilitarianism and Egoism
• Utilitarianism Advantages and Disadvantages
• Utilitarianism and Corporate Social Responsibility
• Utilitarianism and Deontology in Business
• Utilitarianism and Abortion: Mill’s Principle of Utility and Bentham’s Felicific Calculus
• Capital Punishment form Utilitarianism Perspective
• Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
• Comparison of Utilitarianism and Christian Ethics This paper will present a detailed analysis of utilitarianism theory and contrast it with a Christian ethic to explain why the latter is stronger in addressing the issue of suicide.
• The Catholic Church’s Deontology and Utilitarianism Perspectives This paper compares and contrasts the Catholic Church’s deontology and utilitarianism perspectives, underpinned by the natural law and divine command theory.
• Virtues, Utilitarianism, and Deontological Ethics In the paper, different outlooks on ethics and morality will be examined on the basis of virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics.
• Moral Theories: Utilitarianism, Duty-Based Ethics and Virtue-Based Ethics From the assessment of each theory, it can be seen that virtue based ethics can be considered less pragmatic, a feature which is more suitable for moral assessment.
• The Theory of Utilitarianism: Philosophical Issues The philosophy of utilitarianism is oriented toward providing life with the least amount of suffering for most human beings.
• Criminal Scheme: Utilitarianism and Deontology This paper will look into the issues concerning Bernie Madoff who has been involved in the Ponzi scheme on the basis of utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
• The Theory of the Act Utilitarianism Act utilitarianism is a theory of ethics stating that any act of a person is morally right only if it creates the greatest good for the majority.
• Animal Experimentation: The Theory of Utilitarianism This moral issue concerns animal experimentation. It is related to the theory of Utilitarianism, the idea of which induces preference of practical changes over morally obstacles.
• Immoral Actions and Utilitarianism The paper discusses utilitarianism. It is one of the directions in ethics, the leading position of which is the usefulness of actions.
• Utilitarianism and Protection of People’s Rights Among criticisms targeted at the ethical theory of utilitarianism is one that states that it fails to protect people’s rights and freedoms.
• Academic Integrity Dilemma: Utilitarianism vs. Virtue Ethics The paper states that although applying the utilitarian model would result in immediate gratification, virtue ethics is a better alternative.
• Utilitarianism in Asian Business Being the largest and most diverse region of the world, Asia varies in the forms of business ethics practices by the corporations.
• Utilitarianism as It Relates to Welfare Utilitarianism is an ethical approach that requires human beings to engage in actions that promote happiness for a greater number of people.
• Amish Midwives: The Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism According to the utilitarian theory of ethics, the practice when unlicensed midwifes assist in labor to Amish women should not be banned, since it brings more happiness than grief.
• Qualified Candidates and Poor Credit Checks: The Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism This paper overviews how a manager can employ an ethical theory of utilitarianism to handle a situation and conflict of a qualified candidate with poor credit checks.
• Justice: Libertarianism and Utilitarianism Ethical values such as libertarianism and utilitarianism are among the significant philosophical views that influence rights, obligations, power, and riches.
• Utilitarianism Theory: Principles and Ethical Forms This essay explores utilitarianism theory by discussing the principles and ethical forms, which have raised controversial views on the meaning of ethics and morality in society.
• Virtue Ethics Versus Utilitarianism Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that emphasizes character above behavior. The concept underscores the importance of mentality and personality.
• The Utilitarianism Argument for Public Policy Utilitarianism supports actions that increase happiness and opposes actions that cause unhappiness with the ultimate goal of making the whole society better.
• Death Penalty: The Utilitarianism Ethical Theory Utilitarianism gives moral justification for the death penalty as long as it promotes society’s total well-being, approval, and happiness.
• Utilitarianism as a Concept Embedded in Human Nature The importance of people’s relationships can be seen starting from simple human relations and their continuation to economic ties between countries.
• Ethical Reasoning: Utilitarianism & Universal Ethics Luke has been invited to work on a project involving the development of property recently bought by ABC for the construction of an adult entertainment retail store.
• Utilitarianism Theory Applied to Western Democracy According to the theory of utilitarianism, there are ethical norms that must be followed. As a result, they overlook the other virtues that favor the few.
• Utilitarianism and PR During the Pandemic The principle of utilitarianism in the PR sphere contradicts the modern ethical paradigm because it cannot fully provide the ability to make decisions.
• Utilitarianism and the Civil War The civil war in America can be justified by utilitarianism since the moral reform of slavery was central to the conflict.
• Utilitarianism as the Only Effective Paradigm Utilitarianism developed in the eighteenth century is still employed in modern society as the central philosophical paradigm that frames the creation of laws and norms.
• Virtue, Utilitarianism, and Deontology A set of guiding principles – morality – focuses on the core of what allows people to live in unified communities. Morality sets what society considers acceptable and right.
• Handling Ethically Challenging Situations: Utilitarianism and Deontology The paper aims to study approaches to handling different ethically challenging situations from the utilitarianism and the deontological perspective.
• The Utilitarianism Theory by John Stuart Mill According to Mill’s utilitarianism theory, the use of morally permissible violence is wrong as it directly affects the happiness of a person that violence is acted upon.
• Comparing Two Ethical Approaches: Utilitarianism and Social Contract Ethics Ethical norms regulate the relationship between people in society, and this paper aims to analyze the examples of utilitarianism and social contract ethics in action.
• Why Utilitarianism Is the Best Moral System This paper discusses the ideas and principles of utilitarianism, the advantages and critique of utilitarianism, and why utilitarianism is the best moral system.
• Kant’s Morality and Utilitarianism Morality is impossible without freedom, since if a person’s actions are determined by the will of God or the laws of nature, then one cannot speak of morality or morality.
• Utilitarianism Applications and Criticism Utilitarianism can be viewed as a form of consequentialism that focuses on the results of actions and decisions.
• Utilitarianism vs. Deontology in Case of Betrayal Ethics often asks questions of choice. In the case the ethical dilemma of Utilitarianism vs. Deontology appears.
• Why Practicing Utilitarianism is Important Philosophy is an integral part of every person’s worldview and outlook on life which they espouse and through which they interpret various phenomena.
• Does Utilitarianism Pose a Threat to Rights? Utilitarianism and rights can be juxtaposed, as utilitarianism denies the absolute nature of ethical rights and proclaims universal happiness as the only worthwhile goal.
• Different Aspects of Utilitarianism This paper determines utilitarianism that refers to a theory, which teaches that the course of any action should be that which ensures pleasure.
• Animal Exploitation and Utilitarianism The concept of animal welfare is connected to utilitarianism as the latter operates the notions of pleasure and pain of any animate beings.
• The Main Risks of the Utilitarianism The Utilitarianism can be defined as the idea that maximizes or minimizes the preferences of utility. John Stuart Mill is a proponent of this theoryu
• Utilitarianism Theory: Value and Disadvantages The author argues that, according to the utilitarianism theory happiness is an important result, but at the same time, consequences such as justice or equality are of great value.
• Utilitarianism as a Science of Society Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based on the idea that human actions should bring the best possible consequences.
• Utilitarianism in the Ebola Controversy of 2014 This essay applies the principles of utilitarianism to the Ebola controversy of 2014 to evaluate their practicability.
• Utilitarianism: Moral Ideals and Practical Ethics Every person regularly has to make choices of the moral character. While the law clearly defines, what is right or wrong, life does not seem to be that uniform.
• Utilitarianism: Poverty Reduction Through Charity This paper shows that poverty levels can be reduced if wealthy individuals donate a part of their earnings, using the main principles of the utilitarian theory.
• “Utilitarianism” Essay by John Stuart Mill “Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill belongs to the number of the most famous works focusing on the role of utility in the life of any society.
• Utilitarianism Theory: Applications and Issues Although the theory of utilitarianism appears to be relevant or applicable in most daily situations, there are deep underlying challenges associated with the concept.
• Utilitarianism and Its Favorable Features The main distinctive feature of utilitarianism is its attempt to classify numerous acts, happiness and provide a credible rationale for this classification.
• Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill’s Philosophical Views Utilitarianism is about actions that make individuals happy. The paper studies notions of the greatest happiness, and explains why general happiness is desirable.
• Utilitarianism vs. Cultural and Ethical Relativism
• Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics
• The Merits and Draw Backs of Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and the Case for Euthanasia
• Qualitative and Quantitative Pleasures Come Out of Utilitarianism
• Discrimination and Affirmative Action and Their Connection to Utilitarianism and Deontological Concerns
• Utilitarianism: For the Greater Good
• Utilitarianism: Ethics and Contemporary Organizational Communication
• Climate Policy Under Sustainable Discounted Utilitarianism
• Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics
• Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons
• Understanding the Concept Behind the Contemporary Utilitarianism Theory
• Difference Between Rule and Act Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism, Invariance Principles and the von Neumann-Morgenstern Hypothesis
• The Mere Addition Paradox, Parity and Critical-Level Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and the Role of Utility in Adam Smith
• The Social and Ethical Movement of Utilitarianism
• Rational Egoism vs. Utilitarianism
• Act Utilitarianism and Its Moral Theory
• Utilitarianism, Voting and the Redistribution of Income
• Climate Change Economics and Discounted Utilitarianism
• The Main Differences Between Act and Rule in Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and Biomedical Ethics
• Utilitarianism and Moral Justice
• The Link Between Utilitarianism and Democracy
• Utilitarianism and Social Contract Theory
• John Gay and the Birth of Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism: Justice, Happiness, and Morality
• The Golden Rule, Utilitarianism, and the Deontological
• Utilitarianism and Aristotelian Virtue
• Utilitarianism and Retributivism Views of Capital Punishment
• Pro-Utilitarianism and Ethical Decision-Making
• Utilitarianism With Prior Heterogeneity
• Problems and Prospects for Utilitarianism
• Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism
• Wealth and Population Growth Under Dynamic Average Utilitarianism
• Health Care and Utilitarianism
• Act Utilitarianism and Justice
• Utilitarianism and Utilitarian Theorists
• Utilitarianism and Altruistic Acts
• Government Surveillance From Perspective of Utilitarianism
• Arguments Against Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism: The Conceptual Principle of Morality
• John Stuart Mill Defending Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism Deontology Absolutist Duty Based Ethica System and Moderate
• Social Justice, Utilitarianism, and Indigenous Australians
• Utilitarianism: The Survival Lottery
• Bernard Williams and Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and Morality According to John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant
• Difference Between Aristotelian Ethics and Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism Without Individual Utilities
• Helvétius and the Problems of Utilitarianism
• Rule Deontological Ethics vs. Rule Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and Business Ethics
• Hard Times and Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and Social Corporate Responsibility
• Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, and the Timing Effect in Social Choice Problems
• Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethical Theories in Business
• Utilitarianism and the Objection of Individual Rights Philosophy
• Ethical Theory, Utilitarianism and Kant’s Theory
• Does Utilitarianism Violate Human Rights?
• What Is the Difference Between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism?
• How Does Utilitarianism Judge an Action if It Is Morally Right or Wrong?
• Why Do People Reject Utilitarianism?
• Is Utilitarianism a Good Ethical Theory?
• How Does Utilitarianism Judge What Is Right or Wrong in Each Case?
• What Is Utilitarianism Approach in Ethics?
• Does Utilitarianism Provide a Helpful Method of Moral Decision Making?
• What Is the Relation Between Suffering and Happiness in Utilitarianism?
• How Does Peter Singer Use Utilitarianism?
• Does Rule Utilitarianism Collapse Act Utilitarianism?
• What Are the Disadvantages of Utilitarianism?
• How Does Utilitarianism Affect Healthcare Decision Making?
• Can We Apply Utilitarianism in Our Daily Lives?
• Why Is Jeremy Bentham Considered the Father of Utilitarianism?
• Does Utilitarianism Fail to Preserve Human Rights?
• How Successful Was J.S. Mill in Overcoming the Problems Associated With Bentham’s Utilitarianism?
• What Is the Justice Objection to Utilitarianism?
• Does Utilitarianism Have Good or Bad Effects on Business?
• Is Democracy Based on Utilitarianism?
• What Does John Stuart Mill Say About Utilitarianism?
• How Is Utilitarianism Applied in Modern Times?
• Does Utilitarianism Promote Immoral Behavior?
• What Is the Difference Between Utilitarianism and Deontology?
• How Does Utilitarianism Differ From Egoism?
• Does Rule-Utilitarianism Solve the Problems Faced by Act-Utilitarianism?
• What Is the Difference Between Bentham and Mill’s Version of Utilitarianism?
• How Does Utilitarianism Define Morality?
• Why Does Utilitarianism Disagree With Corporate Social Responsibility?
• What Does Utilitarianism Mean in the Industrial Revolution?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 1). 145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/

"145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 1 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics'. 1 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Utilitarianism were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 9, 2024 .

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Philosophical Movements — Utilitarianism

Essays on Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism essay topics for college students.

As a college student, choosing the right essay topic is crucial to the success of your assignment. This page aims to provide you with a variety of Utilitarianism essay topics to inspire your creativity and personal interests.

Essay Types and Topics

Argumentative essay topics.

• The ethical implications of utilitarianism in healthcare
• Utilitarianism vs. deontology: a critical analysis
• Utilitarianism and its application in environmental ethics

Paragraph Example:

Utilitarianism, as a moral theory, has sparked debates and discussions in various fields, especially in healthcare ethics. This essay aims to critically analyze the ethical implications of utilitarianism in healthcare, shedding light on its potential benefits and drawbacks.

Thesis statement: While utilitarianism provides a framework for making ethical decisions, its application in healthcare raises important questions about individual rights and justice.

The ethical implications of utilitarianism in healthcare are complex and multifaceted. This essay has highlighted the need for a balanced approach that considers both the greater good and individual rights, urging for further research and ethical discussions in this field.

Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

• Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics: a comparative analysis
• Utilitarianism in Western vs. Eastern philosophical traditions
• The utilitarian perspective on animal rights vs. human rights

Descriptive Essay Topics

• Utilitarianism in everyday decision-making
• The impact of utilitarianism on social welfare policies
• A day in the life of a utilitarian thinker

Persuasive Essay Topics

• Advocating for utilitarian principles in public policy
• Challenging common misconceptions about utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism as a moral framework for the 21st century

Narrative Essay Topics

• Personal reflections on applying utilitarianism in real-life situations
• An imaginary world governed by utilitarian principles
• A historical narrative of utilitarianism's impact on society

Engagement and Creativity

As you explore these Utilitarianism essay topics, we encourage you to engage with your interests and critical thinking skills. Utilitarianism is a rich and complex philosophical theory that can be applied to various aspects of life, giving you ample opportunities to express your creativity and analytical abilities through your essays.

Educational Value

Each essay type offers unique learning outcomes, allowing you to develop different skills such as analytical thinking, persuasive writing, descriptive abilities, and narrative techniques. By delving into Utilitarianism through these essays, you will not only deepen your understanding of the theory but also enhance your academic and intellectual capabilities.

Deontology and Utilitarianism in Nursing

Jeremy bentham's utilitarianism theory, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Deontology Versus Utilitarianism in Everyday Life

Utilitarianism and hedonism as philosophical theories, act vs. rule utilitarian: comparison of mill’s adopted stances, comparison of utilitarian and deontological theories, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

John Mills: Happiness and Mill's Utilitarianism

Theories of utilitarianism and deontology and its application within society, deontology & utilitarianism: critical perspectives, deontology vs utilitarianism: volkswagen's emissions-cheating scandal, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Similarities Between Deontology and Utilitarianism

The notions of lower and higher pleasures in utilitarianism, death penalty: viewpoint of immanuel kant, the view on fairness of the judgment process from the utilitarian perspective, resolving the discrepancies in mill’s preference-based utilitarianism, reflection on ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontology, jeremy bentham and the foundation of utilitarianism, ethical structure in business decision making, utilitarianism and the 13th amendment, ethical theories: deontology and utilitarianism, analysis of the case of transcanada in terms of kant’s moral theory and utilitarian perspective, history and ethics: conflicting theories in areas of knowledge, analysis of economic inequality within mill’s utilitarian theory, deontology versus utilitarianism in terms of morality in one’s actions, the ‘trolley problem’: utilitarianism vs deontology, utilitarianism vs deontology: a case study, the two ethical frameworks are utilitarianism and deontology, utilitarianism and deontological in ethical theory, discussion on whether the use of public funding for life-saving drugs is acceptable, utilitarianism: critical comparison of bentham's act and mill's rule, relevant topics.

• Enlightenment
• Individualism
• Values of Life
• Personal Philosophy
• Thomas Hobbes
• Tabula Rasa
• Allegory of The Cave
• Virtue Ethics

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Utilitarianism

By john stuart mill, utilitarianism quiz 1.

• 1 The theory of utilitarianism prior to Mill was articulated most famously by: Aristotle David Hume Immanuel Kant Jeremy Bentham
• 2 The underlying principles of utilitarianism can be most closely categorized as: non-real hedonism egoism deontological
• 3 John Stuart Mill was born in: 1816 1856 1806 1786
• 4 Subjectivism contrasts with: a priori knowledge moral candor a posteriori knowledge objectivism
• 5 The ancient philosopher most closely associated with Mill's moral theory is: Plato Demosthenes Aristotle Epicurus
• 6 Utilitarianism is an example of a _________ moral theory. supervenient reductionist consequentialist deontological
• 7 A major difference between the moral theories of Bentham and Mill is that: Mill acknowledges a qualitative difference in kinds of pleasure. Bentham's theory was deontological. Bentham wrote his theory after Mill. Mill was an ardent follower of Kant.
• 8 Mill's moral theory is compatible with his political theory in that utilitarianism a priori seems to support: monarchy despotism oligarchy democracy
• 9 A strength of Mill's theory is that: it rejects hedonism. it minimizes the importance of pleasure. it has strong cross-cultural applicability. it minimizes the significance of pain.
• 10 Mill's theory presupposes: moral decidability. moral nihilism. moral agnosticism. moral skepticism.
• 11 The application of utilitarianism demands that the agent utilize: faith. reason. intuition. the first formulation of the categorical imperative.
• 12 Of the distinct types of utilitarianism as understood today, one is _____ utilitarianism. abductive act hypothetical deductive
• 13 Of the distinct types of utilitarianism as understood today, one is _____ utilitarianism. imperative rule inductive causal
• 14 Mill believes that ____ must follow ____ moral theory; metaethics moral theory; first moral principles metaethics; moral theory first moral principles; moral theory
• 15 Mill believes that ____ must follow ____ scientific theory; metaphysical analysis first moral principles; metaphysical analysis moral theory; scientific theory metaphysical analysis; scientific theory
• 16 The consequentialist framework of utilitarianism is largely based on: Mill's belief in the directionality of moral theory to first principles. Mill's problems with the metaphysics of Kant. Mill's goal of refuting the results of Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorems. Mill's general agreement with Hume's epistemology.
• 17 Mill believes that Kant's metaphysics of ethics implicitly relies on: Humian epistemology. logic. expedience. utility.
• 18 According to Smith, moral theory must be proven by: an appeal to our intellectual faculties. a simple feeling of what is intuitively right. empirical scientific analysis. Smith does not believe that proof is an applicable concept to moral discourse.
• 19 The central tenet of utilitarianism is: the categorical imperative dualism the greatest happiness principle the principle of the common cause
• 20 Mill believes one major concept which must be explained in utilitarian terms if the theory is to hold water is: justice. sympathy. aesthetics. axiomatics.
• 21 Smith does not believe the concept of virtue conflicts with utilitarianism because virtue can come to be: a means. a cause. an end. epiphenomenal.
• 22 Knowledge that is obtained without experience is classified as: a posteriori emotive relativistic a priori
• 23 Knowledge that is obtained as a result of experience is classified as: hypothetical a posteriori emotive a priori
• 24 The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of absolute reality is: metaphysics epistemology ontology ethics
• 25 The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge is: epistemology ethics metaethics metaphysics

Utilitarianism Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for Utilitarianism is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

In response to the objection that his theory is too demanding, what does Mill distinguish between?

Chapter please? Objection by who? A specific person?

One objection to Utilitarianism is seen in the question, "What if by killing one man, you can stop the deaths of twenty?" Under utilitarinanism you'd kill the one man because it's for the...

What is the plot of Utilitarism?

Utilitarianism explained Mill's treatment of the moral theory which was responsible for much of his philosophy.

Utilitarianism- a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the...

Mill replies to the objection that people see virtue as an end by saying

Mill addresses the argument that the most virtuous people in history are those who have renounced happiness. He admits this is true, and he admits that there are martyrs who give up their happiness. However, Mill argues that martyrs must sacrifice...

Study Guide for Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism study guide contains a biography of John Stuart Mill, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism Summary
• Character List

Essays for Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill.

• Mill's Proof of Utilitarianism
• Kant's Deontological Ethical Theory: True Moral Enlightenment
• Reconciling the Contradictions of Mill’s Preference-based Utilitarianism
• Is Mill's distinction of higher and lower pleasures justified?
• Mill's Adopted Stance: Is Act or Rule Utilitarianism Better?

Wikipedia Entries for Utilitarianism

• Introduction

• Famine, Affluence, and Morality
• Utilitarianism: Simply Explained

Utilitarianism and Research Ethics

Introduction.

Research ethics is commonly presented as inherently anti- utilitarian . 1 Its aim is to protect individual research participants from harm, exploitation, and disrespect. That remains its goal even when so treating participants would benefit a great many people, say, by permitting scientists to develop new medical treatments. Yet, rapidly developing these widely-beneficial treatments is what utilitarianism seemingly recommends, even when that requires harming, exploiting, or disrespecting a few individuals.

Kantian ethics —which treats individuals as ends in themselves and not as mere means —is often seen as the ground of research ethics’ reluctance to sacrifice individuals for collective ends. In particular, this reluctance is thought to stem from Kantian respect for individuals and for their autonomous consent. In short, utilitarianism is considered difficult to reconcile with core research ethics, and Kantian ethics to dovetail nicely with it.

An influential early proponent of this picture was theologian Hans Jonas. On his understanding of “a social utility standard”, the fastest way to complete risky research is to prey on manipulable or captive populations as study participants, contrary to research ethics. 2 For Jonas, moreover, any experimentation on human participants potentially treats a person as a “thing”, a mere body, or a number because it requires none of her traits as an agent. That, he says, can only be thwarted by conditioning study participation on highly voluntary consent 3 —as is indeed often said to be necessary for ethical research on human participants.

Following public outrage at multiple research ethics abuses exposed in the 1960s and 1970s, some ethicists condemned these and earlier abuses as “unashamedly utilitarian” 4 for their alleged “obnoxious politics” of prioritizing collective well-being over individual participants’ health. 5 This picture remains common in research ethics teaching. Canonical introductions to research ethics regularly present elements of research ethics as contrasting with imagined utilitarian recommendations. 6

This article questions this common picture of research ethics’ philosophical foundations. It argues that:

(I) utilitarianism can account for many core research ethics norms, (II) Kantian ethics may conflict with many core research ethics norms, and (III) a more utilitarian outlook would improve contemporary research ethics in concrete ways.

I. Utilitarian support for core research ethics norms

There are strong utilitarian reasons to respect the core norms of research ethics. This section relays three of them.

1. Protecting and respecting participants to sustain social trust

According to many contemporary research ethicists, maintaining trust in researchers and the medical system is a central point of research ethics. 7 This includes (i) trust that investigators are both technically competent and ethically decent, such that the fruits of their research can safely and ethically be adopted; and (ii) trust in clinicians’ and public health experts’ competence and decency, inasmuch as that trust is affected by perceptions of medical researchers. Such trust is vital for people to be willing to see the doctor, abide by medical advice, fill organ donor cards without worry that they would be left to die for their organs, accept vaccinations, and much else.

Indeed, securing such trust greatly benefits society, making it a priority for utilitarianism. It hardly maximizes well-being when people so mistrust the medical system that they do not enlist for studies or ignore the advice of doctors and public health officials. 8

Kantianism, on the other hand, may find it harder to explain why, just to promote overall well-being by promoting trust, investigators should ever constrain their treatment of voluntarily-consenting study participants. Consider a person wanting to participate in an important study in which she is likely to be seriously injured. A utilitarian might, depending on the details, support excluding her from the study, reasoning that her injury may set back public trust. A Kantian could find it hard to flout her will to participate in the study merely for the exogenous goal of sustaining public trust. Kantians tend to be suspicious of protecting well-being against the person’s own will—see II.1 below.

2. The clear utilitarian value of scientific validity and innovation

A socially-valuable question, a valid design, replicability, and other requirements for better protection of scientific interests are also parts of an ethical study, because without them, the study is a waste of social resources. 9 They also correlate with the protection of social interests in learning from good science how to increase well-being, and therefore clearly serve utilitarian goals.

3. Grounding consent rights in the utilitarian value of personal autonomy

Modern clinical ethics also emphasizes individual consent and not just the medical good for patients. The emphasis on consent and, relatedly, on patient autonomy is sometimes seen as Kantian. But the concept of autonomy relevant in research and clinical ethics has little to do with that of Kant. 10 Certainly, merely being free from Kantian violations like active and intentional lying and coercion is insufficient. Medical autonomy is emphatically about voluntary and informed decision making, with sufficient comprehension and voluntariness, and not just the absence of lies and coercion. 11 As such, medical autonomy is more in line with John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian arguments for the importance of individual liberty, presented in On Liberty . 12

Mill argues that deciding for oneself adds great value to the individual’s life. Individuals tend to know best and care the most about what is good for them, and deciding for ourselves is inherently good for us. 13 Bioethicists’ defenses of autonomous decision-making, either in the clinic or in research, 14 essentially repeat Mill’s rationale. If Mill is right then exercising one’s personal autonomy—even against doctors’ advice—will often benefit one overall, even when it harms one’s medical interests. Admittedly, individuals do not always benefit overall from having the last say on matters closely affecting their bodies and health—in either clinical care or research. But giving them that veto power even when it fails to maximize well-being may abide by the rules that tend to maximize well-being in the long run 15 —an old utilitarian recipe for maximizing expected value. 16

It may seem as though Kantian ethics can at least require some form of consent to any study participation, whether or not that consent is fully autonomous. But even that is unclear: when Kant mentions the consent requirement, it is a requirement that the individual could possibly consent, not that she actually consents. 17

II. Kantian obstacles to core research ethics norms

There are core elements of research ethics that are hard to justify on Kantian or neo-Kantian grounds. Here I highlight two:

1. Neo-Kantian anti-paternalism tends to permit consensual harm

Many contemporary Kantians find an inherent problem in forcing choices on adults for their own benefit. 18 But research ethics is precisely about that. 19 It forbids consensual deals between consenting adults—for example, an investigator’s invitation to a potential participant to contribute voluntarily to very risky research. The ethics of paternalism , namely, coercing or manipulating someone for her own good, is complex, and perhaps we could find a solution to reconcile research ethics with Kantian deontology’s anti-paternalistic inclinations. But the bond between research ethics and Kantian deontology is fraught in that respect.

2. Agent-relative ethics does not emphasize preventing violations by others

Commonsense morality claims that Peter has a duty not to perform abusive studies on Paul. It also claims that if Peter goes ahead regardless, this would permit or even obligate Mary, an unrelated third party, to come to Paul’s aid. Paul’s right not to be abused in research is considered a fundamental human right, which can warrant or indeed demand intervention from others. That’s why activists readily protest research ethics abuses in other countries, or ones committed by independently-funded pharmaceutical companies, and why abusers of study participants were tried for violating basic human rights by international courts.

Kantian ethics can explain why Peter should not abuse Paul, but hardly why Mary, who may head a court or an institutional review board or a human rights organization in a foreign country, should try to force Peter not to mistreat Paul.

The issue is that Kantian duties are usually agent-relative. For instance, while people should not break their promises, there is no Kantian duty to minimize promise-breaking by others. Some Kantians are emphatic that duties are relational, between two or more specific individuals. 20 All that is hard to reconcile with the core research ethics demand, not only to treat participants right but also to ensure that other people treat them right. Kantian ethics has no obvious basis for this recommendation when the abusive researchers are unrelated to oneself or one’s group. And even when they are related, Kantian duties may be satisfied by merely severing ties with the abusive researchers. But that is clearly insufficient by the lights of modern research ethics.

Here is another way of putting the challenge. Research ethics concerns respecting and protecting participants’ rights. Yet Kantianism is a morality of duties, especially “perfect duties”—not primarily of rights. 21 A Kantian must advise researchers to focus primarily on their own perfect duties toward their study participants. More questionably, the Kantian may also advise citizens or taxpayers to protect participants in studies conducted by their own nation or with its resources. But there is no Kantian duty to maximize rights fulfillment in the world. And some neo-Kantians mock what they call “manifesto rights,” namely, rights against everyone for them to come to one’s aid. 22

Admittedly, some Kantians seek to account for commonsense moral obligations to minimize human rights violations, including those perpetrated by unrelated third parties. 23 But defending these accounts and reconciling them with the rest of Kantian ethics is not trivial. In this respect, Kantianism makes it harder not easier to shore up the core research ethics norm that what an investigator does to a study participant is often everybody’s business.

III. Utilitarian improvements to research ethics

We have seen that utilitarianism accounts for the core of commonsense research ethics no less well, and arguably better than, some other philosophies—particularly Kantianism. Utilitarianism also recommends reforms to existing research ethics oversight. Those reforms are often plausible independently, further supporting the utilitarian governance of research ethics. Here are seven examples:

• Accounting for overall risk to study participants
• Accounting for risk to broad patient populations
• Accounting for risk to so-called study bystanders
• Accounting for risk to nonhuman animals
• Accounting for risk to patients left without medical treatments
• Maximizing (not satisficing) feasibility and scientific reliability
• What matters is human flourishing, not scientific prestige

1. Accounting for overall risk to study participants

Research ethicists’ concern about the risks to individual participants is not the only risk measure which matters ethically. Other aspects contribute to the cumulative risk from the study, as the next few sections argue.

For starters, distinguish between the risk of injury or death to the individual participant and the risk that, in the cohort, somebody will get injured or harmed. The latter surely matters as well. It captures the chance that the study will do harm. But the prospect of harm to all study participants combined is not something that Kantian ethics is well suited to heed. Some Kantians even deny that there are such things as overall good, overall bad, and overall risk, not to an individual but to a collective. 24

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, readily demands minimizing harm to collectives, including the group of all study participants. It makes that demand even when the harms or risks to each individual in the group are held fixed. Compared with Kantianism, utilitarianism more readily supports even studies that involve slightly worse overall risks to each participant but that have—due to involving far fewer participants—a far smaller overall prospect of harm to the collection of participants.

To illustrate, imagine a small challenge study (namely, a study whose participants are deliberately exposed to a pathogen) with similar social value to a far larger field study (namely, a conventional study relying on many participants becoming naturally infected). If the challenge study involves only slightly elevated overall risks to each participant, there is a much lower chance that anyone would get hurt in it than in the field study. In that case, utilitarianism more readily supports the challenge study.

Assessments of the ethics of actual studies tend to pay lots of attention to the cumulative prospect of harm from these studies, such as the prospect that at least one study participant will be seriously injured. In the case of COVID vaccine trials, for example, most scientists criticizing the challenge trial option as “too risky” focused on the risk of an injury, not the risk of injury to any one participant 25 —although many failed to see that, thanks to challenge trials’ far fewer participants, that cumulative risk was probably lower than in COVID field trials. 26 These scientists seem to have missed the real numbers involved. Yet, what they minded ethically, and what intuitively matters no less concerning risky trials, was precisely what utilitarianism is concerned with about risky research—the chance that great harms will ensue.

2. Accounting for risk to broad patient populations

Scientific trials always assess interventions in a circumscribed set of the population instead of releasing these interventions to the population at large, or at least to its low-risk segments, while monitoring the results. The main point of starting in a circumscribed set of people is to minimize the number of people injured. This may reflect the utilitarian concern with minimizing the cumulative harm to people. The point is clearly not to minimize the chance of harm to each study participant considered in isolation.

3. Accounting for risk to so-called study bystanders

Recent research ethics emphasizes the need to protect not only study participants but also third parties who are neither participants nor patients in need of novel therapies. Such third party groups—also called study bystanders or collaterals 27 —may nevertheless be at risk from research. One example is a study posing an informational risk to the wider public by providing recipes for biological attacks on them. 28

When cumulative harm from a study is likely to be high, for example due to information risk, utilitarianism straightforwardly justifies stopping the study or limiting the publication of its results. Thus, utilitarianism highlights how research may wrongfully harm bystanders—something that research ethicists increasingly agree matters.

What about Kantianism? Here, the case for concern is more questionable. The potential harm to bystander populations will typically be a mere side effect of the study and not a means to the study’s ends. 29 Kantians condemn the same amount of harm much less when it is a mere side effect rather than a means to one’s ends. 30 Additionally, the individuals likeliest to be harmed as bystanders are seldom identified when deciding on study design and approval. Many neo-Kantians regard high cumulative risks as much more urgent when those risks are concentrated in a few determinate individuals rather than spread out as small individual risks across many people. 31 Thus, Kantians have multiple reasons to play down the risks to study bystanders. The utilitarian reasons to protect study bystanders, by contrast, are preserved even when that bystander harm would be a mere side effect of research and when no individual bystander is identified in advance as likely to be harmed. In these respects, utilitarianism supports the intuitive case for protecting bystanders more readily than Kantianism does.

4. Accounting for risk to nonhuman animals

When a study is risky or has uncertain risks for human participants, most research ethicists would argue that the experiment should be conducted on nonhuman animals before moving to humans. 32 That makes sense sometimes. But it would be helpful to have a more careful account of when animal experimentation is warranted to prevent suffering for human participants despite causing animal suffering and potentially delaying the overall development process. Utilitarianism, being non-speciesist , seems well-positioned to provide a workable account.

5. Accounting for risk to patients left without medical treatments

Research ethics committees are not held accountable for being overly cautious. But delays or blocks to valuable and legitimate studies can slow or prevent the development of important medical treatments. Excessive red tape may also stifle researchers’ proposals of valuable studies. We lack records on the extent of that stifling effect precisely because non-proposed studies are not being recorded publicly.

Whenever long ethics reviews delay the development of medical treatments, patients around the world suffer for longer. Absurdly, some patients are thereby exposed to greater risks than any of the study participants. 33 For lethal diseases, a delay means more deaths—an “ invisible graveyard ”. 34 Unfortunately, research oversight’s red tape is often pointless, delaying essential medical progress.

The population-wide cumulative harm from overprotective ethics oversight may well far exceed the potential cumulative harm to study participants, considering the often very large patient populations. 35 It would thus be good for oversight institutions to be designed to prioritize more population-wide urgent needs for rapid, effective study designs.

Utilitarianism takes cumulative harm seriously. More broadly, research ethicists agree that it makes no ethical sense to ban all risky studies; a sensible balance between the net risks to participants and the social value of the proposed research is needed. 36 A study to cure HIV can be ethical even if it carries more risk than benefit for individual participants when its social value is likely to be tremendous. 37 In a future catastrophic pandemic, challenge studies involving significant risks for study participants could likewise be justified if they could help avert catastrophe.

Research oversight that more readily approves risky studies of tremendous social value is thus one more area where utilitarianism could improve on existing research ethics norms. This is not to say that we should make research ethics lax. For one thing, rigorous research ethics review stifles among other things proposals of studies with negative social value. Stifling those reduces the chance that such harmful studies would pass review and reduces the delay from having to review such studies or deal with their scandalous results. But the full implications of a utilitarian research ethics should be explored.

6. Maximizing (not satisficing) feasibility and scientific reliability

Contemporary research ethics demands that studies have “enough” statistical validity and practical feasibility to achieve their scientific aims. 38 But two studies with “enough” validity and feasibility can be very different—both in the confidence they generate and their costs and impediments to safe completion. There is no principled reason to stop characterizing studies along these measures when they are found to be reliable “enough”, “sufficiently” affordable, and “amply” likely to end successfully. In principle, all improvements in statistical reliability and in feasibility should count in favor of a study portfolio, and can potentially balance issues with the study, such as risk to study participants or surrounding communities, or study questions that are important but would not otherwise count as important enough to warrant the study’s costs or risks.

Even sufficientarians , who think that improving people’s well-being is a moral duty only up to a certain level, 39 would reject sheer satisficing in this context. After all, more reliable studies with high likelihood to be completed and low associated costs are more likely to promote human health and well-being—including below the sufficient level. Therefore, the value of additional scientific reliability, feasibility, and cost-saving are continuous, the more of any of these factors the better. It makes sense to consider this when deciding which studies to initiate, fund and approve—as utilitarianism recommends. A study’s expected social value increases the more important the questions it asks but also the more reliably it can answer them at the lowest cost. How exactly to balance all these pertinent factors, and whether balancing them is the job of investigators, funders, ethics oversight bodies, statistics oversight bodies, or others are questions for future investigation.

7. What matters is human flourishing, not scientific prestige

For utilitarians, the point of research is to maximize well-being. It is not to obtain knowledge or do science for its own sake. Certainly, it is not about doing the science considered most prestigious because it protects the health of the global rich and captures the attention of top medical journals dedicated to their health needs. And the ethical regulation of research is not about conforming to the technicalities of regulations and law, and clearly not about red tape and stifling research. It should focus more purely on preventing major ethical abuses that, directly or indirectly, have enough likelihood to do more harm to study participants or societies than any good coming out of the study.

Taking this idea seriously would require major changes in prioritization for research funding and oversight. The diseases and medical countermeasures we currently most invest in are often relevant only to the affluent. More resources should go to investigating scalable prevention and treatment against major contributors to the global disease burden and to global ill-being in general. We also overemphasize basic biomedical science relative to translating scientific findings into practical applications for the benefit of humanity, and to investigating which applications work.

Some studies even harm humanity more than they benefit it by generating “ dual-use ” insights. 40 A more utilitarian or consequentialist system for research training, funding, oversight and publication would prioritize and de-prioritize based on the most important causes.

This article disputes a common view of research ethics as being fundamentally antagonistic to utilitarianism and friendly to Kantianism. I have argued that (I) utilitarianism can account well for many core research ethics norms, while (II) Kantianism conflicts with many of them, and (III) a more utilitarian outlook would improve contemporary research ethics. Thus, utilitarianism and research ethics may turn out to be complementary, certainly compared to some alternatives to utilitarianism.

About the Author

Nir Eyal is the inaugural Henry Rutgers Professor of Bioethics at Rutgers University. He founded and directs Rutgers’s Center for Population-Level Bioethics , with appointments at the School of Public Health and the Department of Philosophy. Dr. Eyal’s work falls primarily in population-level bioethics, and he co-edits Oxford University Press’ series in that area. He also contributes to research ethics and to other areas of ethics and political philosophy. Earlier, as a faculty member at Harvard, he and students together started Harvard’s effective altruism activities.

How to Cite This Page

Want to learn more about utilitarianism.

Read about the theory behind utilitarianism:

Learn how to use utilitarianism to improve the world:

• Buchanan Allen E., and Dan W. Brock. 1990. Deciding for Others; The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chappell, Richard Yetter, and Peter Singer. 2020. “Pandemic ethics: the case for risky research.” Research ethics , 16(3-4): 1–8.
• Darwall, Stephen. 2006. “The Value of Autonomy and Autonomy of the Will.” Ethics , 116(2): 263–284. doi: 10.1086/498461.
• Donagan, Alan. 1977. “Informed consent in therapy and experimentation.” Journal of medicine and philosophy , 2(4): 307–329.
• Dworkin, Gerald.1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Emanuel, Ezekiel J., and Christine Grady. 2008. “Four paradigms of clinical research and research oversight.” In The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics , edited by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Christine C. Grady, Robert A. Crouch, Reidar K. Lie, Franklin G. Miller and David D. Wendler, 222–210. New York: Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
• Emanuel, Ezekiel J., David Wendler, and Christine Grady. 2000. “What makes clinical research ethical?” Journal of the American Medical Association , 283: 2701–2711.
• Esvelt, K. M. 2018. “Inoculating science against potential pandemics and information hazards.” PLoS Pathog , 14(10):e1007286. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007286.
• Eyal, N., and L. Holtzman. 2020. “Symposium on risks to bystanders in clinical research: An introduction.” Bioethics , 34(9): 879–882. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12830.
• Eyal, Nir. 2015. “Informed consent to participation in interventional studies: second-order in a different sense.” Journal of Law and the Biosciences , 2(1): 1–6. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsv001.
• Eyal, Nir. 2017. “How to keep high-risk studies ethical: classifying candidate solutions.” Journal of Medical Ethics , 43: 74–77. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2016-103428.
• Faden, Ruth R., and Tom L. Beauchamp. 1986. A History and Theory of Informed Consent . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Feinberg, Joel. 1973. Social Philosophy . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.
• Frankfurt, Harry. 1987. “Equality as a moral ideal.” Ethics , 98: 21–42.
• Hare, Richard M. 1981. Moral Thinking . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jonas, Hans. 1969. “Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects.” Daedalus , 98(2): 219–47.
• Kant, Immanuel. 1999 [1785]. “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.” In Practical Philosophy , edited by Immanuel Kant and M. J. Gregor, 37–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kass, N. E., J. Sugarman, R. Faden, and M. Schoch-Spana. 1996. “Trust, The fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research.” The Hastings Center report , 26(5): 25–9.
• Kimmelman, Jonathan. 2005. “Medical research, risk, and bystanders.” IRB , 27(4): 1–6.
• Kimmelman, Jonathan. 2010. Gene Transfer and the Ethics of First-in-Human Research: Lost in Translation . Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
• Korsgaard, C. 1993. “The Reasons We Can Share.” Social philosophy and policy , 10: 24–51.
• Korsgaard, Christine M. 1988. “Two arguments against lying.” Argumentation , 2(1): 27–49. doi: 10.1007/BF00179139.
• Lewis, G., P. Millett, A. Sandberg, A. Snyder-Beattie, and G. Gronvall. 2019. “Information Hazards in Biotechnology.” Risk Analysis ,39(5): 975–981. doi: 10.1111/risa.13235.
• Mill, John Stuart. 2003 [1869]. “On liberty.” In Utilitarianism and On Liberty , edited by Mary Warnock. Walden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Miller, F. G., and A. Wertheimer. 2007. “Facing up to paternalism in research ethics.” Hastings Cent Rep , 37(3): 24–34.
• O’Neill, Onora. 2003. “Autonomy: The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume , 77(1): 1–21.
• O’Neill, Onora. 2016. Justice across Boundaries: Whose Obligations? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Powers, Madison, Ruth Faden, and Yashar Saghai. 2012. “Liberty, Mill and the Framework of Public Health Ethics.” Public Health Ethics , 5(1): 6–15. doi: 10.1093/phe/phs002.
• Resnik, David, and Richard R. Sharp. 2006. “Protecting third parties in human subjects research.” IRB , 28(4): 1–7.
• Ripstein, Arthur. 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
• Rosenblatt, Michael. 2020. “Human challenge trials with live coronavirus aren’t the answer to a Covid-19 vaccine.” STAT News , June 23. https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-coronavirus-speedy-covid-19-vaccine/ .
• Rothman, David J. 1987. “Ethics and Human Experimentation.” New England Journal of Medicine , 317(19): 1195–1199. doi: 10.1056/nejm198711053171906.
• Scanlon Thomas M. 2013. “Reply to Zofia Stemplowska.” Journal of Moral Philosophy , 10:508–14.
• Shah, S. K., J. Kimmelman, A. D. Lyerly, H. F. Lynch, F. G. Miller, R. Palacios, C. A. Pardo, and C. Zorrilla. 2018. “Bystander risk, social value, and ethics of human research.” Science , 360(6385): 158–159. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0917.
• Sidgwick, H. 1981 [1874]. The Methods of Ethics . 7th ed. London, Macmillan, 1907; repr. Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Steuwer, Bastian, Euzebiusz Jamrozik, and Nir Eyal. 2021. “Prioritizing second-generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccines through low-dosage challenge studies.” International Journal of Infectious Disease , 105: 307–311. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.02.038.
• Tabarrok, Alex. 2021. The Invisible Graveyard is Invisible No More. Marginal Revolution (January 29). https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/01/the-invisible-graveyard-is-invisible-no-more.html . Accessed September 22, 2022.
• Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 1999. Coercive care: the ethics of choice in health and medicine . London: Routledge.
• Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 2008. Normativity . Chicago: Open Court.
• Waldron, Jeremy. 1985. “Introduction.” In Theories of Rights , edited by Jeremy Waldron. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Walen, Alec. 2020. “Using, Risking, and Consent: Why Risking Harm to Bystanders is Morally Different from Risking Harm to Research Subjects.” Bioethics .
• Wertheimer, Alan. 2014. “(Why) should we require consent to participation in research?” Journal of Law and the Biosciences , 1(2): 137–182. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsu008.
• Whitney, S. N., and C. E. Schneider. 2011. “Viewpoint: a method to estimate the cost in lives of ethics board review of biomedical research.” Journal of Internal Medicine , 269(4): 396–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2011.02351_2.x.

Guest Essays

Utilitarianism and nonhuman animals, virtues for real-world utilitarians, buddhism and utilitarianism, bentham and criminal law, analytic hedonism and observable moral facts, naturalistic arguments for ethical hedonism, uncertainty and utilitarianism, utilitarianism and climate change, the time-relative account of interests.

For excellent comments, I am grateful to Richard Chappell, Dan Hausman, and Darius Meissner.  ↩︎

Jonas (1969, 237); Rothman (1987); see also Donagan (1977, 325).  ↩︎

Jonas (1969, 235)  ↩︎

Rothman (1987, 1198)  ↩︎

Donagan (1977, 320, 323, 326)  ↩︎

See, e.g., Emanuel, Wendler, and Grady (2000, 2706); Emanuel and Grady (2008, 223-5).  ↩︎

Kass et al. (1996)  ↩︎

Tännsjö (1999)  ↩︎

Emanuel et al (2000)  ↩︎

O’Neill (2003)  ↩︎

Faden and Beauchamp (1986)  ↩︎

Mill (2003 [1869]); Powers, Faden, and Saghai (2012); O’Neill (2003, 3f.))  ↩︎

Mill (2003 [1869])  ↩︎

Dworkin (1988, 21-33); Buchanan and Brock (1990, 29-36)  ↩︎

Eyal (2015)  ↩︎

Sidgwick (1981 [1874]); Hare (1981)  ↩︎

Kant (1999 [1785], §430); Wertheimer (2014, 149)  ↩︎

Korsgaard (1988); Darwall (2006, 265)  ↩︎

Miller and Wertheimer (2007)  ↩︎

Korsgaard (1993)  ↩︎

Waldron (1985)  ↩︎

Feinberg (1973); O’Neill (2016)  ↩︎

Ripstein (2009)  ↩︎

Thomson (2008)  ↩︎

Rosenblatt (2020)  ↩︎

Steuwer, Jamrozik, and Eyal (2021)  ↩︎

Kimmelman (2005); Resnik and Sharp (2006); Shah et al. (2018); Eyal and Holtzman (2020)  ↩︎

Esvelt (2018)  ↩︎

Walen (2020)  ↩︎

Scanlon (2013)  ↩︎

See, e.g., Kimmelman (2010).  ↩︎

Chappell and Singer (2020)  ↩︎

Tabarrok (2021)  ↩︎

Whitney and Schneider (2011)  ↩︎

Emanuel, Wendler, and Grady (2000)  ↩︎

Eyal (2017)  ↩︎

Frankfurt (1987)  ↩︎

Lewis et al. (2019)  ↩︎

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Utilitarianism ESSAY PLANS- Philosophy & Ethics A Level

Subject: Philosophy and ethics

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

9 September 2022

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

2 ESSAY PLANS These essay plans helped me get an A* overall in OCR Philosophy & Ethics (Full Marks on ethics paper). Essay plans discussing the complexities surrounding utilitarianism. The essay plans have a particular focus on AO1, so that students are able to learn this topics content whilst acknowledging how they are going to categorise this information in an essay. This produces essays that contain the most relevant and well-organised information. These essay plans specifically target the knowledge that ‘learners should know’ as said on the specification. These essay plans are VERY detailed. This is because I designed my essay plans so that they can be used without the aid of revision notes, in isolation. All the extra detail you need on the topics have been included in the essay plans.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 37%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

Religion and ethics FULL PAPER Essay Plans OCR

26 ESSAY PLANS IN THIS BUNDLE- Less than £1 for each essay plan. These essay plans helped me get an A* overall in OCR Philosophy & Ethics (Full Marks on ethics paper). Essay plans discussing the complexities surrounding every topic on the religion and ethics paper. The essay plans have a particular focus on AO1, so that students are able to learn this topics content whilst acknowledging how they are going to categorise this information in an essay. This produces essays that contain the most relevant and well-organised information. These essay plans specifically target the knowledge that ‘learners should know’ as said on the specification. These essay plans are VERY detailed. This is because I designed my essay plans so that they can be used without the aid of revision notes, in isolation. All the extra detail you need on the topics have been included in the essay plans.

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Utilitarianism Essay | Essay on Utilitarianism for Students and Children in English

February 13, 2024 by Prasanna

Utilitarianism Essay:  Utilitarianism is one of the most influential theories of morality. It mainly advocates actions that lead to happiness and avoids any form of negativity. The purpose of mortality is to make lives better. It is the greatest principle of happiness. It determines right from wrong. It mainly focuses on the outcomes.

You can also find more  Essay Writing  articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Long and Short Essays on Utilitarianism for Students and Kids in English

We are providing the students with essay samples, of a long essay of 500 words in English and a short essay of 150 words in English for reference.

Long Essay on Utilitarianism 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Utilitarianism is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Utilitarianism usually uses actions that maximize happiness and well-being of an individual. It is a version of consequentialism, which means that the consequences of any actions are either right or wrong. It considers all the interests of humans in an equal manner.

With utilitarianism, an action seems to be morally right or wrong. The concept of utilitarianism was first looked into keenly by Jeremy Bentham. He was an English philosopher, and he believed that happiness is the only true good, and that is the only truth that exists. Bentham’s form of utilitarianism is known as classic utilitarianism in today’s date. According to Bentham, the morally right action had the most net happiness for everyone.

To determine, which action was morally correct, a person had to add up all units of happiness and had to subtract all kinds of sadness that the action would create. Modern utilitarianism has two forms they are, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Classic utilitarianism created by Bentham leads to the act-utilitarianism. The concept of act-utilitarianism means, each time an action is decided upon, that particular event is completely different than any other actions that are needed to be calculated.

Rule-utilitarianism, on the other hand, is the morally correct action that one follows as a general rule. Following these rules brings great happiness. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism, be it act-utilitarianism, or rule-utilitarianism, is to bring happiness. It is a moral theory which denotes that one should aim to maximize utility whenever possible.

Utilitarianism is about people who care about everyone capable of suffering and capable of making their lives better by improving it. It also refers to those actions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This theory is based on the elucidation that a consequence of an action justifies the moral acceptability of means to reach an end, and the results of the action outweigh any other considerations. Utilitarianism believes that sacrificing one man to save a community is the right choice because the happiness of a whole bunch of people is being maximized.

Utilitarianism does not take into account personal relationships. It is the duty of every person following utilitarianism to help people without thinking about the consequences. Utilitarianism is based on three principles which are as follows, happiness or pleasure is the only thing that holds intrinsic value, all actions that promote happiness are correct, and the actions that do are not right. Everyone’s happiness counts equally.

Utilitarianism in socio-political construct aims for the betterment of the society as a whole. It is a reason-based approach that determines the right and the wrong. It also has certain limitations based on the consequences of the situation. In the world of business and commerce, utilitarianism holds the most ethical choice that a person will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. If a limitation is applied to utilitarianism, it tends to create a black and white construct of mortality. There are no shades of grey in utilitarianism. It is either black or white.

Short Essay on Utilitarianism 150 Words in English

Short Essay on Utilitarianism is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Utilitarianism is a traditional and ethical philosophy that is associated with Jeremy Bentham and his fellow mate John Mill. Both were British philosophers, economists and political thinkers. The concept of utilitarianism promotes that an action is right if it leads to happiness.

A utilitarian philosophy aims at making society better. It says that if an action is right, it results in happiness and would lead to the betterment of a group or a society. Utilitarianism also has its types. Apart from act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism, there is a concept known as negative utilitarianism. R.N Smart introduced it. This concept seeks the quickest and the least painful method of killing the existence of humanity.

People who follow utilitarianism are known as utilitarians. The utilitarians believe that the purpose of mortality is to make life better by increasing the number of good things in the world like pleasure and happiness and reducing the bad things in the world like pain and unhappiness. This concept rejects any kinds of moral codes like taboos and commands based on different traditions or any order given by any leader.

10 Lines on Utilitarianism in English

• Utilitarianism is one of the most persuasive approaches to normative ethics.
• Bentham used science to explain human behaviour based on utilitarianism.
• In the spirit of utilitarianism, Bentham requested to deposit his body after death.
• As per Bentham’s request, his body was laid out for public dissection.
• It is considered to be the most influential and effective theory of modern times.
• Utilitarianism is derived from the term “utility”.
• Utility in this context of utilitarianism means happiness or pleasure and not useful.
• Bentham’s commitment to equality was radical
• One of the limitations of utilitarianism is, the outcome of the consequences is not known.
• It is the only moral framework that can define military force or war.

FAQ’s on Utilitarianism Essay

Question 1.  What is the main theme of utilitarianism?

Answer:  The main theme of utilitarianism is, it morally promotes everyone’s values with equal treatment to everyone, centring around happiness.

Question 2. Name one drawback of utilitarianism.

Answer: It fails to take into consideration the concept of justice since its main focus is on happiness and pleasure of the individual, no matter what be the outcome of a situation.

Question 3. Does utilitarianism threaten individual rights?

Answer: It does threaten individual rights to some extent. It weakens the notion of individual rights, making it useless in its context. It talks about sacrifice for the sake of others’ happiness.

• Picture Dictionary
• English Speech
• English Slogans
• English Letter Writing
• English Essay Writing
• English Textbook Answers
• Types of Certificates
• ICSE Solutions
• Selina ICSE Solutions
• ML Aggarwal Solutions
• HSSLive Plus One
• HSSLive Plus Two
• Kerala SSLC
• Distance Education

rsrevision.com/ethical theory

Utilitarianism.

• Biographies
• Theory in detail
• Applied ethics

Find out more

Test yourself.

• Games and Quizzes

Exam practice

• Act Utilitarianism
• Rule Utilitarianism
• Other forms of Utilitarianism
• You may get asked to explain Bentham's Hedonic Calculus or Mill's Utilitarianism
• You may be required to evaluate the theory or compare it to another theory.
• You may be asked to apply Utilitarianism to one of the issues studied.

Have a look at 'Evaluating the Theories' and TICKETs (pdfs), as well as each of the ethical theories on War (AS) and the Environment (A2) .

a. Explain how Utilitarians might approach euthanasia. [25] b. ‘Helping a terminally ill patient to die is morally wrong.’ Discuss. [10]

• Explain some of the different forms of Utilitarianism. [25]
• Assess the view that Utilitarianism is the best approach to the right to a child. [10]
• Explain the main principles of the classical forms of Utilitarianism. [25]
• ‘Utilitarianism is not a good guide for resolving ethical dilemmas.’ Discuss. [10]

January 2013:

• Explain how Mill's Utilitarianism might be used to decide the right course of action. [25]
• Assess the extent to which Utilitarianism is a reliable method of making decisions about abortion. [10]

January 2012:

• Explain the main differences between the Utilitarianism of Bentham and that of Mill. [25]
• 'MIll's Utilitarianism is superior in every way to the Utilitarianism of Bentham.' Discuss. [10]

This question came up in January 2011:

Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism . [25]

• To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method of making decisions about euthanasia? [10]

This was from June 2010 :

Explain the main strengths of Mill's Utilitarianism. [25]

‘Utilitarianism can lead to wrong moral decisions.' Discuss. [10]

This question was from the January 2009 AS Ethics paper :

Explain how Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism can be used to decide on the right course of action.

‘Utilitarianism is the best approach to euthanasia.’ Discuss.

This question was from the OCR Website :

Explain the main strengths of a Utilitarian ethical system.

• Assess the extent to which Utilitarianism is a useful method of making decisions about abortion.

(a) Describe and explain the main principles of Utilitarianism. [33] (b) ‘Utilitarianism has nothing at all in common with religious ethics’.  Discuss. [17]   (a) Explain a Utilitarian approach to issues raised by fertility treatment. [33] (b) ‘A Utilitarian approach to issues raised by fertility treatment leads to wrong moral choices.’ [17] (a) Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. [33] (b) To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method of making decisions about euthanasia? [17]

This A2 exam question is from June 2006:

'Utilitarianism is the best approach to environmental issues.' Discuss. [45]

This question is from June 2005:

Compare and contrast Utilitarianism with the ethics of the religion you have studied. [45]

(taken from the OCR website )

We now have an interactive diagram showing how to answer an ethics exam question, The 'structure' of the paragraph will be different for 'ethical theory' questions, but the basic principles are the same. Try filling it in yourself and print out the completed diagram.