Utilitarianism/Consequentialism
The utilitarian/consequentialist moral theory evaluates the morality of actions based on the overall goodness or badness of their outcomes, stipulating that the morality of an action is one that maximizes overall well-being. Prominent thinkers of this theory emphasize the importance of impartiality, or treating all people equally despite possible context. The idea of well-being has various definitions, with some theories stating that well-being is a maximizing of pleasure and a minimizing of pain, while others state that well-being is a prioritization of higher pleasures such as intellectual goods.
D. Hausman et al. — Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, and Justice
Hausman situates utilitarianism within the broader framework of consequentialism. He emphasizes in this theory that actions and institutions are morally evaluated based on their outcomes, specifically their effects on overall welfare. Hausman defines well-being as primary, intrinsic good, and that the maximizing of this good must be an impartial process. The chapter explores nuances within the code, such as how to define welfare, how to compare well-being across individuals, and whether total or average welfare should be prioritized. Importantly, it highlights criticisms of utilitarianism, including its potential to demand extreme sacrifices from individuals and its indifference to the distribution of welfare due to impartiality. It notes the unrealistic aim of directly calculating consequences,leading to a reliance on general moral rules even within a utilitarian framework.
D. Hausman et al. — Welfare
This chapter explores the concepts of welfare and well-being, a key measurement for understanding utilitarianism. It dives into hedonism (well-being as pleasure), preference satisfaction (well-being as an individual getting what they want), and objective list theory (well-being as consisting of certain valuable goods like knowledge or relationships). Through this analysis, the reader learns why welfare has no straightforward definition and instead can be interpreted differently between individuals which allows for the broadening of the utilitarian theory. Overall, the chapter shows that questions about well-being are foundational to ethical theory and deeply influence how we evaluate actions and policies.
Muñoz & Stroud, Chapter 1 — Utility and Consequences
This chapter defines utilitarianism by evaluating actions entirely on their consequences, using measurements of overall happiness or welfare as estimates of morality. The cases presented force the reader to understand the deep implications of committing to utilitarian theory. For example, cases like George and the Bioweapons show that utilitarianism requires individuals to act against their most inherent moral convictions if doing so maximizes overall good, thus undermining personal integrity . Other puzzles, such as the Utility Monster, demonstrate the extent of this application, as utilitarianism can justify extreme inequality if it leads to greater total utility, even at the expense of whole communities. Overall, the chapter highlights that while the simplicity and impartiality of utilitarianism is ideal, the theory raises serious concerns about moral demands, fairness, and the place of individual values in ethical decision-making.
Peter Singer — Famine, Affluence, and Morality
Singer argues that those of high socio-economic status inherit a moral obligation to prevent suffering and death caused by poverty, famine, and lack of resources. He begins by agreeing with the widely accepted premise that suffering and death are bad, using that to establish his core principle: if one can prevent something very bad from happening, at no comparable self-sacrifice, then doing so becomes a moral obligation. He uses the famous drowning child analogy to highlight the unimportance of distance and number of potential other helpers in diminishing this obligation. Essentially, individuals are as responsible for helping distant strangers as we are for our neighbors. Singer concludes that accepting this principle would require a radical transformation of how humans live, as much of our everyday spending would be morally unjustified if it could instead be used to save lives.
Michael Sandel — Putting a Price Tag on Life
In this lecture, Michael Sandel explores what it means to maximize overall happiness, exploring how cost-benefit analyses are used to apply that concept in real-world decisions. Highlighting examples like the Philip Morris study and the Ford Pinto case, he demonstrates how utilitarian reasoning assigns value even to human life, in order to calculate the greatest net utility. This exposes problematic applications of utilitarianism, including the theory’s willingness and justification of sacrificing individuals or minorities for the greater good, and the overall assumption of statistical value for human life. Finally, he discusses John Stuart Mill’s attempt to assuage these concerns by defining overall happiness as a process of lower and higher pleasures, though according to Sandel, this does not quite resolve the theory’s limitations. Overall, the lecture presents utilitarianism as a powerful but controversial framework for moral decision-making.
Access these readings below