There are many moral theories which aim to describe the best way in which we should live our lives. One such theory is that of Utilitarianism. In the discussion that is to follow I will try to clearly outline what utilitarianism is and the main advantages and disadvantages of the utilitarian position. I find the utilitarian position one which has a superficial positive nature but if applied practically would seem to ignore the relevance of human emotion and lack understanding of human interaction and I will aim to show that this is the case.

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, that is to say it is a goal orientated one. The overall aim appears to be that of achieving the greatest overall good for the greatest number of people therefore it differs from the Egoistic theories whereby your own good is the overriding goal. There are different types of utilitarianism mainly Act utilitarianism (often called consequentialism) and rule utilitarianism. The principle of utility in act utilitarianism would be to choose the act which was right on the basis that it promoted the most overall good/happiness. The principle of utility in rule-utilitarianism is to follow those rules which will result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In general the emphasis in utilitarianism is on consequences, not intentions. To further outline what utilitarianism is I will look at the principles set out by Jeremy Bentham (although there are a great many more utilitarianists) as I feel he presents the case most clearly.

According to Bentham pain (be it in the form of mischief, inconvenience, unhappiness) and pleasure (in the forms of profit, convenience, advantage, happiness etc) are the only intrinsic evil and good respectively and that all other “goods and evil are derived from these qualities.” As I understand it Bentham feels that before one acts the pain and pleasure associated with the outcome should be weighed up and the act that promotes the most pleasure should be conducted. This seems to make sense and subconsciously appears to be what most individuals would do before taking any action. But, Bentham does not refer to the consequences at an individual level but at the level of the wider community.


Bentham sets out a criterion of how to value pain/pleasure by assessing the intensity, duration for which the pleasure is experienced, the number of people who will be affected and how likely it is to be followed by the same or opposite feeling (i.e. pain). In this way a calculation of total pain and pleasure can be made and the act with the highest pleasure score is that which is right. So it would seem that in Bentham’s view suffering is the main influence when making moral decisions. The advantage of this kind of system is that it seems easy to quantify the consequences of an action.

Kai Nielsen an advocate of act utilitarianism claims “that it is the consequences that determine the moral worth of an action.” Nielsen rejects the idea of moral absolutism and that there are certain moral principles which are always wrong to abandon in any circumstance. But it would seem to me that morals must be universal for utilitarianism to work and therefore one act of good must be the same act needed in another similar circumstance and therefore this in itself would appear to be a form of absolutism.

Consequentialism, Nielsen claims judges “actions, rules, policies, practices and moral principles” by certain consequences. The aim again as in Bentham’s system is to maximize the satisfaction and minimize dissatisfaction. This seems a noble idea but its implication not so noble. For example in the case that Bernard Williams presents to us of:

Jim who finds himself in a small South American town and sees a row of twenty Indians tied up against the wall. In front of them are several armed men. The leader of the armed men, Pedro, questions Jim and discovers that he got there by accident. Pedro explains that the Indians are a group who has been protesting against the government and are about to be killed. However Pedro offers Jim the opportunity to kill one of the Indian’s and says he will then set the rest free.*

In Nielsen’s view it would seem that the right thing to do would be for Jim to kill one Indian as this would lead to the most overall good in terms of extent and intensity. Taking such action would appall the moral absolutist as no innocent human should ever be killed in their view. This is not to say that Nielsen too would not be appalled if the killing was just for the sake of killing/inflicting pain but it is clearly not and their a far worse consequences if no action was taken.

This has obviously become a case of choosing between evils and by the means of rational thought opting for the lesser evil, although a regrettable action it would seem right to partake in the lesser evil and save more people instead of letting them all die. It would seem then that killing one Indian would be the rational thing to do for Nielsen, even though it is not done enthusiastically. However rationality should not be overridden on the basis of unreflective moral reactions. This does not seem right because is it not these moral reactions that should guide our actions? If we feel outraged by killing an innocent human being it would seem to me to be the right reaction to have.

Nielsen goes on to talk about negative responsibility and the affect of non-action in such situations resulting in greater evils occurring. From what I understand Nielsen would say that if Jim does not kill one Indian then he brings about the death of twenty Indians. This idea does not sit well with me as I feel that it excludes the fact that the death of the twenty Indians is also a result of the judgment of others (i.e. Pedro) and that they also influence the outcome of Jim’s action. It appears that the consequentialist theory uses guilt as its main source of power.

If Jim kills one Indian then this results in the greater good and rationally speaking Jim should have no reason to feel guilty, but if he abstains from the killing then (through other influences also) the greater evil occurs. For this Jim should feel responsible and guilty. To me it looks as if in a consequentialist society people’s actions would not be influenced by the want for a greater goof but to avoid a sense of guilt that this society would assign to inaction. This does not seem to be the right reason on which to act; the idea that everyone is trying to avoid feeling guilty does not to me signify a “happy” society.

The apparent positive nature of utilitarianism appears flawed when looking more thoroughly into its applications. Bernard Williams, who view utilitarianism as a bad moral theory, puts forward the idea that the assigning of negative responsibly to inaction aims to legitimize actions which morally you may object too and with this I agree. It appears that your own morals are neglected in such a theory and you do not act on your own intuition. I feel that a severe disadvantage of the utilitarian position is its ability to “alienate one from one’s own moral feeling” and force you into a pseudo-altruistic mindset. But in so doing it seems you would have to put aside any self- interest and disregard your own moral convictions. This would surely result in a loss of self-identity too and your sole purpose would appear to be a means to an end for the wider community.

This altruistic nature may seem desirable for if you are always acting for a greater good the number of bad things should ultimately reduce. I disagree because if every outcome of good required one evil act then this accumulation of evil must have a negative effect somewhere along the line. Even if it is only on the psychological well being of one person and subsequent consequences of this on their actions in life who has to commit or be exposed to this evil act. Why should this person themselves not be considered as part of the “greatest number” for which the greatest good is to be done for? Utilitarianists would say that this is as a result of the overall utilitarian calculation that things work out this way for some people and they must accept this. In a utilitarian society other people’s projects will no doubt impede upon your own but you should gain comfort from the idea that overall things are in a satisfactory state. This seems to go against the argument for utilitarianism as the person conducting the act and the act itself becomes somewhat isolated from each other. The person seems only to be a tool by which a particular utility is obtained but the person themselves does not necessarily have to gain anything from the act and it is not considered what affect committing the act will have on the person. In this sense it seems there is no real personal responsibility for committing a utilitarian act and there are no consequences for the individual just for the state of affairs.

One of the advantages of the utilitarian position would seem to be that you would always know what to do in any given situation just by reflecting on the possible consequences in the case of consequentialism or just adhering to the rules provided by rule utilitarianism and this would seem to achieve the goal of a good moral theory. Another apparent advantage is that a utilitarian society appears to be an unselfish and altruistic one where everyone is always acting for the greater good principle.

This level of altruism presents some problems. In order for utilitarianism to work everyone in any given society would have to adhere to the utilitarian theory. This could however be seen as a positive thing as everyone would be united in a common goal. The disadvantage here is that the intentions on which people act may not necessarily be noble. Let us go back to the case of Jim. If say Jim had some sort of vendetta against one of the Indians for whatever reason and decided that he would

take up Pedro’s offer and use the opportunity to get his revenge on the respective Indian then Jim would obviously be acting for reasons of self interest and not for the greater good but it would still appear as if he had. The intention on which people act plays an important role in moral reasoning and it would seem as though that this can be disregarded in a utilitarian society as long as the outcome is a favourable one. It would therefore be difficult to instill a justice system where motives were questioned.

I feel another disadvantage is that utilitarianism removes the importance of actual moral consideration when making decisions, barring the one consideration of how much overall good will be achieved. Other considerations such as how will this affect me or the people who I act towards are not a consideration. Individualism seems to be lost in such a utilitarian society and immediate human interaction appears to have little or no value in the greater scheme of things. There also seems to be a level of intrusiveness into the lives of others that must have to exist for utilitarianism to work. As you would have to know or at least assume you knew what was in the best interest of other in order to act for their greater good and this must require some prying. The utilitarian may argue that you base what is good for others on what you would take to be good for you hence solving this intrusion problem. Even so, I feel there are a great many other problems with utilitarianism all of which, for a lack of time, I am unable to go into here.

The idea that happiness should be the sole objective seems to be no bad thing, as surely we all strive to be happy. However, utilitarianism does not seem to account for the idea that happiness is a culmination of many other factors (such as self-worth, freedom etc). To live in a utilitarian society would mean that the value of some of these other factors and so it is difficult to understand what kind of happiness utilitarianism aims to achieve. I feel if this theory was put into practice it could severely reduce “happiness” at the individual level whilst appearing to have bettered the state of affairs.

Overall I do not find the utilitarian theory to be an effective moral theory. It removes the need for actual moral consideration when dealing with other moral beings. Although it tries to provide somewhat of a scientific certainty to ethics by valuing pleasures and such it assigns no proper responsibility to the means by which these pleasures are obtained. If you are only responsible for your act in as far as making sure u chose the one with the greatest utility seems to remove the need for moral consideration itself and therefore to me utilitarianism seems to miss the point of morality itself.