Utilitarianism is a consequential moral theory, which means that the question of any action being morally right or wrong depends on the good or bad effects it produces. Thus, utilitarianism works on a single moral principle- increasing the amount of good things and decreasing the amount of bad things for the maximum number of human beings. In other words, utilitarianism stands for maximizing utility and thus ensuring greatest good for the greatest number.

Out of many moral theories presented in the past, utilitarianism is one of the most widely accepted ones of all. Although it’s not bereft of loopholes and has critics, many in today’s world support it. Let’s understand why in 5 simple steps!

#1. What is Good?

A pertinent question that must be answered is what actually comprises of utility and goodness in general when we talk about maximizing utility? One of the key proponents of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, believed hedonism to be the best determinant of goodness. Hedonism implies that pleasure or happiness is the only good thing in itself; other instrumental good things like, for instance, freedom or justice derive their goodness by producing pleasure or happiness, thus making pleasure or happiness the only intrinsic good.

Although hedonism is often rejected on the basis that not all good things like health, knowledge or honesty produce pleasure directly (this remains an existing debate in Philosophy), utilitarians still believe that things are good and valuable because they produce pleasure and well-being.

#2. Whose gets the Good?

The answer to this question is contextual, depending on the purpose utilitarianism is serving (morality, rationality etc.) as well as the stakeholders in the particular case.

If the situation involves a single entity is only, the theory dictates that the utility of the individual should be maximized, addressing their concerns, interests and available choice.

However, if the situation requires a judgment that affects not only the individual in question but people beyond the individual too (public policy, socio political and economic groups), the best for all must be considered equally. Benefits received and losses faced by each individual must weigh equally into the decision, with no special priority or significance given to one’s own personal interests from an impartial perspective– the move ensuring the well being of the maximum entities in the issue in question is the way to go- greatest good for greatest number!

This may seem unrealistic to do, especially given the support the theory of ethical egoism (morality requires people to promote their own interest) has received. However, in utilitarianism, a partial or weighed perspective is simply rejected as a falsely moral or immoral. What must be understood here is that although a utilitarian method might reflect that it is rational for people to maximize individualistic benefits, utilitarian morality would reject this as a determinant of moral correctness.

#3. Differing Forms

There is dissent among the supporters of this theory as well, for a lot of its variants have been presented in the past. Primarily and most significantly, utilitarianism has taken two forms:

Act utilitarianism focuses on the impacts of individualistic actions whereas Rule Utilitarianism focuses on the effects of the nature of the action itself. In other words, while act utilitarianism will tackle the issue of the robbery of a bank and judge its consequences, rule utilitarianism will tackle and judge that of the very act of stealing.

Therefore, although both types primarily agree that the moral or rational judgment should be consequential, they disagree on what part of the issue must be evaluated to determine the consequences-

The sole act that will be/was performed (Act utilitarianism) or Evaluation of first the moral rules the act is based upon and then the act itself, the evaluation of the latter being based on- Whether the act adheres to the said moral rules. Whether the acceptance of these morals through the said act will maximize utility in the society. (Rule Utilitarianism)

#4. Is Utilitarianism Good in Itself?

The theory that the utility must be maximized to ensure the greatest good possible for the greatest number has its pros and cons. Let’s understand what these are.

PROS

It ensures the greatest good that can be possibly done in a situation for the maximum people in the larger picture, implying that the right course of action is the one that leads to the most happiness and least harm, which is in keeping with how a just society should work. By not relying on any specific beliefs about God, Utilitarianism eliminates the need for considering any religious beliefs (that can be individualistic) and rather focusing on moral beliefs (that can be universally implied) without any partial perspective. It only accepts an impartial consideration of effects, thereby eliminating the occurrence of a decision being taken solely on the basis of self- interest maximization. A balance between differing interests is also provided to make policy decisions better. It is highly universal as it doesn’t cater specifically to a particular population, culture or context. It is comprehensive as in includes all interests, individuals, solutions, problems and possible consequences in weighing the decision in question, thereby making it not only a very democratic approach to a situation but a rational one too as by impartially measuring the right and wrong for all.

CONS

Utilitarianism is based on anticipated consequences, making a decision‘s utility very unpredictable. Future can be predicted but the predictions made can never be absolutely accurate or definitive. Thus, the decision should rather be based on something more concrete. It is difficult to evaluate the value of an act in terms of pleasure for one can’t measure such a subjective and differing phenomenon. Pleasure is objectively immeasurable, making the process of evaluation itself subjective, depending upon the weight one places on a particular option leading to a particular pleasure. Expecting people to not weigh in their own interests more that others’ can be an unrealistic expectation. Making sure that the perspective taken by an authority is firstly impartial and secondly can be maintained further is almost impossible, given the natural impulse of individuals towards self- preservation. Its universal characteristic can often be harmful by not accepting any exceptions. For example, the epitome of a judge preventing riots (fatal to many) by convicting an innocent individual of a crime with a severe punishment (in a case where he’s only able to prevent them by convicting the individual) is justified on the basis of utilitarianism even though it is morally incorrect. It can facilitate domination of the majority by justifying an act solely on the basis of it serving interests of most individuals. Thus, a strong opposition justifies the persistence of caste-based reservations just because the move is backed a s strong opposition- the majority is served by the virtue of them being a majority. This is problematic for it can lead to many sidelining the needs and interests of the minorities, not on the basis of what is right and what is wrong. The authoritarian figure determining what provide pleasure to whom is absent in the case of utilitarianism, thereby leading to a void that can be exploited by the powerful. This defeats the very idea of the theory to have equal consideration of interests. Given the subjective interest of people in a situation, utilitarianism does say that all opinion must be given equal weight but doesn’t state how this can be implemented and by whom.

#5. Conclusion: Now What?

Although utilitarianism has its own drawbacks and shortcomings when it comes to implementing the theory in the real world, it still gives one a basic structure and inspiration on what this real world should principally be based on and aspire to move towards. Although such a working structure can often be and often is exploited by the majority and other powerful factions of the society, aiming to eliminate these loopholes, developing mechanisms to prevent this exploitation and most significantly understanding and propagating a message of maximization of interests based on equal consideration while persevering to keep one’s self interests at bay can help us move towards a more applicable as well as accepted version of utilitarianism.