Philosophy would probably be irrelevant without the contribution of normative ethics. Since time immemorial, different philosophers have tried to come up with reasons why human beings' actions exist and what drives them. Theories, such as utilitarianism and consequentialism, are part of the answer to these questions with the proponents striving to answer these questions satisfactorily. Utilitarianism suggests that human actions are driven by the pleasure principle which seeks to explain that actions are good and right if they provide happiness to the majority of people (Burns, 2005).
Though conceived by those before them utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham with the help of John Stuart Mill in a bid to explain the motive behind human actions. On the other hand, the consequentialism theory developed in line with the utilitarianism was coined by G. E. M Anscombe in the 1950s (Gomberg, 1989). Its proponents claimed that the actions of an individual are only right if they produce a desirable and good outcome; therefore, the actions are dependent on the consequences of the action and the action itself (Shaw, 2006). For these reasons, the history of both the utilitarian and consequentialism theories have important contributions to the efforts in explaining the drive for human actions. Additionally, pros and cons of the theories help to understand the theories better from a critical eye as well as assess the ideologies of the theories.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Utilitarian Theory
By definition, utilitarianism is a theory of ethics that subscribes to the ideology that actions should be judged as wrong or right based on their ability to produce happiness or reduce it (Bentham, 1996). Therefore, providing a foundation in which rules that govern social institutions, public policies, laws, and morality can be assessed. According to the theory, actions should not be labeled right or wrong based on lying and truth, but rather on whether the action of lying or issuing the truth causes happiness or reduces it to the majority of people (Bentham, 1996). The likelihood of the action to cause pain, therefore, is regarded as undesirable and unpleasant. Notably, utilitarianism views an action as good when its performance warrants the lack of pain.
The action is thus said to provide maximization on its utility by increasing the general benefits for the most people (Bentham, 1996). It is thus safe to say that, in line with utilitarianism, a desirable action is marked by the presence of that action causing more good compare to harm for the largest group of people. In line with the greatest happiness principle, an action is moral only if its total usefulness increases with its enactment. Going by this argument, an action that causes an individual to be happy is right. However, if the action causes a lot of people to be happy, then it is considered more right (Bentham, 1972).
The theory divides pleasures into higher and lower ones. The higher ones are classified as pleasures experienced by people only such as culture, music, art and so forth. On the other hand, the lower pleasures refer to desires often associated with activities such as killing, mating, sleeping, eating, and so forth (Bentham, 1972). People desire these lower pleasures, but they are not as satisfactory as the higher-ranking pleasures. Therefore, since the higher pleasures are equated to a higher sense of happiness, the achievement of the higher pleasures is of utmost importance to humans as contrasted with the lower pleasures. As an illustration, people value acquisition of a certificate of merit that make them renown more than they value eating (Bentham, 1996).
Act and rule is yet another principle that utilitarianism relies on. This one suggests that, when one is required to make a choice, he/she should consider the effects of the choice he/she makes and thus select what will benefit the most people and create happiness (Bentham, 1996). The rule part of the principle suggests that, for one to evaluate whether to follow a certain rule, one should consider what would be the effect of the action if it is followed continuously. If doing so will result in happiness, then the rule is morally right and should be followed always.
However, the rule principle has faced a lot of criticism since its use contravenes some unique circumstances (Hart, 1979). For instance, fighting deprives happiness and thus morally wrong. However, fighting in self-defense would break this rule even though done for a good course. Therefore, when using the rule, one should be wise to look at the exceptional cases and that infleunce the enactment of the principle (Hart, 1979).
History of the Theory
Utilitarian theory is arguably one of the most useful perspectives on everyday life. Its proponents, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, questioned the reasons behind actions and whether these actions can be tied to morality ethics that justify common good (Burns, 2005). Morality ethics as a term is often used in reference to rules that govern what is right and wrong according to societal expectations (Hart, 1979). Dating way back in the existence of the Great Greek philosophers, utilitarianism delves into ethics of actions. For an action to be desirable, it must qualify as a good action. Before Bentham (1748-1832), the Greek philosophers had tried to develop the theory and thus can be credited with laying a foundation to what Bentham and Mill further modified to present the utilitarian theory.
The precursors to this theory began with the morality of an action deemed to be suitable only if it does not harm others. This inadvertently would mean that behavior is considered moral or right if it increases happiness in line with the modern idea of the pleasure principle and the greatest happiness principle (Burns, 2005). Earlier theorists led by David Hume, a scotish philosopher, were more concerned about the morals of the person in question. However, Francis Hutcheson stood out since his advocate for a choice of action is directly in line with the utilitarianism theory.
The moralists were more inclined to the religious reasons for the existence of actions. For example, Cumberland (1631-1718) proposed that moral deeds are pegged on the Biblical approval by God (Mill, 1863). According to Mill (1863), human beings have a duty to do good, and this obligation is based on the evaluation of expected consequences of the actions and the duty to do right as God directs it. On the other hand, Hume enumerated the ideologies on probation and approbation on human character and actions (Rivers, 2000). According to Hume, as indicated by Rivers (2000), human beings automatically shrug off undesirable actions and approve those they naturally consider desirable based on effects and associations; therefore, moral judgements are accorded positive or negative associations from their effects. Later on, Anthony Ashley Cooper (1671-1713) brought in the ideology that human beings possess an "inner eye" permitting morality (Mill, 1863).
Based on Cooper, the ability to accord actions moral right or wrong is innate (Mill, 1863). According to Albee (1896), Shaftesbury held on to the idea that human beings should only judge the goodness of a person concerning the systems in which they contribute to. Additionally, Saftesbury, as Albee (1896) indicated, went on to claim that, in whatever the driving force for the action is, one should ensure that he/she consider himself/herself and the common good of others. In so doing, according to, a person will promote his/her welfare and happiness and that of others (Albee, 1896).
On the contrary, not doing so will only lead to emotional turmoil and thus a reduction in happiness for self and the others; therefore, to assess the virtuousness of self and others, one must possess a psychological ability to assist them in evaluating the character and present to others the desirable qualities. Similar to Shaftesbury, Hutcheson (Albee, 1896) was more interested in evaluating the virtue and morality bit of the action. Therefore, humans judge the action choice based on the degree of happiness compared to the number of people that expected action would benefit or deprive happiness. Scarre (1989), on the other hand, asserted that moral sensibility is based on reasoning that helps the individual to select what to do and whether the choice of action is moral. To illustrate this, Scarre (1989) used the action of lying as morally unacceptable. However, if lying is enacted for the sake of saving a majority of people from pain and agony, then it becomes a noble act.
Afterwards, the new breed of utilitarianists known as the classical utilitarianists came on board led by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham (1972) claimed that actions were guided by pain and pleasure and proposed that human beings seek pleasure and avoid pain. He used the pleasure ideology to suggest that it guides governments and individuals (Bentham, 1972). Utilitarianism dates back to the times of the Greek philosophers credited to Epicurus. Nonetheless, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) developed utilitarianism theory, basing it on the pleasure and pain as the main internal values that drive human actions globally (1972).
Though sometimes considered as part of consequentialism due to its root on the reliance on the consequence of actions, it justifies the theory joins ethics on the morality of the actions performed. According to utilitarianism, actions are only good and acceptable if they benefit the majority of people (Bentham, 1972). Therefore, the usefulness of the action is pegged on the pleasure supposedly resulting in happiness for the greater happiness of the majority.
Initially, Bentham (1972) proposed that both pain and pleasure control human actions. However, after the realization that the two concepts are contrasting leading to contradicting his findings, he opted to develop ‘the greatest happiness rationale' only (Bentham, 1972). The proponent James Mill supported Bentham's ideas on the theory and nurtured his son John Stuart Mill to understand Bentham's ideas. John Stuart Mill, therefore, learned a lot on this theory, including summarizing and transcribing old Mill's contributions to the ideology. Consequently, the younger Mill gained a lot of experience and even added his contributions to the theory. Some of his ideas expounded on the fact that spiritual, cultural and intellectual pleasures of an individual are more vital compared to the physical ones. In his findings, intellectual pleasures are presumed to be more highly valued than the spiritual pleasures (Mill, 1863).
Mill (1863) added that this is only possible if the value is credited by “competent judges.” In his view, the competent judges are people with experience on the higher and lower pleasures (Mill, 1863). Notably, the ideas of Mill compliment those of Bentham on happiness and pleasure (Bentham, 1972). Eventually, the two theorists and their idea led to a large group of philosophers who had a wider concept called the consequentialism. This theory opened up doors to more internal values that drive actions such as independence and knowledge rather than just pleasure and happiness. It is worth noting that utilitarianism was further developed by more proponents as the years later. Those worth mentioning include Henry Sidgwick and William Godwin. In the present, Torbjorn Tannsjo, R. M. Hare, and Peter Singer are some of the advocates.
Positives of the Theory
In essence, the utility theory is often used to interpret political actions. Mill (1863) argued that political actions should be in line with the ideology of liberty requirements. In his view, these political engagements should be in satisfaction of what he calls the harm principle (Bentham, 1972). The principle notes that the only reason where a decision can be made over a majority of people contrary to their will is only if it thwarts harm towards other people (Bentham, 1972).
Throughout history, the contributions of utilitarianism ideologies have been given importance, especially since it dates way back. Regardless of the many additions and modifications made to the original theory by the Greeks, the basis still exists on the pleasure principle that determines whether an action is morally wrong or right after consideration on its ability to benefit and provide happiness or vice versa to a majority of people. Jeremy Bentham together with Stuart Mill are considered major contributors to the theory and are classified as the classical utilitarianists. They both relied on value and the common good as the basis for the theory. These theorists emphasized the need to maximize the common good for the majority of people for the action to be deemed as good or right.
The utilitarianism theory is useful to philosophy since it provides a ground framework to the judgement of right and wrong actions (Bentham, 1972). In so doing, it provides a basis for an individual to assess his/her actions. Using the ideologies of the theorists, individuals can make sound arguments relating to morality. In almost all spheres of life, the common good is often referenced when people are assessing the viability of an action and the benefits of the actions (Hart, 1979). More importantly, the reasons for these actions are weighed using the happiness principle to evaluate whether the action is useful or not. Moreover, the theory enumerates some sections of normative ethics that help other researchers to develop their work. Due to the developments made on the original idea, researchers continue to modify the theory to incorporate a wide array of information that necessitates a better and more conclusive argument of the motive for actions (Jacobson, 2003).
Negatives of the Theory
Even though the theory shed light on the drive of actions, it does leave some questions unanswered. According to the utilitarainists, the common good is uniform to everyone, and thus the happiness resulting from the action of goodness is the same for everyone (Bentham, 1972). Therefore, the theory fails to be realistic in that what is considered good for one individual might differ from the other (Jacobson, 2003). The variety of this perception is therefore not factored in when regarding the theory. Besides, the proponents presented that the reason for promoting the common good is similar to everyone and quantified which seems to be problematic (Jacobson, 2003). As the theory presents, everyone wants to promote the happiness of the majority. However, the common good does not regard diversity in thoughts and behavior. As such, it presents a rather unrealistic world where perfection exists contrary to the norm (Hart, 1979).
Consequentialism Theory
While utilitarianism deals with the greatest happiness principle, consequentialism is a class of normative theories of ethics that tries to judge whether something is right or wrong by what its consequences are (Shaw, 2006). It holds that normative properties are only dependent on the consequences (Shaw, 2006). The consequences are, therefore, the effects of the action or a result of the act. The most renowned aspect of consequentialism is the one, which assesses the moral rightness of various acts (Rudolph, 2011). This aspect holds that, for an act to be classified as morally right, the consequences of the acts or on things that are relative to the act itself must be desirable and hence produce good consequences.
These consequences may be propelled by the motive behind the acts or a general rule, which may require acts of a similar kind (Rudolph, 2011). A typical example often given to illustrate this theory is that, in accordance with society's moral ethics, there is a public consensus that lying is wrong. However, by the theory, if telling a lie would help save a person's life, then it is the right thing to do (Rudolph, 2011). The choosing of the preference consequence can opena loophole for leaders or descionmakers to egnege in unethical actions for the sake of good. An example of consequentialism is the utilitarianism which implies that an action is right only if the action produces happiness for a majority of people. In line with consequentialism, the consequence of utilitarianism is happiness for many people.
Plain consequentialism is all about which actions are right, therefore, sets its standards on a high notch (Rudolph, 2011). In its definition, plain sonsequentialism holds that, among the many options an individual is presented with at a given time, there is only one option or a few of them that are right (Rudolph, 2011). As such, the theory implies that the rest of the alternative options are wrong (Shaw, 2006). In a scenario where an individual’s course of action is superior to another ordinary course of action that most people would pursue; there is still the option of choosing the ordinary course. By the theory, if the individual takes the ordinary course that is inferior despite being a moral course, the choice is morally wrong. However, plain scalar consequentialism has a different approach as it asserts that of two things that a person might choose to do at a given time, there is always one option which is better than the other to the extent that its overall consequences are better than the other's overall consequences (Shaw, 2006). The theory, therefore, implies that actions that are adopted with the best consequences are morally superior.
History of the Theory
Both the utilitarian and the consequentialism theory seem intertwined with overlapping ideas. Due to this reason, philosophers with a utilitarian mindset are classified as consequentialist with the ideology seeing the light of day in the 1700s. However, it was not until 1958 when that term ‘consequentialist' was coined by one G. E. M Anscombe through an essay Moral Modern Philosophy (Gomberg, 1989). The word consequentialism, therefore, became a common one often used alongside utilitarianism.
Notably, expectable consequentialism asserts an action is the morally right one if the expectable consequences are reasonably the best (Rudolph, 2011). Further, reasonable consequentialism asserts that an action is morally right if and only if it has the best reasonably expected consequences (Rudolph, 2011). Dual consequentialism, on the other hand, has an objective and moral sense concerning the action (Rudolph, 2011). Dual consequentialism asserts that the objectively right action is the action with the best consequences and that the morally right action is the action with the best reasonably expected consequences (Shaw, 2006). Moreover, the rule consequentialism holds that an action is considered morally right if and only if it does not violate the set rules of behaviors whose general acceptance in the community would have the best consequences (Suikkanen, 2008).
Positives of the Theory
The development of the consequentialism ideologies seems to be for a good course. This is so because it promotes the moral uprightness of action by presenting the reason for the actions to be good. As presented by the theory, human beings strive to do what is rational, considered right (Shaw, 2006). This not only helps them to care for others but to believe that their actions are noble. Therefore, rationality dictates doing right to people without partiality and thus striving to benefit others. This seems to marry with the ideas of consequentialism. Also, being conscious of the actions being performed so that they produce desirable outcomes helps people to be concerned of others' well-being (Rudolph, 2011).
This ideology seems to agree with most traditions and cultures that seek the perfection of morals by promoting love for everyone (Shaw, 2006). Again, since people perform many actions in everyday life, it would seem important for the consequences of these actions to be given a lot of vitality so that they matter. Therefore, this supports consequentialism in that actions are essential. Consequentialism theory stands out since it advocates that morality should be all about respect towards all people, being reasonable, obeying nature, respecting rights and doing one's duty regardless of the consequences (Rudolph, 2011). In its formulation, various versions of the theory have been developed with an attempt of explaining the aspect of consequentialism. Plain consequentialism is perhaps the most standard and precise version of the theory. The plain consequentialism asserts that, among the things done by an individual at any given time, the morally right action taken by the individual is the one with the best overall consequences (Rudolph, 2011). If a situation arises due to overlapping of several actions for the best consequences, then any of the several actions would be appropriate and the correct one (Rudolph, 2011).
It is almost impossible to know the overall consequences of an individual's action. This is so because even though human beings are responsible in indulging in morally right actions, there is a likelihood of an individual to think that it is impossible to pre-determine what is morally right (Shaw, 2006). Morality is often mysterious and controversial to define; therefore, it is unclear whether the standards within which theories of morality should be held must explain why morality is easy or hard to know about (Suikkanen, 2008). The fact that it is impossible to know the overall consequences of an individual's actions, therefore, creates an avenue for an additional version of the theory.
Even though other versions of consequentialism may be formulated by adjusting parts of the theory, they make sure that they abide by the overall concept of defining morality as an act of producing the right kinds of overall consequences. The theory in itself does not define which kinds of consequences are good. As such, there is a likelihood of individuals agreeing with the concept of consequentialism while at the same time disagreeing about which type of outcome is good or bad (Shaw, 2006). Traditional consequentialists implied that an action is morally right and thus good if it brings happiness (Rudolph, 2011). When this view is taken and interlinked with the plain consequentialism, the implication is that right action is the one that brings happiness to the majority in line with utilitarianism.
Another version of consequentialism is known as the rule one, that is, rule consequentialism (Rudolph, 2011). This one disregards the consequences of an action and only judges the action regarding the set rules. The act of disobeying the rules is considered wrong and undesirable (Rudolph, 2011). As such, rule-consequentialism holds that the moral standing of an act is established by the consequences of rules.
Negatives of the Theory
One of the negative points of consequentialism is that it might be impractical for its applicability in a real-life situation (Scheffler, 1988). The theory sounds attractive and easy enough to apply. However, in the real sense, it is rather a difficult system to apply in the daily moral decision-making process. One of the reasons is that the theory requires that every moral decision is fully evaluated in separate cases. Additionally, it is an indirect implication that each ought to do some research on the consequences of their actions before applying them in making ethical and sound choices (Scheffler, 1988). Such research is often too costly, time-consuming, and impracticable to enact. The time taken to conduct such research can result in a slow decision-making process that may cause bad consequences, therefore, outweighing the intended result of good consequences in making a perfect decision.
Again, critics question the assertion that the consequence of an action is considered desirable if it is good since good is relative (Scheffler, 1988). Even though the consequentialists might have a valid argument based on the arguments of the theory, what is good to one person might not be good to another and thus often conflicting. Besides, the anti-consequentialist, there is the question regard whose perspective an action should be considered good ( Scheffler, 1988 ).This variation proves problematic to decide what good is and who decides what is good and not for it to be considered morally right or wrong (Scheffler, 1988). True to the critics' arguments, it is not always possible to predict the outcome of an action since some actions begin on a noble course but fail to produce the expected good outcome. Arguably, this does not change the intention of producing a desirable and good outcome. Therefore, it seems a bit far-fetched to assume that every morally upright action should be succeeded by a desirable outcome.
The partiality of the theory makes it prone to overgeneralizations. This is so because the theory seems to disregard, for example, bias by how well one knows their friends over strangers (Jackson, 1991). The uniformity created by the theory treats everyone equally so that the happiness of a close family member is no different from that of an acquaintance. The consequence that produces the best outcomes and creates happiness is valued over the undesirable one period. Critics argue that it would be better to perform actions that result in happiness for self and that one is familiar with since, in so doing, one is likely to produce better outcomes as compared to a complete stranger. Besides, it is more natural for people to want to assist those they are closer to over the strangers (Jackson, 1991).
Additionally, consequentialists are accused of striving to provide equality without a consideration of “who” receives the goodness that causes happens since they fail to question who is on the receiving end of the consequence (Cummiskey, 1989). Therefore, consequentialists are more concerned about the overall amount of the happiness and personal welfare without considerations into fairness. However, it is argued that, generally, people do not have an innate sense of justice and fairness so that distributing happiness is not of human nature (Rudolph, 2011). Fairness in the traditional sense deals mostly with tangible goods rather than abstract ones (Cummiskey, 1989). Again, away from the moral bit of consequences, consequentialism seems to promote meddling into personal lives of individuals. This is so because the theory does not promote the use of common sense especially when conflicted by an action that requires the use of the same over the ideologies of the theory (Jackson, 1991). For instance, stealing from the rich to give the money to the poor seems like a noble idea. Common sense dictates that, however noble it is, the idea is wrong. Yet, the consequentialist would say that it is right going by the ideas of the theory.
Conclusion
As history dictates, the concept of utilitarianism came into existence in the 1600s with its major proponents as Bentham and Mill. Utilitarianism implies that actions are only good if they produce happiness for the majority of people. Thus, it relies heavily on the greatest happiness principle. As a result, concepts such as act versus rule, pleasure, and their subdivisions became a ground for assessing the morality of an action. Since utilitarianism relies on the consequences of the action to judge the morality of the action, it is often considered a part of consequentialism theory. Consequentialism is a theory based on morals. It cites that actions are only right if the outcomes of the actions and the action itself is good and desirable. However, the consequentialists are accused of over-generalization, unrealistic assumptions, and inconsistencies. Both theories provide a basis for reasons behind human actions and what drives these actions and thus providing a ground framework for research in the area. They futher facilitate the understanding unethical behaviors and dicision by influential leaders.
References
Albee E. (1896). The relation of Shaftesbury and Hutcheson to utilitarianism. The Philosophical Review , 5 (1), 24-35
Bentham, J. (1972). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation Hoboken, New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Bentham, J. (1996). The collected works of Jeremy Bentham: An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation . New York, NY: Clarendon Press.
Burns, J. H. (2005). Happiness and utility: Jeremy Bentham's equation. Utilitas, 17 (1), 46-61. Retrieved from https://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/greatest-happiness.pdf
Cummiskey, D. (1989). Consequentialism, egoism, and the moral law. Philosophical Studies , 57 (2), 111-134. Retrieved from http://www.bates.edu/philosophy/files/2010/07/Consequentalism-Egoism-and-the-Moral-Law-4320067.pdf
Gomberg, P. (1989). Consequentialism and history. Canadian Journal of philosophy, 19 (3), 383-403. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00455091.1989.10716486
Hart, H. L. (1979). Between utility and rights. Column L. Rev ., 79 (5), 828-46. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1121909?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Jackson, F. (1991). Decision-theoretic consequentialism and the nearest and dearest objection. Ethics, 101 (3), 461-482. Retrieved from http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/293312
Jacobson, D. (2003). J. S. Mill and the diversity of utilitarianism. Philosopher's Imprint, 3 (2). Retrieved from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/j-s-mill-and-the-diversity-of-utilitarianism.pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0003.002;format=pdf
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism . London , England: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
Rivers, I. (2000). Reason, grace, and sentiment: volume 2, Shaftesbury to Hume: A study of the language of religion and ethics in england, 1660–1780 . Cambridge , UK : Cambridge University Press.
Rudolph, J. (2011). Consequences and limits: A critique of consequentialism. Macalester Journal of Philosophy , 17 (1), 12. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1167&context=philo
Scarre, G. (1989). Logic and reality in the philosophy of John Stuart Mill . London , UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scheffler, S. (Ed.). (1988). Consequentialism and its critics . Oxford, United Kingdom. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Shaw, W. (2006). The consequentialist perspective. In J. Dreier (Ed.), Contemporary debates in moral theory (pp. 5-20). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Suikkanen, J. (2008). Consequentialism, constraints, and good-relative-to. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy , 3 (1), 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.jesp.org/articles/download/Consequentialism.pdf
