UTILITARIANISM: ORIGIN, CHARACTERISTICS, REPRESENTATIVES - PHILOSOPHY - 2025

The utilitarianism or utilitarian ethics is an ethical theory that an action is morally right if it seeks to boost happiness, not only of who runs, but of all who are affected by such action. On the contrary, action is wrong if it encourages unhappiness.

The utilitarian ethic was made explicit towards the end of the 18th century in England by Jeremy Bentham and continued by John Stuart Mill. Both identified good with pleasure, which is why they were considered hedonists.

By London Stereoscopic Company (Hulton Archive), via Wikimedia Commons

They also affirmed that the good should be carried to the maximum, or as they themselves formulated it, achieve "the greatest amount of good for the greatest number."

Utilitarianism was revised, at the end of the 19th century, by the Cambridge philosopher, Henry Sidgwick, and later in the 20th century George Edward Moore proposes that the correct aim is to promote everything of value, regardless of whether it makes the person happy or not. human being.

Throughout the centuries, utilitarianism has been a normative ethical theory that not only remained in the philosophical realm but also served as a foundation to be applied in the laws. Just Bentham wrote An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation in 1789, as an introduction to a penal code plan.

It is currently one of the theories that are used by defenders of animal ethics and veganism. With it, an attempt is made to achieve legislation that protects animals, based on what Bentham himself specified, condemning animal torment.

Bentham argued that according to the principle of equality, the suffering of a horse or a dog should be considered as the suffering of an entire human being is considered.).push ({});

The quantification or measurement of pleasure or pain

In order to measure both pleasure and pain, Bentham lists the variables to be taken into account by the person, which are:

-The intensity

-The duration

-The certainty or uncertainty

-Proximity or distance

To the above, which are considered on an individual level, others are added when both pleasure and pain must be evaluated as to whether another act can be committed. These are:

-The fertility or the tendency to continue with similar sensations. So pleasure is sought if pleasure has been felt, for example.

-The purity or the tendency not to continue with opposite feelings. For example of pain if it is a pleasure, or of pleasure if it is a pain.

-The extension. It is about the number of people to whom it extends or in terms of utilitarianism, affects.

The implications of the utility principle

Bentham was a social reformer, and as such applied this principle to the laws of England, specifically in areas related to crime and punishment. For him, a punishment should be created for those who harm someone that would allow them to be dissuaded from doing that action again.

He also thought that this principle could be applied to treatment with animals. The question to be asked, he argued, is not whether they can reason or speak, but whether they can suffer. And that suffering must be taken into account when treating them.

From the foregoing appears the moral foundation for any law that prevents cruelty to animals.

Other representatives

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

A collaborator of Bentham, he was a follower of the doctrine of utilitarianism of his teacher.

Although for Mill the pursuit of happiness was valid, he disagreed with Bentham that what was important was not quantity, but quality. There are pleasures that are qualitatively different, and this qualitative difference is reflected in higher pleasures and lower pleasures.

So for example, moral or intellectual pleasures are superior to physical pleasure. His argument is that people who have experienced both see the higher as better than the lower.

On the other hand, his defense of the utilitarian principle was based on the consideration that an object is visible when people see it. Similarly, the only certainty that something desirable can be produced is that people want it. And therefore, the desirable is the good.

So happiness is desired by every human being, which is the utilitarian end. And the good for all people is general happiness.

From there he distinguished happiness from satisfaction, so that happiness has more value than satisfaction.

Internal sanctions

Another difference with Bentham is that for Mill there were internal sanctions. Both guilt and remorse are regulators of people's actions.

When the person is perceived as an agent of harm, negative emotions appear, such as guilt for what has been done. For Mill, just as external actions of punishment are important, so are internal sanctions, since they also help to implement the appropriate action.

Mill used utilitarianism in favor of law and social policy. His proposal to increase happiness is the foundation of his arguments in favor of freedom of expression and women's suffrage. Also on the issue of society or government not interfering in individual behavior that does not harm others.

Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900)

Henry Sidgwick presented his The Methods of Ethics published in 1874, where he defended utilitarianism and his philosophy of morality.

In this way he considered it the basic moral theory for having a superior principle to elucidate the conflict between value and rule, in addition to being theoretically clear and sufficient to describe the rules that are part of morality.

Likewise, what is evaluated in a theory, rule or certain policy against a specific action was raised. If you take into account what people will actually do, or what people think they should do thoughtfully and reasonably.

Faced with this problem, Sidgwick recommended that the course predicted as the best result be followed, taking all the data as part of the calculations.

Total profit

Sidgwick analyzed the way earlier utilitarians defined utility. So, for him, a problem appears between the increase in the level of profit when the number of people increases. In fact, the possibility of increasing the number of people in a society implies a decrease in average happiness.

In his reasoning he specified that utilitarianism has as its ultimate goal the action of happiness in general and that the aggregate population enjoys all positive happiness. The amount of happiness that the extra number of people have gained against which the rest lost should be evaluated.

Therefore, he concluded that it is not only necessary to try to achieve a higher average of utility, but to increase the population until the product of the average amount of happiness and the number of people who are alive at that time can reach the maximum.

George Edward Moore (1873-1958)

This British philosopher maintains the utilitarian thesis which he calls "ideal", but surpassing Bentham and Mill. According to it, pleasure is not the only element of happiness, nor is it a unique valuable experience or the only end to be achieved.

Therefore, the morally correct end not only causes the happiness of man, but it fosters what is valuable regardless of whether it makes him happy or not. Thus it tries to promote the highest possible value, on a personal level or that of others, whether in the human or in nature.

Moore asserts that both intrinsic goodness and value are unnatural properties, indefinable as well as simple. In this way the valuable is only captured by intuition, and not by sensible induction or rational deduction.

John C. Harsanyi (1920-2000) - Peter Singer (1946)

Both represent what has been called preference utilitarianism. It is about finding coherence with the individualistic and empiricist principle that utilitarianism possessed in its origin.

They do not consider that all human beings have a common nature that has a single purpose, even if it is pleasure, but rather that they focus on the individual preferences of the people involved, without objective reference. Accepting, furthermore, that each person has a conception of happiness that they freely sustain.

References

1. Beauchamp, Tom L. and Childress, James F. (2012). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Seventh Edition. Oxford University Press.
2. Cavalier, Robert (2002). Utilitarian Theories in Part II History of Ethics in Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. Recovered from caee.phil.cmu.edu.
3. Cavalier, Robert (2002). The British Utilitarian in Part II History of Ethics in Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. Recovered from caee.phil.cmu.edu.
4. Crimmins, James E.; Long, Douglas G. (edit) (2012). Encyclopedia of Utilitarianism.
5. Driver, Julia (2014). The History of Utilitarianism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Zalta, Edward N. (ed). plate.stanford.edu.
6. Duignam, Brian; West Henry R. (2015). Utilitarianism Philosophy in Encyclopaedia Britannica. britannica.com.
7. Martin, Lawrence L. (1997). Jeremy Bentham: utilitarianism, public policy and the administrative state. Journal of Management History, Vol. 3 Issue: 3, pp. 272-282. Recovered from esmeraldinsight.com.
8. Matheny, Gaverick (2002). Expected Utility, Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. Journal of Applied Philosophy. Vol. 19, No. 3; pp. 293-297. Recovered from jstor.org.
9. Matheny, Gaverick (2006). Utilitarianism and animals. Singer, P. (ed). In: In defense of animals: The seconds wave, Malden: MA; Blackwell Pub. Pp. 13-25.
10. Plamenatz, John (1950). The English Utilitarians. Political Science Quarterly. Vol 65 No. 2, pp. 309-311. Recovered from jstor.org.
11. Sánchez-Migallón Granados, Sergio. Utilitarianism in Fernández Labasstida, Francisco-Mercado, Juan Andrés (editors), Philosophica: On-line philosophical encyclopedia. Philosophica.info/voces/utilitarismo.
12. Sidgwick, H (2000). Utilitarianism. Utilitas, Vol. 12 (3), pp. 253-260 (pdf). cambridge.org.