utilitarianism essay titles

145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on utilitarianism, 🔎 easy utilitarianism research paper topics, 👍 good utilitarianism essay topics to write about, 🎓 most interesting utilitarianism research titles, 💡 simple utilitarianism essay ideas, ❓ questions about utilitarianism.

• Utilitarianism Advantages and Disadvantages
• Utilitarianism and Corporate Social Responsibility
• Human Trafficking from Perspectives of Deontology, Utilitarianism and Egoism
• Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill
• Comparison of Utilitarianism and Christian Ethics
• Utilitarianism and Deontology in Business
• Utilitarianism Theory: Value and Disadvantages
• The Catholic Church’s Deontology and Utilitarianism Perspectives This paper compares and contrasts the Catholic Church’s deontology and utilitarianism perspectives, underpinned by the natural law and divine command theory.
• Utilitarianism and Abortion: Mill’s Principle of Utility and Bentham’s Felicific Calculus The issue of abortion is often approached from spiritual or religious standpoints, and utilitarianism arguably has the potential to provide a refreshing perspective.
• Ethical Reasoning: Utilitarianism & Universal Ethics Luke has been invited to work on a project involving the development of property recently bought by ABC for the construction of an adult entertainment retail store.
• Why Utilitarianism Is the Best Moral System This paper discusses the ideas and principles of utilitarianism, the advantages and critique of utilitarianism, and why utilitarianism is the best moral system.
• Death Penalty: The Utilitarianism Ethical Theory Utilitarianism gives moral justification for the death penalty as long as it promotes society’s total well-being, approval, and happiness.
• “Utilitarianism” Essay by John Stuart Mill “Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill belongs to the number of the most famous works focusing on the role of utility in the life of any society.
• Moral Theories: Utilitarianism, Duty-Based Ethics and Virtue-Based Ethics From the assessment of each theory, it can be seen that virtue based ethics can be considered less pragmatic, a feature which is more suitable for moral assessment.
• Utilitarianism Theory: Applications and Issues Although the theory of utilitarianism appears to be relevant or applicable in most daily situations, there are deep underlying challenges associated with the concept.
• Virtue Ethics Versus Utilitarianism Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that emphasizes character above behavior. The concept underscores the importance of mentality and personality.
• The Utilitarianism Argument for Public Policy Utilitarianism supports actions that increase happiness and opposes actions that cause unhappiness with the ultimate goal of making the whole society better.
• Utilitarianism as the Only Effective Paradigm Utilitarianism developed in the eighteenth century is still employed in modern society as the central philosophical paradigm that frames the creation of laws and norms.
• Criminal Scheme: Utilitarianism and Deontology This paper will look into the issues concerning Bernie Madoff who has been involved in the Ponzi scheme on the basis of utilitarianism and deontological ethics.
• Qualified Candidates and Poor Credit Checks: The Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism This paper overviews how a manager can employ an ethical theory of utilitarianism to handle a situation and conflict of a qualified candidate with poor credit checks.
• Virtue, Utilitarianism, and Deontology A set of guiding principles – morality – focuses on the core of what allows people to live in unified communities. Morality sets what society considers acceptable and right.
• Animal Experimentation: The Theory of Utilitarianism This moral issue concerns animal experimentation. It is related to the theory of Utilitarianism, the idea of which induces preference of practical changes over morally obstacles.
• The Utilitarianism Theory by John Stuart Mill According to Mill’s utilitarianism theory, the use of morally permissible violence is wrong as it directly affects the happiness of a person that violence is acted upon.
• Animal Exploitation and Utilitarianism The concept of animal welfare is connected to utilitarianism as the latter operates the notions of pleasure and pain of any animate beings.
• Utilitarianism: Poverty Reduction Through Charity This paper shows that poverty levels can be reduced if wealthy individuals donate a part of their earnings, using the main principles of the utilitarian theory.
• Utilitarianism as a Concept Embedded in Human Nature The importance of people’s relationships can be seen starting from simple human relations and their continuation to economic ties between countries.
• Utilitarianism Applications and Criticism Utilitarianism can be viewed as a form of consequentialism that focuses on the results of actions and decisions.
• Utilitarianism in Asian Business Being the largest and most diverse region of the world, Asia varies in the forms of business ethics practices by the corporations.
• Utilitarianism as It Relates to Welfare Utilitarianism is an ethical approach that requires human beings to engage in actions that promote happiness for a greater number of people.
• Amish Midwives: The Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism According to the utilitarian theory of ethics, the practice when unlicensed midwifes assist in labor to Amish women should not be banned, since it brings more happiness than grief.
• Justice: Libertarianism and Utilitarianism Ethical values such as libertarianism and utilitarianism are among the significant philosophical views that influence rights, obligations, power, and riches.
• Utilitarianism Theory: Principles and Ethical Forms This essay explores utilitarianism theory by discussing the principles and ethical forms, which have raised controversial views on the meaning of ethics and morality in society.
• The Theory of Utilitarianism: Philosophical Issues The philosophy of utilitarianism is oriented toward providing life with the least amount of suffering for most human beings.
• The Theory of the Act Utilitarianism Act utilitarianism is a theory of ethics stating that any act of a person is morally right only if it creates the greatest good for the majority.
• Utilitarianism Theory Applied to Western Democracy According to the theory of utilitarianism, there are ethical norms that must be followed. As a result, they overlook the other virtues that favor the few.
• Utilitarianism and PR During the Pandemic The principle of utilitarianism in the PR sphere contradicts the modern ethical paradigm because it cannot fully provide the ability to make decisions.
• Utilitarianism and the Civil War The civil war in America can be justified by utilitarianism since the moral reform of slavery was central to the conflict.
• Handling Ethically Challenging Situations: Utilitarianism and Deontology The paper aims to study approaches to handling different ethically challenging situations from the utilitarianism and the deontological perspective.
• Comparing Two Ethical Approaches: Utilitarianism and Social Contract Ethics Ethical norms regulate the relationship between people in society, and this paper aims to analyze the examples of utilitarianism and social contract ethics in action.
• Kant’s Morality and Utilitarianism Morality is impossible without freedom, since if a person’s actions are determined by the will of God or the laws of nature, then one cannot speak of morality or morality.
• Utilitarianism vs. Deontology in Case of Betrayal Ethics often asks questions of choice. In the case the ethical dilemma of Utilitarianism vs. Deontology appears.
• Immoral Actions and Utilitarianism The paper discusses utilitarianism. It is one of the directions in ethics, the leading position of which is the usefulness of actions.
• Why Practicing Utilitarianism is Important Philosophy is an integral part of every person’s worldview and outlook on life which they espouse and through which they interpret various phenomena.
• Does Utilitarianism Pose a Threat to Rights? Utilitarianism and rights can be juxtaposed, as utilitarianism denies the absolute nature of ethical rights and proclaims universal happiness as the only worthwhile goal.
• Utilitarianism and Protection of People’s Rights Among criticisms targeted at the ethical theory of utilitarianism is one that states that it fails to protect people’s rights and freedoms.
• Capital Punishment form Utilitarianism Perspective The admittance of capital punishment presents a controversial question these days, and multiple opinions are expressed on this topic.
• Virtues, Utilitarianism, and Deontological Ethics In the paper, different outlooks on ethics and morality will be examined on the basis of virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological ethics.
• Different Aspects of Utilitarianism This paper determines utilitarianism that refers to a theory, which teaches that the course of any action should be that which ensures pleasure.
• The Main Risks of the Utilitarianism The Utilitarianism can be defined as the idea that maximizes or minimizes the preferences of utility. John Stuart Mill is a proponent of this theoryu
• Utilitarianism as a Science of Society Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based on the idea that human actions should bring the best possible consequences.
• Utilitarianism in the Ebola Controversy of 2014 This essay applies the principles of utilitarianism to the Ebola controversy of 2014 to evaluate their practicability.
• Utilitarianism: Moral Ideals and Practical Ethics Every person regularly has to make choices of the moral character. While the law clearly defines, what is right or wrong, life does not seem to be that uniform.
• Utilitarianism Theory and Its Subtypes In general, utilitarianism is a theory in ethics that claims that the best actions are the ones that provide maximum utility.
• Utilitarianism and Its Favorable Features The main distinctive feature of utilitarianism is its attempt to classify numerous acts, happiness and provide a credible rationale for this classification.
• Utilitarianism: John Stuart Mill’s Philosophical Views Utilitarianism is about actions that make individuals happy. The paper studies notions of the greatest happiness, and explains why general happiness is desirable.
• Utilitarianism vs. Cultural and Ethical Relativism
• Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics
• The Merits and Draw Backs of Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and the Case for Euthanasia
• Qualitative and Quantitative Pleasures Come Out of Utilitarianism
• Discrimination and Affirmative Action and Their Connection to Utilitarianism and Deontological Concerns
• Utilitarianism: For the Greater Good
• Utilitarianism: Ethics and Contemporary Organizational Communication
• Climate Policy Under Sustainable Discounted Utilitarianism
• Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics
• Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons
• Understanding the Concept Behind the Contemporary Utilitarianism Theory
• Difference Between Rule and Act Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism, Invariance Principles and the von Neumann-Morgenstern Hypothesis
• The Mere Addition Paradox, Parity and Critical-Level Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and the Role of Utility in Adam Smith
• The Social and Ethical Movement of Utilitarianism
• Rational Egoism vs. Utilitarianism
• Act Utilitarianism and Its Moral Theory
• Utilitarianism, Voting and the Redistribution of Income
• Climate Change Economics and Discounted Utilitarianism
• The Main Differences Between Act and Rule in Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and Biomedical Ethics
• Utilitarianism and Moral Justice
• The Link Between Utilitarianism and Democracy
• Utilitarianism and Social Contract Theory
• John Gay and the Birth of Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism: Justice, Happiness, and Morality
• The Golden Rule, Utilitarianism, and the Deontological
• Utilitarianism and Aristotelian Virtue
• Utilitarianism and Retributivism Views of Capital Punishment
• Pro-Utilitarianism and Ethical Decision-Making
• Utilitarianism With Prior Heterogeneity
• Problems and Prospects for Utilitarianism
• Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism
• Wealth and Population Growth Under Dynamic Average Utilitarianism
• Health Care and Utilitarianism
• Act Utilitarianism and Justice
• Utilitarianism and Utilitarian Theorists
• Utilitarianism and Altruistic Acts
• Government Surveillance From Perspective of Utilitarianism
• Arguments Against Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism: The Conceptual Principle of Morality
• John Stuart Mill Defending Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism Deontology Absolutist Duty Based Ethica System and Moderate
• Social Justice, Utilitarianism, and Indigenous Australians
• Utilitarianism: The Survival Lottery
• Bernard Williams and Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and Morality According to John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant
• Difference Between Aristotelian Ethics and Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism Without Individual Utilities
• Helvétius and the Problems of Utilitarianism
• Rule Deontological Ethics vs. Rule Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and Business Ethics
• Hard Times and Utilitarianism
• Utilitarianism and Social Corporate Responsibility
• Utilitarianism, Egalitarianism, and the Timing Effect in Social Choice Problems
• Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethical Theories in Business
• Utilitarianism and the Objection of Individual Rights Philosophy
• Ethical Theory, Utilitarianism and Kant’s Theory
• Does Utilitarianism Violate Human Rights?
• What Is the Difference Between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism?
• How Does Utilitarianism Judge an Action if It Is Morally Right or Wrong?
• Why Do People Reject Utilitarianism?
• Is Utilitarianism a Good Ethical Theory?
• How Does Utilitarianism Judge What Is Right or Wrong in Each Case?
• What Is Utilitarianism Approach in Ethics?
• Does Utilitarianism Provide a Helpful Method of Moral Decision Making?
• What Is the Relation Between Suffering and Happiness in Utilitarianism?
• How Does Peter Singer Use Utilitarianism?
• Does Rule Utilitarianism Collapse Act Utilitarianism?
• What Are the Disadvantages of Utilitarianism?
• How Does Utilitarianism Affect Healthcare Decision Making?
• Can We Apply Utilitarianism in Our Daily Lives?
• Why Is Jeremy Bentham Considered the Father of Utilitarianism?
• Does Utilitarianism Fail to Preserve Human Rights?
• How Successful Was J.S. Mill in Overcoming the Problems Associated With Bentham’s Utilitarianism?
• What Is the Justice Objection to Utilitarianism?
• Does Utilitarianism Have Good or Bad Effects on Business?
• Is Democracy Based on Utilitarianism?
• What Does John Stuart Mill Say About Utilitarianism?
• How Is Utilitarianism Applied in Modern Times?
• Does Utilitarianism Promote Immoral Behavior?
• What Is the Difference Between Utilitarianism and Deontology?
• How Does Utilitarianism Differ From Egoism?
• Does Rule-Utilitarianism Solve the Problems Faced by Act-Utilitarianism?
• What Is the Difference Between Bentham and Mill’s Version of Utilitarianism?
• How Does Utilitarianism Define Morality?
• Why Does Utilitarianism Disagree With Corporate Social Responsibility?
• What Does Utilitarianism Mean in the Industrial Revolution?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, March 1). 145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/

"145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 1 Mar. 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics'. 1 March.

1. StudyCorgi . "145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "145 Utilitarianism Essay Topics." March 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/utilitarianism-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Utilitarianism were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 9, 2024 .

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

100 Utilitarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that focuses on the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. It is a consequentialist theory that evaluates actions based on their outcomes and the overall well-being of society. If you are studying utilitarianism or writing an essay on the topic, here are 100 utilitarianism essay topic ideas and examples to help you get started.

• The principles of utilitarianism and how they differ from other ethical theories.
• How utilitarianism can be applied to real-life ethical dilemmas.
• The strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism as a moral theory.
• Utilitarianism and its implications for social justice and equality.
• The role of empathy in utilitarian decision-making.
• Utilitarianism and its relationship to consequentialism.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of climate change.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of animal rights.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of global poverty.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of war and peace.
• The role of pleasure and pain in utilitarian ethics.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of healthcare allocation.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of genetic engineering.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of artificial intelligence.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of criminal justice.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of business decision-making.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of environmental conservation.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of education policy.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of immigration policy.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of drug legalization.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of reproductive rights.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of assisted suicide.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of capital punishment.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of animal testing.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of censorship.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of privacy rights.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of whistleblowing.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of corporate social responsibility.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of social media.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of government surveillance.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of data privacy.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of healthcare reform.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of gun control.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of affirmative action.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of income inequality.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of political corruption.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of campaign finance.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of voting rights.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of foreign aid.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of humanitarian intervention.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child labor.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of sweatshops.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of fair trade.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of factory farming.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of food waste.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of fast fashion.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of waste management.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of renewable energy.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of urban planning.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of transportation policy.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of public health.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of mental health.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of addiction treatment.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of disability rights.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of aging populations.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of end-of-life care.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of organ donation.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of medical research.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of vaccination.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of alternative medicine.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of reproductive technology.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of genetic testing.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of artificial organs.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of cosmetic surgery.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of mental illness.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of eating disorders.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of addiction.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of suicide prevention.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of self-harm.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of body image.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of gender identity.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of sexual orientation.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of sex education.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of contraception.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of abortion.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of assisted reproduction.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of surrogacy.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of adoption.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of parenting.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child welfare.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child abuse.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child soldiers.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child marriage.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child trafficking.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child pornography.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child neglect.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child exploitation.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child prostitution.
• Utilitarianism and the ethics of child slavery.

These essay topic ideas and examples can help you explore the complexities of utilitarianism and its applications in various ethical dilemmas. Whether you are writing a research paper or participating in a debate, utilitarianism offers a rich and thought-provoking framework for analyzing moral issues and making ethical decisions.

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy pp 1–8 Cite as

Utilitarianism

• Michihiro Kaino 3  
• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 14 October 2022

90 Accesses

Introduction

Utilitarianism is one of the most influential theories of contemporary moral and political theory. It “arguably has the distinction of being the moral theory that, more than any other, shapes the discipline of moral theory and forms the background against which rival theories are imagined, refined, and articulated” (Eggleston and Miller 2014 , 1).

Utilitarianism has long been subject to fierce criticism. It is possible to identify the following objections to utilitarianism: (1) utilitarianism has an inadequate theory of value; (2) utilitarianism permits abhorrent actions, or at least actions that are wrong; (3) utilitarianism is too demanding; (4) utilitarianism fails to respect the separation of persons; and (5) utilitarianism is committed to implausible claims about the psychology of persons (Woodard 2019 , 211–16).

This entry will first discuss major figures in the history of utilitarian tradition, namely Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), John Austin (1790–1859), John Stuart...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Austin J (1995) The province of jurisprudence determined. Ed. W Rumble. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Google Scholar  

Bentham J (1962) The works of Jeremy Bentham. 11 vols. Ed. J Bowring. Russell & Russell, New York

Bentham J (1996) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Ed. JH Burns, HLA Hart. With a New Introduction by F. Rosen. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Bentham J (1998) “Legislator of the world”: writings on codification, law, and education. Ed. P Schofield, J Harris. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Bentham J (2010) Of the limits of the penal branch of jurisprudence. Ed. P. Schofield, Clarendon Press, Oxford

Bronsteen J, Buccafusco C, Masur J (2013) Happiness and the law. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Bykvist K (2014) Utilitarianism in the twentieth century. In: Eggleston B, Miller D (eds) The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 103–124

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Crisp R (2014) Sidgwick and utilitarianism in the late nineteenth century. In: Eggleston B, Miller D (eds) The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 81–102

Eggleston B, Miller D (2014) Introduction. In: Eggleston B, Miller D (eds) The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–15

Hare RM (1981) Moral thinking: its levels, method, and point. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Book   Google Scholar  

Kahneman D, Wakker P, Sarin R (1997) Back to Bentham?: Explorations of experienced utility. Q J Econ 112:375–405

Article   Google Scholar  

Kelly P (1990) Utilitarianism and distributive justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Lazari-Radek K, Singer P (2017) Utilitarianism: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Lobban M (2010) Theories of law and government. In: Cornish W, Anderson J, Cocks R, Lobban M, Polden P, Smith K (eds) The Oxford history of the Laws of England: volume XI: 1820–1914. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 72–131

Mill JS (2021) On liberty, utilitarianism and other essays: a collection of four essays. Moncreiffe Press

Postema G (2019) Utility, publicity, and law: essays on Bentham’s moral and legal philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Rosen F (1997) Utilitarianism and the punishment of innocent: the origins of a false doctrine. Utilitas 9(1):23–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800005112

Rumble E (2013) Did Austin remain an Austinian? In: Freedman M, Mindus P (eds) The legacy of John Austin’s jurisprudence. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 131–153

Sidgwick H (1907) The methods of ethics, 7th edn. The Macmillan Company, New York

Singer P (2011) Practical ethics, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Sunstein C (2008) Illusory losses. J Leg Stud 37(2):157–194

Swedloff R, Huang P (2010) Tort damages and the new science of happiness. Indiana Law J 85(2):553–595

West H (2014) Mill and utilitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century. In: Eggleston B, Miller D (eds) The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 61–80

Woodard C (2019) Taking Utilitarianism Seriously. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Law, Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan

Michihiro Kaino

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michihiro Kaino .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for International & Comparative Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, MD, USA

Mortimer Sellers

Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften, University of Salzburg, Austria, Salzburg, Austria

Stephan Kirste

Section Editor information

Graduate School of Intercultural Studies, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan

Tetsu Sakurai Ph.D

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Kaino, M. (2022). Utilitarianism. In: Sellers, M., Kirste, S. (eds) Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_999-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_999-1

Received : 06 June 2022

Accepted : 19 August 2022

Published : 14 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-6730-0

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-6730-0

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Law and Criminology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Famine, Affluence, and Morality
• Utilitarianism: Simply Explained

Arguments for Utilitarianism

Introduction: moral methodology & reflective equilibrium.

You cannot prove a moral theory. Whatever arguments you come up with, it’s always possible for someone else to reject your premises—if they are willing to accept the costs of doing so. Different theories offer different advantages. This chapter will set out some of the major considerations that plausibly count in favor of utilitarianism. A complete view also needs to consider the costs of utilitarianism (or the advantages of its competitors), which are addressed in Chapter 8: Objections to Utilitarianism . You can then reach an all-things-considered judgment as to which moral theory strikes you as overall best or most plausible.

To this end, moral philosophers typically use the methodology of reflective equilibrium . 1 This involves balancing two broad kinds of evidence as applied to moral theories:

• Intuitions about specific cases (thought experiments).
• General theoretical considerations, including the plausibility of the theory’s principles or systematic claims about what matters.

General principles can be challenged by coming up with putative counterexamples , or cases in which they give an intuitively incorrect verdict. In response to such putative counterexamples, we must weigh the force of the case-based intuition against the inherent plausibility of the principle being challenged. This could lead you to either revise the principle to accommodate your intuitions about cases or to reconsider your verdict about the specific case, if you judge the general principle to be better supported (especially if you are able to “explain away” the opposing intuition as resting on some implicit mistake or confusion).

As we will see, the arguments in favor of utilitarianism rest overwhelmingly on general theoretical considerations. Challenges to the view can take either form, but many of the most pressing objections involve thought experiments in which utilitarianism is held to yield counterintuitive verdicts.

There is no neutral, non-question-begging answer to how one ought to resolve such conflicts. 2 It takes judgment, and different people may be disposed to react in different ways depending on their philosophical temperament. As a general rule, those of a temperament that favors systematic theorizing are more likely to be drawn to utilitarianism ( and related views ), whereas those who hew close to common sense intuitions are less likely to be swayed by its theoretical virtues. Considering the arguments below may thus do more than just illuminate utilitarianism; it may also help you to discern your own philosophical temperament!

While our presentation focuses on utilitarianism, it’s worth noting that many of the arguments below could also be taken to support other forms of welfarist consequentialism (just as many of the objections to utilitarianism also apply to these related views). This chapter explores arguments for utilitarianism and closely related views over non-consequentialist approaches to ethics.

What Fundamentally Matters

Moral theories serve to specify what fundamentally matters , and utilitarianism offers a particularly compelling answer to this question.

Almost anyone would agree with utilitarianism that suffering is bad, and well-being is good. What could be more obvious? If anything matters morally, human well-being surely does. And it would be arbitrary to limit moral concern to our own species, so we should instead conclude that well-being generally is what matters. That is, we ought to want the lives of sentient beings to go as well as possible (whether that ultimately comes down to maximizing happiness , desire satisfaction , or other welfare goods ).

Could anything else be more important? Such a suggestion can seem puzzling. Consider: it is (usually) wrong to steal. 3 But that is plausibly because stealing tends to be harmful , reducing people’s well-being. 4 By contrast, most people are open to redistributive taxation, if it allows governments to provide benefits that reliably raise the overall level of well-being in society. So it’s not that individuals just have a natural right to not be interfered with no matter what. When judging institutional arrangements (such as property and tax law), we recognize that what matters is coming up with arrangements that tend to secure overall good results , and that the most important factor in what makes a result good is that it promotes well-being . 5

Such reasoning may justify viewing utilitarianism as the default starting point for moral theorizing. 6 If someone wants to claim that there is some other moral consideration that can override overall well-being (trumping the importance of saving lives, reducing suffering, and promoting flourishing), they face the challenge of explaining how that could possibly be so. Many common moral rules (like those that prohibit theft, lying, or breaking promises), while not explicitly utilitarian in content, nonetheless have a clear utilitarian rationale. If they did not generally promote well-being—but instead actively harmed people—it’s hard to see what reason we would have to still want people to follow them. To follow and enforce harmful moral rules (such as rules prohibiting same-sex relationships) would seem like a kind of “rule worship”, and not truly ethical at all. 7 Since the only moral rules that seem plausible are those that tend to promote well-being, that’s some reason to think that moral rules are, as utilitarianism suggests, purely instrumental to promoting well-being.

Similar judgments apply to hypothetical cases in which you somehow know for sure that a typically reliable rule is, in this particular instance, counterproductive. In the extreme case, we all recognize that you ought to lie or break a promise if lives are on the line. In practice, of course, the best way to achieve good results over the long run is to respect commonsense moral rules and virtues while seeking opportunities to help others. (It’s important not to mistake the hypothetical verdicts utilitarianism offers in stylized thought experiments with the practical guidance it offers in real life .) The key point is just that utilitarianism offers a seemingly unbeatable answer to the question of what fundamentally matters : protecting and promoting the interests of all sentient beings to make the world as good as it can be.

The Veil of Ignorance

Humans are masters of self-deception and motivated reasoning. If something benefits us personally, it’s all too easy to convince ourselves that it must be okay. We are also more easily swayed by the interests of more salient or sympathetic individuals (favoring puppies over pigs, for example). To correct for such biases, it can be helpful to force impartiality by imagining that you are looking down on the world from behind a “ veil of ignorance ”. This veil reveals the facts about each individual’s circumstances in society—their income, happiness level, preferences, etc.—and the effects that each choice would have on each person, while hiding from you the knowledge of which of these individuals you are . 8 To more fairly determine what ideally ought to be done , we may ask what everyone would have most personal reason to prefer from behind this veil of ignorance. If you’re equally likely to end up being anyone in the world, it would seem prudent to maximize overall well-being, just as utilitarianism prescribes. 9

It’s an interesting question how much weight we should give to the verdicts that would be chosen, on self-interested grounds, from behind the veil. The veil thought experiment serves to highlight how utilitarianism gives equal weight to everyone’s interests, in unbiased fashion. That is, utilitarianism is just what we get when we are beneficent to all : extending to everyone the kind of careful concern that prudent people have for their own interests. 10 But it may seem question-begging to those who reject welfarism , and so deny that interests are all that matter. For example, the veil thought experiment clearly doesn’t speak to the question of whether non-sentient life or natural beauty has intrinsic value. It’s restricted to that sub-domain of morality that concerns what we owe to each other , where this includes just those individuals over whom our veil-induced uncertainty about our identity extends: presently existing sentient beings, perhaps. 11 Accordingly, any verdicts reached on the basis of the veil of ignorance will still need to be weighed against what we might yet owe to any excluded others (such as future generations, or non-welfarist values).

Still, in many contexts other factors will not be relevant, and the question of what we morally ought to do will reduce to the question of how we should treat each other. Many of the deepest disagreements between utilitarians and their critics concern precisely this question. And the veil of ignorance seems relevant here. The fact that some action is what everyone affected would personally prefer from behind the veil of ignorance seems to undermine critics’ claims that any individual has been mistreated by, or has grounds to complain about, that action.

Ex Ante Pareto

A Pareto improvement is better for some people, and worse for none. When outcomes are uncertain, we may instead assess the prospect associated with an action—the range of possible outcomes, weighted by their probabilities. A prospect can be assessed as better for you when it offers you greater well-being in expectation , or ex ante . 12 Putting these concepts together, we may formulate the following principle:

Ex ante Pareto: in a choice between two prospects, one is morally preferable to another if it offers a better prospect for some individuals and a worse prospect for none.

This bridge between personal value (or well-being) and moral assessment is further developed in economist John Harsanyi’s aggregation theorem. 13 But the underlying idea, that reasonable beneficence requires us to wish well to all , and prefer prospects that are in everyone’s ex ante interests, has also been defended and developed in more intuitive terms by philosophers. 14

A powerful objection to most non-utilitarian views is that they sometimes violate ex ante Pareto, such as when choosing policies from behind the veil of ignorance. Many rival views imply, absurdly, that prospect Y could be morally preferable to prospect X , even when Y is worse in expectation for everyone involved.

Caspar Hare illustrates the point with a Trolley case in which all six possible victims are stuffed inside suitcases: one is atop a footbridge, five are on the tracks below, and a train will hit and kill the five unless you topple the one on the footbridge (in which case the train will instead kill this one and then stop before reaching the others). 15 As the suitcases have recently been shuffled, nobody knows which position they are in. So, from each victim’s perspective, their prospects are best if you topple the one suitcase off the footbridge, increasing their chances of survival from 1/6 to 5/6. Given that this is in everyone’s ex ante interests, it’s deeply puzzling to think that it would be morally preferable to override this unanimous preference, shared by everyone involved, and instead let five of the six die; yet that is the implication of most non-utilitarian views. 16

Expanding the Moral Circle

When we look back on past moral atrocities—like slavery or denying women equal rights—we recognize that they were often sanctioned by the dominant societal norms at the time. The perpetrators of these atrocities were grievously wrong to exclude their victims from their “circle” of moral concern. 17 That is, they were wrong to be indifferent towards (or even delight in) their victims’ suffering. But such exclusion seemed normal to people at the time. So we should question whether we might likewise be blindly accepting of some practices that future generations will see as evil but that seem “normal” to us. 18 The best protection against making such an error ourselves would be to deliberately expand our moral concern outward, to include all sentient beings—anyone who can suffer—and so recognize that we have strong moral reasons to reduce suffering and promote well-being wherever we can, no matter who it is that is experiencing it.

While this conclusion is not yet all the way to full-blown utilitarianism, since it’s compatible with, for example, holding that there are side-constraints limiting one’s pursuit of the good, it is likely sufficient to secure agreement with the most important practical implications of utilitarianism (stemming from cosmopolitanism , anti-speciesism , and longtermism ).

The Poverty of the Alternatives

We’ve seen that there is a strong presumptive case in favor of utilitarianism. If no competing view can be shown to be superior, then utilitarianism has a strong claim to be the “default” moral theory. In fact, one of the strongest considerations in favor of utilitarianism (and related consequentialist views) is the deficiencies of the alternatives. Deontological (or rule-based) theories, in particular, seem to rest on questionable foundations. 19

Deontological theories are explicitly non-consequentialist : instead of morally assessing actions by evaluating their consequences, these theories tend to take certain types of action (such as killing an innocent person) to be intrinsically wrong. 20 There are reasons to be dubious of this approach to ethics, however.

The Paradox of Deontology

Deontologists hold that there is a constraint against killing: that it’s wrong to kill an innocent person even if this would save five other innocent people from being killed. This verdict can seem puzzling on its face. 21 After all, given how terrible killing is, should we not want there to be less of it? Rational choice in general tends to be goal-directed, a conception which fits poorly with deontic constraints. 22 A deontologist might claim that their goal is simply to avoid violating moral constraints themselves , which they can best achieve by not killing anyone, even if that results in more individuals being killed. While this explanation can render deontological verdicts coherent, it does so at the cost of making them seem awfully narcissistic, as though the deontologist’s central concern was just to maintain their own moral purity or “clean hands”.

Deontologists might push back against this characterization by instead insisting that moral action need not be goal-directed at all. 23 Rather than only seeking to promote value (or minimize harm), they claim that moral agents may sometimes be called upon to respect another’s value (by not harming them, even as a means to preventing greater harm to others), which would seem an appropriately outwardly-directed, non-narcissistic motivation.

The challenge remains that such a proposal makes moral norms puzzlingly divergent from other kinds of practical norms. If morality sometimes calls for respecting value rather than promoting it, why is the same not true of prudence? (Given that pain is bad for you, for example, it would not seem prudent to refuse a painful operation now if the refusal commits you to five comparably painful operations in future.) Deontologists may offer various answers to this question, but insofar as we are inclined to think, pre-theoretically, that ethics ought to be continuous with other forms of rational choice, that gives us some reason to prefer consequentialist accounts.

Deontologists also face a tricky question about where to draw the line. Is it at least okay to kill one person to prevent a hundred killings? Or a million? Absolutists never permit killing, no matter the stakes. But such a view seems too extreme for many. Moderate deontologists allow that sufficiently high stakes can justify violations. But how high? Any answer they offer is apt to seem arbitrary and unprincipled. Between the principled options of consequentialism or absolutism, many will find consequentialism to be the more plausible of the two.

The Hope Objection

Impartial observers should want and hope for the best outcome. Non-consequentialists claim that nonetheless it’s sometimes wrong to bring about the best outcome. Putting the two claims together yields the striking result that you should sometimes hope that others act wrongly.

Suppose it would be wrong for some stranger—call him Jack—to kill one innocent person to prevent five other (morally comparable) killings. Non-consequentialists may claim that Jack has a special responsibility to ensure that he does not kill anyone, even if this results in more killings by others. But you are not Jack. From your perspective as an impartial observer, Jack’s killing one innocent person is no more or less intrinsically bad than any of the five other killings that would thereby be prevented. You have most reason to hope that there is only one killing rather than five. So you have reason to hope that Jack acts “wrongly” (killing one to save five). But that seems odd.

More than merely being odd, this might even be taken to undermine the claim that deontic constraints matter , or are genuinely important to abide by. After all, to be important just is to be worth caring about. For example, we should care if others are harmed, which validates the claim that others’ interests are morally important. But if we should not care more about Jack’s abiding by the moral constraint against killing than we should about his saving five lives, that would seem to suggest that the constraint against killing is not in fact more morally important than saving five lives.

Finally, since our moral obligations ought to track what is genuinely morally important, if deontic constraints are not in fact important then we cannot be obligated to abide by them. 24 We cannot be obliged to prioritize deontic constraints over others’ lives, if we ought to care more about others’ lives than about deontic constraints. So deontic constraints must not accurately describe our obligations after all. Jack really ought to do whatever would do the most good overall, and so should we.

Skepticism About the Distinction Between Doing and Allowing

You might wonder: if respect for others requires not harming them (even to help others more), why does it not equally require not allowing them to be harmed? Deontological moral theories place great weight on distinctions such as those between doing and allowing harm , or killing and letting die, or intended versus merely foreseen harms. But why should these be treated so differently? If a victim ends up equally dead either way, whether they were killed or “merely” allowed to die would not seem to make much difference to them—surely what matters to them is just their death. Consequentialism accordingly denies any fundamental significance to these distinctions. 25

Indeed, it’s far from clear that there is any robust distinction between “doing” and “allowing”. Sometimes you might “do” something by remaining perfectly still. 26 Also, when a doctor unplugs a terminal patient from life support machines, this is typically thought of as “letting die”; but if a mafioso, worried about an informant’s potentially incriminating testimony, snuck in to the hospital and unplugged the informant’s life support, we are more likely to judge it to constitute “killing”. 27 Bennett (1998) argues at length that there is no satisfactory, fully general distinction between doing and allowing—at least, none that would vindicate the moral significance that deontologists want to attribute to such a distinction. 28 If Bennett is right, then that might force us towards some form of consequentialism (such as utilitarianism) instead.

Status Quo Bias

Opposition to utilitarian trade-offs—that is, benefiting some at a lesser cost to others—arguably amounts to a kind of status quo bias, prioritizing the preservation of privilege over promoting well-being more generally.

Such conservatism might stem from the Just World fallacy: the mistake of assuming that the status quo is just, and that people naturally get what they deserve. Of course, reality offers no such guarantees of justice. What circumstances one is born into depends on sheer luck, including one’s endowment of physical and cognitive abilities which may pave the way for future success or failure. Thus, even later in life we never manage to fully wrest back control from the whimsies of fortune and, consequently, some people are vastly better off than others despite being no more deserving. In such cases, why should we not be willing to benefit one person at a lesser cost to privileged others? They have no special entitlement to the extra well-being that fortune has granted them. 29 Clearly, it’s good for people to be well-off, and we certainly would not want to harm anyone unnecessarily. 30 However, if we can increase overall well-being by benefiting one person at the lesser cost to another, we should not refrain from doing so merely due to a prejudice in favor of the existing distribution. 31 It’s easy to see why traditional elites would want to promote a “morality” which favors their entrenched interests. It’s less clear why others should go along with such a distorted view of what (and who) matters.

It can similarly be argued that there is no real distinction between imposing harms and withholding benefits. The only difference between the two cases concerns what we understand to be the status quo, which lacks moral significance. Suppose scenario A is better for someone than B. Then to shift from A to B would be a “harm”, while to prevent a shift from B to A would be to “withhold a benefit”. But this is merely a descriptive difference. If we deny that the historically given starting point provides a morally privileged baseline, then we must say that the cost in either case is the same, namely the difference in well-being between A and B. In principle, it should not matter where we start from. 32

Now suppose that scenario B is vastly better for someone else than A is: perhaps it will save their life, at the cost of the first person’s arm. Nobody would think it okay to kill a person just to save another’s arm (that is, to shift from B to A). So if we are to avoid status quo bias, we must similarly judge that it would be wrong to oppose the shift from A to B—that is, we should not object to saving someone’s life at the cost of another’s arm. 33 We should not care especially about preserving the privilege of whoever stood to benefit by default; such conservatism is not truly fair or just. Instead, our goal should be to bring about whatever outcome would be best overall , counting everyone equally, just as utilitarianism prescribes.

Evolutionary Debunking Arguments

Against these powerful theoretical objections, the main consideration that deontological theories have going for them is closer conformity with our intuitions about particular cases. But if these intuitions cannot be supported by independently plausible principles, that may undermine their force—or suggest that we should interpret these intuitions as good rules of thumb for practical guidance, rather than as indicating what fundamentally matters.

The force of deontological intuitions may also be undermined if it can be demonstrated that they result from an unreliable process. For example, evolutionary processes may have endowed us with an emotional bias favoring those who look, speak, and behave like ourselves; this, however, offers no justification for discriminating against those unlike ourselves. Evolution is a blind, amoral process whose only “goal” is the propagation of genes, not the promotion of well-being or moral rightness. Our moral intuitions require scrutiny, especially in scenarios very different from our evolutionary environment. If we identify a moral intuition as stemming from our evolutionary ancestry, we may decide not to give much weight to it in our moral reasoning—the practice of evolutionary debunking . 34

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer argue that views permitting partiality are especially susceptible to evolutionary debunking, whereas impartial views like utilitarianism are more likely to result from undistorted reasoning. 35 Joshua Greene offers a different psychological debunking argument. He argues that deontological judgments—for instance, in response to trolley cases —tend to stem from unreliable and inconsistent emotional responses, including our favoritism of identifiable over faceless victims and our aversion to harming someone up close rather than from afar. By contrast, utilitarian judgments involve the more deliberate application of widely respected moral principles. 36

Such debunking arguments raise worries about whether they “prove too much”: after all, the foundational moral judgment that pain is bad would itself seem emotionally-laden and susceptible to evolutionary explanation—physically vulnerable creatures would have powerful evolutionary reasons to want to avoid pain whether or not it was objectively bad, after all! 37

However, debunking arguments may be most applicable in cases where we feel that a principled explanation for the truth of the judgment is lacking. We do not tend to feel any such lack regarding the badness of pain—that is surely an intrinsically plausible judgment if anything is. Some intuitions may be over-determined : explicable both by evolutionary causes and by their rational merits. In such a case, we need not take the evolutionary explanation to undermine the judgment, because the judgment also results from a reliable process (namely, rationality). By contrast, deontological principles and partiality are far less self-evidently justified, and so may be considered more vulnerable to debunking. Once we have an explanation for these psychological intuitions that can explain why we would have them even if they were rationally baseless, we may be more justified in concluding that they are indeed rationally baseless.

As such, debunking objections are unlikely to change the mind of one who is drawn to the target view (or regards it as independently justified and defensible). But they may help to confirm the doubts of those who already felt there were some grounds for scepticism regarding the intrinsic merits of the target view.

Utilitarianism can be supported by several theoretical arguments, the strongest perhaps being its ability to capture what fundamentally matters . Its main competitors, by contrast, seem to rely on dubious distinctions—like “doing” vs. “allowing”—and built-in status quo bias. At least, that is how things are apt to look to one who is broadly sympathetic to a utilitarian approach. Given the flexibility inherent in reflective equilibrium, these arguments are unlikely to sway a committed opponent of the view. For those readers who find a utilitarian approach to ethics deeply unappealing, we hope that this chapter may at least help you to better understand what appeal others might see in the view.

However strong you judge the arguments in favor of utilitarianism to be, your ultimate verdict on the theory will also depend upon how well the view is able to counter the influential objections that critics have raised against it .

The next chapter discusses theories of well-being, or what counts as being good for an individual.

How to Cite This Page

Want to make the world a better place.

Learn how to put utilitarianism into practice:

Resources and Further Reading

• John Broome (1987). Utilitarianism and Expected Utility , The Journal of Philosophy 84 (8): 405–422.
• John Broome (1991). Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time . Blackwell.
• Krister Bykvist (2010). Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed . Continuum.
• Robert Goodin (1995). Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy . Cambridge University Press.
• Johan Gustafsson (2021). Utilitarianism without Moral Aggregation . Canadian Journal of Philosophy 51 (4): 256-269.
• Caspar Hare (2016). Should We Wish Well to All? , Philosophical Review 125(4): 451–472.
• John C. Harsanyi (1955). Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility , The Journal of Political Economy 63 (4): 309–321.
• John C. Harsanyi (1977). Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations . Cambridge University Press.
• Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek & Peter Singer (2017). Chapter 2: Justifications, in Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford University Press.
• J.J.C. Smart (1973). An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics, in J.J.C. Smart & Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against . Cambridge University Press.

Daniels, N. (2020). Reflective Equilibrium . The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Edward N. Zalta (ed.).  ↩︎

That is not to say that either answer is in fact equally good or correct, but just that you should expect it to be difficult to persuade those who respond to the conflicts in a different way than you do.  ↩︎

Of course, there may be exceptional circumstances in which stealing is overall beneficial and hence justified, for instance when stealing a loaf of bread is required to save a starving person’s life.  ↩︎

Here it is important to consider the indirect costs of reducing social trust, in addition to the obvious direct costs to the victim.  ↩︎

Compare our defense of aggregationism in Chapter 2 , showing how, in practice, almost everyone endorses allowing sufficiently many small benefits to outweigh great costs to a few: “For example, allowing cars to drive fast on roads increases the number of people who die in accidents. Placing exceedingly low speed limits would save lives at the cost of inconveniencing many drivers. Most people demonstrate an implicit commitment to aggregationism when they judge it worse to impose these many inconveniences for the sake of saving a few lives.”

See also Goodin, R. (1995). Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy . Cambridge University Press.  ↩︎

Peter Singer argues, relatedly, that “we very swiftly arrive at an initially preference utilitarian position once we apply the universal aspect of ethics to simple, pre-ethical decision making.” (p.14)

Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics , 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press.  ↩︎

Smart, J.J.C. (1956). Extreme and restricted utilitarianism. The Philosophical Quarterly , 6(25): 344–354.  ↩︎

The “veil of ignorance” thought experiment was originally developed by Vickrey and Harsanyi, though nowadays it is more often associated with John Rawls, who coined the term and tweaked the thought experiment to arrive at different conclusions. Specifically, Rawls appealed to a version in which you are additionally ignorant of the relative probabilities of ending up in various positions, to block the utilitarian implications and argue instead for a “maximin” position that gives lexical priority to raising the well-being of the worst-off.

Vickrey, W. (1945). Measuring Marginal Utility by Reactions to Risk. Econometrica , 13(4): 329.

Harsanyi, J.C. (1953). Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking. Journal of Political Economy , 61(5): 434–435.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice . Belknap Press.  ↩︎

This assumes a fixed-population setting. Variable population ethics is covered in Chapter 5 .

For related formal proofs, see: Harsanyi, J. (1978). Bayesian Decision Theory and Utilitarian Ethics . The American Economic Review , 68(2): 223–228.

For discussion of Harsanyi’s proof, see Greaves, H. (2017). A Reconsideration of the Harsanyi–Sen–Weymark Debate on Utilitarianism . Utilitas , 29(2): 175–213.  ↩︎

Caspar Hare (2016). Should We Wish Well to All? Philosophical Review , 125(4): 451–472.  ↩︎

It’s notoriously unclear how to apply the veil of ignorance to “different number” cases in population ethics , for example. If the agent behind the veil is guaranteed to exist, it would naturally suggest the average view . If they might be a merely possible person, and so have some incentive to want more (happy) lives to get to exist, it would instead suggest the total view .  ↩︎

Ex post interests, by contrast, concern the actual outcomes that result. Interestingly, theories may combine ex post welfare evaluations with a broader “expectational” element. For example, ex post prioritarianism assigns extra social value to avoiding bad outcomes (rather than bad prospects ) for the worst off individuals, but can still assess prospects by their expected social value .  ↩︎

Harsanyi (1955, pp. 312–314; 1977, pp. 64–68), as reinterpreted by John Broome (1987, pp. 410–411; 1991, pp. 165, 202–209). For further explanation, keep an eye out for our forthcoming guest essay on Formal Arguments for Utilitarianism, by Johan E. Gustafsson & Kacper Kowalczyk, to appear at <www.utilitarianism.net/guest-essays/>.  ↩︎

For example: Hare, C. (2016). Should We Wish Well to All? Philosophical Review , 125(4): 451–472.  ↩︎

Hare, C. (2016). Should We Wish Well to All? Philosophical Review , 125(4): 451–472, pp. 454–455.  ↩︎

Hare (2016) discusses some philosophers’ grounds for skepticism about the moral significance of ex ante justifiability to all , and supports the principle with further arguments from presumed consent , dirty hands , and composition .  ↩︎

Singer, P. (2011). The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress . Princeton University Press.  ↩︎

Cf. Williams, E. G. (2015). The Possibility of an Ongoing Moral Catastrophe . Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18(5): 971–982.  ↩︎

The following arguments should also apply against virtue ethics approaches, if they yield non-consequentialist verdicts about what acts should be done.  ↩︎

Absolutist deontologists hold such judgments to apply no matter the consequences . Moderate deontologists instead take the identified actions to be presumptively wrong, and not easily outweighed, but allow that this may be outweighed if a sufficient amount of value was on the line. So, for example, a moderate deontologist might allow that it’s permissible to lie to save someone’s life, or to kill one innocent person to save a million.  ↩︎

Samuel Scheffler noted that “either way, someone loses: some inviolable person is violated. Why isn’t it at least permissible to prevent the violation of five people by violating one?” (p. 88)

Scheffler, S. (1994). The Rejection of Consequentialism , revised edition. Oxford University Press.  ↩︎

Scheffler, S. (1985). Agent-Centred Restrictions, Rationality, and the Virtues . Mind , 94(375): 409–19.  ↩︎

See, e.g., Chappell, T. (2011). Intuition, System, and the “Paradox” of Deontology . In Jost, L. & Wuerth, J. (eds.), Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue Ethics . Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–88.  ↩︎

It’s open to the deontologist to insist that it should be more important to Jack , even if not to anyone else. But this violates the appealing idea that the moral point of view is impartial, yielding verdicts that reasonable observers (and not just the agent themselves) could agree on.  ↩︎

Though it remains open to consequentialists to accommodate nearby intuitions by noting ways in which these distinctions sometimes correlate with other features that may be of moral interest. For example, someone who goes out of their way to cause harm is likely to pose a greater threat to others than someone who merely allows harms to occur that they could prevent.  ↩︎

For example, you might gaslight your spouse by remaining hidden in camouflage, when they could have sworn that you were just in the room with them. Or, as Foot (1978, 26) suggests, “An actor who fails to turn up for a performance will generally spoil it rather than allow it to be spoiled”.

Foot, P. (1978). The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect. In Virtues and Vices and Other Essays . University of California Press.  ↩︎

Beauchamp, T. (2020). Justifying Physician-Assisted Deaths. In LaFollette, H. (ed.), Ethics in Practice: An Anthology (5th ed.), pp. 78–85.  ↩︎

Bennett, J. (1998). The Act Itself . Oxford University Press.  ↩︎

In a similar vein, Derek Parfit wrote that “Some of us ask how much of our wealth we rich people ought to give to these poorest people. But that question wrongly assumes that our wealth is ours to give. This wealth is legally ours. But these poorest people have much stronger moral claims to some of this wealth. We ought to transfer to these people… at least ten per cent of what we earn”.

Parfit, D. (2017). On What Matters, Volume Three . Oxford University Press, pp. 436–37.  ↩︎

On the topic of sacrifice, John Stuart Mill wrote that “The utilitarian morality does recognise in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted.”

Mill, J. S. (1863). Chapter 2: What Utilitarianism Is , Utilitarianism .  ↩︎

However, this does not mean that utilitarianism will strive for perfect equality in material outcomes or even well-being. Joshua Greene notes that “a world in which everyone gets the same outcome no matter what they do is an idle world in which people have little incentive to do anything. Thus, the way to maximize happiness is not to decree that everyone gets to be equally happy, but to encourage people to behave in ways that maximize happiness. When we measure our moral success, we count everyone’s happiness equally, but achieving success almost certainly involves inequality of both material wealth and happiness. Such inequality is not ideal, but it’s justified on the grounds that, without it, things would be worse overall.

Greene, J. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them . Penguin Press, p. 163. See also: The Equality Objection to Utilitarianism .  ↩︎

In practice, the psychological phenomenon of loss aversion means that someone may feel more upset by what they perceive as a “loss” rather than a mere “failure to benefit”. Such negative feelings may further reduce their well-being, turning the judgment that “loss is worse” into something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. But this depends on contingent psychological phenomena generating extra harms; it’s not that the loss is in itself worse.  ↩︎

Bostrom, N. & Ord, T. (2006). The Reversal Test: Eliminating Status Quo Bias in Applied Ethics . Ethics , 116(4): 656–679.  ↩︎

There are other types of debunking arguments not grounded in evolution. Consider that in most Western societies Christianity was the dominant religion for over one thousand years, which explains why moral intuitions grounded in Christian morality are still widespread. For instance, many devout Christians have strong moral intuitions about sexual intercourse, which non-Christians do not typically share, such as the intuition that it’s wrong to have sex before marriage or that is wrong for two men to have sex. The discourse among academics in moral philosophy generally disregards such religiously-contingent moral intuitions. Many philosophers, including most utilitarians, would therefore not give much weight to the Christian’s intuitions about sexual intercourse.  ↩︎

de Lazari-Radek, K. & Singer, P. (2012). The Objectivity of Ethics and the Unity of Practical Reason . Ethics, 123(1): 9–31.  ↩︎

Greene, J. (2007). The secret joke of Kant’s soul . In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (ed.), Moral Psychology, Vol. 3 . MIT Press.  ↩︎

Though some utilitarians, including those cited above, try to argue that utilitarian verdicts are less susceptible to debunking. For another example, see Neil Sinhababu’s guest essay offering an introspective argument for hedonism: https://www.utilitarianism.net/guest-essays/naturalistic-arguments-for-ethical-hedonism/ .  ↩︎

Utilitarianism

26 pages • 52 minutes read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapters 1-2

Chapters 3-4

Key Figures

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

“Utilitarianism” is a philosophical essay written by English philosopher John Stuart Mill in 1863. In this long essay, Mill seeks to provide a definition for the moral philosophy of utilitarianism , which was originally developed by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham . As a philosophy, utilitarianism argues that a desire for happiness lies at the heart of all moral considerations. Mill’s essay expanded on the philosophical ideas initially proposed by Bentham and specifically sought to respond to common criticisms or misunderstandings of utilitarianism. This guide follows the version of “Utilitarianism” collected in the 2015 edition of the Oxford University Press anthology of Mill’s writings, titled On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Other Essays . The essay “Utilitarianism” is divided into five chapters.

In the first chapter, Mill describes some of the general questions that concern any moral philosopher. Mill believes that the field of moral philosophy has not significantly developed since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers; the general and first principles upon which morality is based remain unknown. Most moral philosophers prior to Mill belong to two different schools of thought concerning ethics, intuitive ethics and inductive ethics; these schools of thought differ on the question of whether morality is inherent in human nature or learned through experience. While both forms of ethics agree that morality must be based upon foundational principles, neither have succeeded in outlining what those principles are. “Utilitarianism” fills this gap by arguing that all moral questions are based upon what Mill calls the Utility Principle , which holds that morality is based on the desire to increase happiness (or pleasure) and avoid pain. 

Get access to this full Study Guide and much more!

• 7,500+ In-Depth Study Guides
• 4,900+ Quick-Read Plot Summaries
• Downloadable PDFs

Chapter 2 focuses on the meaning of utilitarianism and the Utility Principle. Throughout the chapter, Mill responds to a series of common misconceptions about utilitarianism. Mill explains that utilitarianism seeks to increase pleasure in people’s lives, not avoid or prevent it. Mill also clarifies the definition of pleasure; he does not mean pleasure in the form of satisfying animalistic desires, but the higher forms of pleasure that only humans are able to appreciate. Mill also explains that the Utility Principle is concerned less with actions that improve individual happiness than with actions that improve the general happiness of society as a whole.

In Chapter 3, Mill describes the sanction by which society is obligated to follow the ideas of utilitarianism. Mill argues that the sanction for any moral philosophy, including utilitarianism, is an individual’s conscience, which creates a feeling of pain or remorse whenever an individual commits actions that break the moral code. Utilitarianism has a special sanction, however, due to its connection to humanity’s natural inclination to exist as social beings. Because humans have an inherent desire to be a part of a community, they are inclined to follow the code of utilitarianism as their social desires lead them to seek the betterment of society as a whole.

The SuperSummary difference

• 8x more resources than SparkNotes and CliffsNotes combined
• Study Guides you won ' t find anywhere else
• 100+ new titles every month

Chapter 4 contains Mill’s outline of what he believes is the proof of utilitarianism. Mill argues that it is impossible to prove that happiness is desirable beyond the fact that experience shows that people desire to increase their happiness. For Mill, this fact demonstrates that the goal of an individual’s actions is that individual’s own happiness or pleasure, which, he argues, proves the Utility Principle.

The final chapter of “Utilitarianism” examines the relationship between utility and justice. Mill notes that many people believe that a desire for justice is the basis for morality, rather than a desire for happiness or pleasure. Throughout this chapter, Mill attempts to prove that the desire for justice is a subcategory of the desire for happiness. Mill investigates the ideal of justice, which, he argues, is a feeling connected to people’s legal rights; the notion of justice includes laws that do exist and laws that should exist. Mill contends that justice is a feeling based in an individual’s animal instinct for self-preservation, and this instinct applies to entire communities through humankind’s sympathetic nature. As such, Mill argues that justice is analogous to the utility principle, as it is ultimately concerned with the happiness and good of society as a whole. 

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Related Titles

By John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill

The Subjection of Women

Featured Collections

Essays & Speeches

View Collection

Philosophy, Logic, & Ethics

Utilitarian Ethics in Philosophy Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Ethics is an important aspect of humanity that distinguishes people from animals. However, an analysis of multiple issues related to the subject of ethics may raise uncertainty and confusion. Deciding what is right or wrong is not clear-cut. Thus, several philosophers developed several frameworks from which one could understand the subject of ethics.

As a result, the principle of utilitarianism falls among the most important frameworks in which one can apply ethics. Utilitarianism is both a practical and a logical approach of viewing the subject of ethics. This paper defends the principle of utilitarianism as an important perspective to use when applying ethics.

A utilitarian views a right or a wrong action from a practical threshold, which holds that if some acts bring benefits to most people, they may be considered as the right ones, while if some deeds result in negative outcomes to the majority, they are meant to be wrong (Hammond 38).

One can clearly see that utilitarian ethic is both practical and simple in use, when compared to other types of ethics (Hammond 40). Other types of ethics, such as virtual ethics, are obviously ambiguous in several respects (Hammond 43). For instance, people hold different and sometimes opposite views on ethics (Hammond 48).

Consider, for example, the issue of euthanasia. While some people think that it is absolutely wrong to take away somebody’s life, others believe in the opposite calling it “good death”. Since it gives a person an opportunity to determine according to one’s views if such an action can bring good to people, utilitarian ethics eliminates ambiguities that originate with other types of ethics (Hammond 35).

Another important argument for the application of utilitarian ethics lies in its capacity to avoid a need to determine an absolutely right or wrong principle, which is often unattainable in fact (Hammond 45).

The vanity of attempting to classify an action as right or wrong is evident (Hammond 31). Governing laws in several countries recognize the room for giving exceptions to some offences depending on circumstances. For example, some countries that do not allow abortions make exceptions for the unique circumstances, when the unborn child can kill the mother; due to such a threat, a doctor can do abortion.

Likewise, soldiers should apply utilitarian ethics in the battlefield; otherwise they will face the guilt of murder of another person (Hammond 50). The examples above are just a few among a database of utilitarian moral principles that shape laws and guide the general life of the society (Hammond 42). In some cases, everyone should adopt utilitarian ethics in his/her daily activities.

Besides, utilitarian ethics gives a clear framework for deciding on an important choice when faced with a dilemma. Such a case is especially true for leaders, or those in positions that lay heavy responsibilities with them. Consider an army commander who is to make a decision if it is necessary to use an annihilating force against an enemy that poses a potential threat to the country (Hammond 50).

When such a commander applies utilitarian ethics to evaluate his/her decision, he/she will need to consider if utter annihilation of the enemy force will lead to more benefits for his/her nation and the world; thus, a person will have a clear platform on which the one can base his/her moral actions (Hammond 56).

Importantly, utilitarian ethics brings a sense of responsibility to people and can build an honest personality as well. It allows to judge morals from a perspective that does not consider the benefits that such an action will bring to people. A person who applies deontological or virtual ethics may practice a type of morality that has an origin in one’s childhood or environmental background.

Often, such an influence does not take into account the dynamics the one is facing. Such a direction can limit the choices and make individual practice right morals. Since a utilitarian considers the issue at hand, he/she bases his/her decisions on his/her sense of responsibility and honesty, while applying his/her ethics.

Some philosophers point out an unclear line between happiness and sadness as an inherent weakness in utilitarian ethics (Hammond 41). Since pleasure depends on multiple factors, which include culture, beliefs and psychology, it is sometimes difficult to decide whether an action will benefit most people. Here, the utilitarian perspective stands that while people may disagree on several components of advantage or disadvantage, it is clear that some actions may bring a degree of general comfort and enhance well-being of most people.

For example, an action that will reduce poverty within the society is generally acceptable as a right action in the perspective of utilitarianism. However, as it clear from western societies, reducing poverty, although it eliminates some form of suffering, does not itself guarantee a construction of happy society. The society then concentrates on the other needs, which determine its overall state of satisfaction with life.

Still, one cannot blame an initiative of solving the issue of poverty for the emerging needs of a wealthy society. One should not stop to dream of a society free of violence and crime because managing such an issue can lead to more challenges (and needs) for future societies. Moreover, one cannot stop attempting to decide on an action that can potentially be advantageous to the largest segment of the population simply because the society may evolve new needs (Hammond 39).

The lack of a universal set of moral standards in utilitarian ethics may create concern for some philosophers (Hammond 57). Since moral decisions are often left at the discretion of people (or small parties) to decide what is potentially good for the major part of the community, there is a potential risk to make wrong choices. Still, it is unfair to judge utilitarianism from such a perspective since other type of ethics, such as deontological ethics, falls in a similar category.

Even a supporter of virtual ethics will admit that he/she often regrets for some moral decisions he/she has made. Similarly, when making a decision, one cannot remain absolutely certain that whatever he/she does will benefit the largest segment of the community (Hammond 47). However, since such a person makes moral decisions based on his/her own view, one cannot avoid bias and an opportunity to be wrong due to one’s limitations and lack of knowledge.

The issue of ethics needs an evaluation that considers crucial dynamics in our society. Here, the conflicting ethical values within communities and the unique nature of situations that require individuals to make moral decisions are the specific factors that one needs to consider when reviewing ethics.

Besides, varying cultural, religious, educational and social dynamics within countries make it difficult to develop universal ethics (Hammond 50). Utilitarian ethics provides a foundation for addressing the above mentioned trends that arise in society. When applying utilitarian ethics, the most important consideration, which is a common interest for everyone, is the benefit it may give to the general population (Hammond 42).

Hammond, Peter. Consequentiality Theory and Utilitarian Ethics. California: Stanford University Press, 2000. Print

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, December 23). Utilitarian Ethics in Philosophy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarian-ethics/

"Utilitarian Ethics in Philosophy." IvyPanda , 23 Dec. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarian-ethics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Utilitarian Ethics in Philosophy'. 23 December.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Utilitarian Ethics in Philosophy." December 23, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarian-ethics/.

1. IvyPanda . "Utilitarian Ethics in Philosophy." December 23, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarian-ethics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Utilitarian Ethics in Philosophy." December 23, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/utilitarian-ethics/.

• Theories of Justice: Utilitarian theory
• Utilitarian View on Overpopulation and Life Quality
• Utilitarianism as an Ethical Principle
• Libertarian and Utilitarian Approaches to Ethics
• Social Networks From Utilitarian Perspective
• Act Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics: Pros and Cons
• The Utilitarianism Theory in Society
• Discussion: Ethics of Utilitarianism
• Analyzing the Differences between Utilitarianism and Libertarianism: Ethical Issues and Moral Judgments
• Utilitarian and Deontological Reasoning
• Concept of Utilitarianism Theory
• Necessary Evil: Synthesis and Analysis
• Ethical Problem - Tony Nicklinson's Legal Battle
• Limitations of Utilitarianism
• How the Mind Can Influence Our Decisions

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Utilitarianism — Utilitarianism Theory: A Critical Evaluation

Utilitarianism Theory: a Critical Evaluation

• Categories: Utilitarianism

About this sample

Words: 710 |

Published: Jan 30, 2024

Words: 710 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, overview of utilitarianism theory, utilitarianism in ethics, utilitarianism in economics, criticisms and challenges to utilitarianism, case study: applying utilitarianism theory.

• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
• Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism.
• Sen, A. (1999). The Possibility of Social Choice. The American Economic Review, 89(3), 349–378.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• MacAskill, W. (2019). Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference. Penguin.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 2997 words

2 pages / 1122 words

3 pages / 1419 words

1 pages / 524 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Utilitarianism

At what point does it become ethically sanctioned to take an innocent person’s life? To what extent do people’s moral institutions compose their apprehension of what is right or wrong? This paper will evaluate how the “trolley [...]

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that suggests that the best course of action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure and minimizes pain or suffering. In the context of nursing, utilitarianism can be [...]

Moral philosophy has long been a subject of profound debate and contemplation, with various ethical theories offering distinct perspectives on how we should make moral decisions. Two prominent ethical frameworks, utilitarianism [...]

When it comes to ethical theories, two prominent schools of thought often come to mind: utilitarianism and consequentialism. While these terms may sound similar, they represent distinct approaches to moral decision-making. In [...]

It is widely accepted that Utilitarianism, as a discipline, is not as unifying or as straightforward a moral theory as it might at first appear; as Crisp highlights, there are, in fact, 'many variations, some of them subtle, [...]

In the 1800s the industrial revolution caused many people to reconsider the laws that were introduced to society. One of the people who wanted change was an English Philosopher named Jeremy Bentham. His views on the law came [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Philosophy

Essay Samples on Utilitarianism

Beneficence and nonmaleficence: the main principles of utilitarianism.

Autonomy is when someone has a rational capacity for self-governance or self- determination which is the ability to direct one’s life and make choices for themselves. A person should be allowed capacity for self-determination. People will have the power to make rational decisions as well...

• Utilitarianism

Deontology Or Utilitarianism: The Debate On Ethics

Are you being a supporter of Deontology or Utilitarianism, this question can start a never-ending argument between groups? Kantian And Mills both share two theories which are autonomous to each other. Kantian appeared to be a strong believer of Deontology; which focuses on duty than...

Utilitarianism And Kantianism: Kant's Stance On Metaphysics

John Mill’s Utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant's Major Standard of the Metaphysic of Profound quality shows the two scholar's dissimilar perspectives in accordance to good principle. Mill's Utilitarianism is an increasingly sophisticated principled attitude contrasted with Kant's analysis of the power and its utilization in demonstrating...

• Immanuel Kant

Utilitarianism Versus Kantianism: Two Branches Of Philosophy

A decent measure of individuals will in general overlook that Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism, an excessive amount of delight is certainly not something to be thankful for ethically as per Mills. The hypothesis of utilitarianism proposes the best great or bliss guideline. An...

Separate Argumentation On Deontology And Utilitarianism

Abstract Society is ran by values in which all people should live. These values are referred to as philosophy. The principles and rules that are used to decide what is right or wrong are classified as moral philosophy. Ethics is the study that is concerned...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

The Main Goal And Purpose Of Utilitarianism And Virtue Ethics

Act-utilitarianism and virtue ethics are two philosophic theories that have the common goal of happiness. Both theories have a purpose, and they can be used to guide our life based on our actions. Even though these two philosophic ideas were created with good intentions to...

• Virtue Ethics

John Stuart Mill's Utilitarian Approach on Liberty in His Just Society Theory

John Stuart Mill was someone who thinks a lot about how people think, political scientist, money-flow expert, and government worker. His way of thinking was strongly influenced by usefulness which hugged and supported as a basic lesson rule and way of thinking’’ the greatest good...

• Just Society

Comparison of the Act and Rule Types of Utilitarianism, Their Strengths and Weaknesses

Utilitarianism hypothesis explains the scope of Liberty and Freedom for the individuals under a state's authority. Utilitarianism focuses on the rights of individuals versus other rights and is a form of justice. There are two types of Utilitarianism which are Act and Rule. Act Utilitarianism...

• Individual Rights
• Jeremy Bentham

Consideration of Deontology and Utilitarianism in the Off-Duty Police Work

Imagine that you are a police officer that is off-duty in a crowded marketplace and you spot the friendly man you conversed with earlier near the merchandise. He suddenly declares to you “Leave now. Run! I have a powerful bomb that will kill myself and...

The Morality of Physician Assisted Suicide in Belgium

The assignment reflects in fact that although there is no such thing like death penalty in Belgium but there is a rule allowing physician assisted suicide. So, current assignment focusses on the issue whether it is ethical to give a person such a assisted suicide...

The Morality of Utilitarian Society

Introduction First introduced by the philosopher and moral thinker John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is a derivation off of a normative ethical theory known as consequentialism. Mill applies this form of consequentialist theory to correctly evaluate and answer the moral question of what are right and...

Analysis of John Stuart Mill's Idea of Utilitarianism

The question that this essay is attempting to answer is an extremely significant question in the research of how individuals should derive their moral decisions. This is because if John Stuart Mill is correct in his belief that actions are morally right when they produce...

• John Stuart Mill

Critical Analysis of Jeremy Bentham's Philosophy of Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham is a famous English political radical and philosopher. Among his philosophical works, the most well-known is the concept of utilitarianism in which the acts and actions are assessed based on the potential outcomes and consequences (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2019). The most aspired result or...

Advantages and Disadvantages of Jeremy Bentham's Idea of Utilitarianism

In the 1800s the industrial revolution caused many people to reconsider the laws that were introduced to society. One of the people who wanted change was an English Philosopher named Jeremy Bentham. His views on the law came from this industrial revolution in the 18th...

• British Industrial Revolution

Utilitarianism in Novel 'Hard Times' In Charles Dickens

“Hard Times” is a novel written by Charles Dickens in 1854, taken place in a small town called Coketown. In this novel we learn about many characters, but two stick out to the readers the uttermost, Thomas Gradgrind and Louisa. Gradgrind is brought into the...

Social Issues During Industrialization In 'Hard Times'

Through a distinctly Victorian lens, Charles Dickens wrote a didactic novel about social issues during industrialization. During the time of rapid economic growth, living and working conditions for workers were poor. The wealthy prospered on the greedy exploitation of these laborers. Utilitarianism was a primary...

• Charles Dickens

Deontology and Utilitarianism in the Accounting Career

Human genetic engineering under utilitarianism and deontology.

There are many ethical issues that are currently occurring. One topic that is talked about currently is the idea of genetic engineering in people. While genetic engineering can provide benefits to people with genetic illness, it is not ethically accepted under many forms of ethical...

• Genetic Engineering

Utilitarianism as an Ethical Theory in the Batman Films

The Dark Knight, directed, composed and produced by Christopher Nolan, the second movie in the Batman series. It stars Christian Bale as Batman, Heath Ledger as 'The Joker', Gary Oldman as James Gordon and Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. This motion picture centers around two...

Choosing Between Business Ethics And Business Performance

I am glad that me and my group had chosen this topic regarding sweatshops. Before we started this report, I had known that sweatshops usually happened in undeveloped country which suffer from poverty like Bangladesh and Vietnam. In addition, sweatshops workers earned extremely lower wages...

• Business Ethics
• Performance

Analysis Of "The Coddling Of The American Mind" Through Ethics

While many of the college campuses over the last few years has been turning out badly, students and teachers say they are scare to talk openly. Rates of students facing the problems like nervousness sorrow and suicide are rising all over in country. Greg Lukianoff...

• American Culture

Moral Issues In Dead Poets Society By N.H. Kleinbaum

From my opinion, the Utilitarian ethical theory stands appropriate for Mr. John Keating. Utilitarianism is good theory that promotes activities that advance by and large satisfaction or joy and rejects activities that reason misery or hurt. Mr. John Keating was not only a tutor who...

• Dead Poets Society

Advocating The Notion Of Utilitarianism Through Bernard Williams’ Example Cases

In this essay I will argue that it is always morally obligated to do what’ll result in the most happiness for the most people. Through Bernard Williams’ example cases I will defend the notion of utilitarianism, arguing that his claims in opposition are not enough...

Best topics on Utilitarianism

1. Beneficence And Nonmaleficence: The Main Principles Of Utilitarianism

2. Deontology Or Utilitarianism: The Debate On Ethics

3. Utilitarianism And Kantianism: Kant’s Stance On Metaphysics

4. Utilitarianism Versus Kantianism: Two Branches Of Philosophy

5. Separate Argumentation On Deontology And Utilitarianism

6. The Main Goal And Purpose Of Utilitarianism And Virtue Ethics

7. John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarian Approach on Liberty in His Just Society Theory

8. Comparison of the Act and Rule Types of Utilitarianism, Their Strengths and Weaknesses

9. Consideration of Deontology and Utilitarianism in the Off-Duty Police Work

10. The Morality of Physician Assisted Suicide in Belgium

11. The Morality of Utilitarian Society

12. Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s Idea of Utilitarianism

13. Critical Analysis of Jeremy Bentham’s Philosophy of Utilitarianism

14. Advantages and Disadvantages of Jeremy Bentham’s Idea of Utilitarianism

15. Utilitarianism in Novel ‘Hard Times’ In Charles Dickens

• Human Nature
• Personal Identity
• Michel Foucault
• Meaning of Life
• Reincarnation
• Allegory of The Cave

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Ethics Defined UT Star Icon

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that asserts that right and wrong are best determined by focusing on outcomes of actions and choices.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits.

However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights.  For example, assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.

So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations.

Related Terms

Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges an action’s moral correctness by its consequences.

Moral Philosophy

Moral Philosophy studies what is right and wrong, and related philosophical issues.

Moral Reasoning

Moral Reasoning is the branch of philosophy that attempts to answer questions with moral dimensions.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics

This essay about Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics explores three prominent ethical theories and their approaches to moral decision-making. Kantian Deontology emphasizes duty and universal principles, while Utilitarianism prioritizes maximizing happiness for the greatest number. In contrast, Virtue Ethics focuses on character development and cultivating virtuous traits. Each theory offers unique perspectives and challenges, shaping how individuals navigate moral dilemmas and strive for ethical conduct. Through critical analysis, the essay highlights the strengths and limitations of each approach, encouraging readers to deepen their understanding of ethics and moral philosophy.

How it works

In the vast realm of moral philosophy, three stalwarts stand out, each offering a distinct lens through which to view and engage with ethical dilemmas: Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics. These philosophical giants serve as guides for individuals seeking to navigate the complex landscape of moral decision-making and moral character development.

Kantian Deontology, with its roots firmly planted in the enlightenment philosophy of Immanuel Kant, champions the idea of moral duty as the cornerstone of ethical action. Kant proposes the concept of the categorical imperative, which mandates that individuals act in accordance with principles that can be universally applied.

This principle underscores the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, regardless of circumstances or outcomes. It’s akin to traversing a path illuminated by the unwavering light of duty, where each step is guided by the principles of moral law.

On the other hand, Utilitarianism, spearheaded by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, takes a consequentialist approach to ethics, prioritizing the maximization of happiness or utility for the greatest number of people. In this ethical framework, actions are evaluated based on their outcomes, with the aim of minimizing suffering and maximizing pleasure. It’s akin to navigating a turbulent sea, where the moral compass points toward the direction that promises the greatest good for the greatest number, even if it means weathering the storms of individual sacrifice.

Meanwhile, Virtue Ethics, as championed by Aristotle, shifts the focus from actions to the character of the moral agent. Virtue Ethics posits that ethical behavior stems from the cultivation of virtuous traits, such as courage, honesty, and compassion. Rather than adhering to rigid moral rules or calculating consequences, Virtue Ethics encourages individuals to strive for moral excellence through the habitual practice of virtuous acts. It’s akin to tending to the garden of the soul, nurturing the seeds of virtue to blossom into the flowers of moral character.

Each ethical theory offers its own set of strengths and weaknesses, presenting both opportunities and challenges for moral deliberation and ethical conduct. Kantian Deontology provides a robust framework for principled decision-making but may falter in addressing the complexities of real-world scenarios. Utilitarianism offers a pragmatic approach to maximizing utility but risks sacrificing individual rights for the collective good. Virtue Ethics prioritizes character development but may lack concrete guidelines for action.

In the tapestry of moral philosophy, Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, and Virtue Ethics weave a rich and intricate pattern, each thread contributing to the broader tapestry of human ethics. By engaging with these ethical traditions, individuals can deepen their understanding of morality and cultivate the virtues necessary to navigate the complexities of ethical decision-making in a diverse and ever-changing world.

Cite this page

Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, And Virtue Ethics. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/kantian-deontology-utilitarianism-and-virtue-ethics/

"Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, And Virtue Ethics." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/kantian-deontology-utilitarianism-and-virtue-ethics/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, And Virtue Ethics . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/kantian-deontology-utilitarianism-and-virtue-ethics/ [Accessed: 24 Apr. 2024]

"Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, And Virtue Ethics." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed April 24, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/kantian-deontology-utilitarianism-and-virtue-ethics/

"Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, And Virtue Ethics," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/kantian-deontology-utilitarianism-and-virtue-ethics/. [Accessed: 24-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Kantian Deontology, Utilitarianism, And Virtue Ethics . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/kantian-deontology-utilitarianism-and-virtue-ethics/ [Accessed: 24-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Advertisement

Supported by

A Culture Warrior Takes a Late Swing

The editor and essayist Joseph Epstein looks back on his life and career in two new books.

• Share full article

By Dwight Garner

NEVER SAY YOU’VE HAD A LUCKY LIFE: Especially If You’ve Had a Lucky Life , by Joseph Epstein

FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTENT: New and Selected Essays , by Joseph Epstein

When Tammy Wynette was asked to write a memoir in her mid-30s, she initially declined, she said in an interview, because “I didn’t think my life was over yet.” The publisher responded: Has it occurred to you that in 15 years no one might care? She wrote the book. “Stand by Your Man: An Autobiography” (1979) was a hit.

The essayist and editor Joseph Epstein — whose memoir “Never Say You’ve Had a Lucky Life,” is out now, alongside a greatest-hits collection titled “Familiarity Breeds Content” — has probably never heard Wynette sing except by accident. (In a 1993 essay, he wrote that he wished he didn’t know who Willie Nelson was, because it was a sign of a compromised intellect.) But his memoir illustrates another reason not to wait too long to commit your life to print.

There is no indication that Epstein, who is in his late 80s, has lost a step. His prose is as genial and bland, if comparison to his earlier work is any indication, as it ever was. But there’s a softness to his memories of people, perhaps because it was all so long ago. This is the sort of memoir that insists someone was funny, or erudite, or charismatic, while rarely providing the crucial details.

Epstein aw-shucks his way into “Never Say You’ve Had a Lucky Life” — pretending to be self-effacing while not being so in the least is one of his salient qualities as a writer — by warning readers, “I may not have had a sufficiently interesting life to merit an autobiography.” This is because he “did little, saw nothing notably historic, and endured not much out of the ordinary of anguish or trouble or exaltation.” Quickly, however, he concludes that his life is indeed worth relating, in part because “over the years I have acquired the literary skill to recount that life well.”

Here he is wrong in both directions. His story is interesting enough to warrant this memoir. His personal life has taken complicated turns. And as the longtime editor of the quarterly magazine The American Scholar, and a notably literate conservative culture warrior, he’s been in the thick of things.

He does lack the skill to tell his own story, though, if by “skill” we mean not well-scrubbed Strunk and White sentences but close and penetrating observation. Epstein favors tasseled loafers and bow ties, and most of his sentences read as if they were written by a sentient tasseled loafer and edited by a sentient bow tie.

He grew up in Chicago, where his father manufactured costume jewelry. The young Epstein was popular and, in high school, lettered in tennis. His title refers to being lucky, and a big part of that luck, in his estimation, was to grow up back when kids could be kids, before “the therapeutic culture” took over.

This complaint sets the tone of the book. His own story is set next to a rolling series of cultural grievances. He’s against casual dress, the prohibition of the word “Negro,” grade inflation, the Beat Generation, most of what occurred during the 1960s, standards slipping everywhere, de-Westernizing college curriculums, D.E.I. programs, you name it. His politics aren’t the problem. We can argue about those. American culture needs more well-read conservatives. The problem is that in his search for teachable moments, his memoir acquires the cardboard tone of a middling opinion column.

His youth was not all tennis lessons and root beer floats. He and his friends regularly visited brothels because, he writes, sex was not as easy to come by in the 1950s. He was kicked out of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign for his role in the selling of a stolen accounting exam to other students.

He was lucky to find a place at the University of Chicago, a place of high seriousness. The school changed him. He began to reassess his values. He began to read writers like Irving Howe, Sidney Hook, Midge Decter and Norman Podhoretz, and felt his politics pull to the right.

After college, he was drafted into the Army and ended up in Little Rock, Ark., where he met his first wife. At the time, she was a waitress at a bar and restaurant called the Gar Hole. Here Epstein’s memoir briefly threatens to acquire genuine weight.

She had lost custody of her two sons after a divorce. Together they got them back, and she and Epstein had two sons of their own. After their divorce, Epstein took all four of the boys. This is grist for an entire memoir, but Epstein passes over it quickly. One never gets much of a sense of what his boys were like, or what it was like to raise them. He later tells us that he has all but lost touch with his stepsons and has not seen them for decades.

He worked for the magazine The New Leader and the Encyclopaedia Britannica before becoming the editor of The American Scholar in 1975. It was a position he would hold for 22 years. He also taught at Northwestern University for nearly three decades.

At The American Scholar he began to write a long personal essay in each issue, under the pseudonym Aristides. He wrote 92 of these, on topics such as smoking and envy and reading and height. Most ran to 6,500 words, or about 4,000 words longer than they should have been.

Many magazine editors like to write every so often, to keep a hand in. But there is something unseemly about an editor chewing up acres of space in his own publication on a regular basis. Editorially, it’s a droit du seigneur imposition.

A selection of these essays, as well as some new ones, can now be found in “Familiarity Breeds Content.” In his introduction to this book, Christopher Buckley overpraises Epstein, leaving the reader no choice but to start mentally pushing back.

Buckley calls Epstein “the most entertaining living essayist in the English language.” (Not while Michael Kinsley, Lorrie Moore, Calvin Trillin, Sloane Crosley and Geoff Dyer, among many others, walk the earth.) He repurposes Martin Amis’s comment about Saul Bellow: “One doesn’t read Saul Bellow. One can only reread him.” To this he adds, “Ditto Epstein.” (Epstein is no Saul Bellow.) Buckley says, “Joe Epstein is incapable of writing a boring sentence.”

Well. How about this one, from an essay about cats?

A cat, I realize, cannot be everyone’s cup of fur.

Or this one, from an essay about sports and other obsessions:

I have been told there are people who wig out on pasta.

Or this one, about … guess:

When I was a boy, it occurs to me now, I always had one or another kind of hat.

Juggling today appears to be undergoing a small renaissance.

If one is looking to save on fuel bills, politics is likely to heat up a room quicker than just about anything else.

In tennis I was most notable for flipping and catching my racket in various snappy routines.

The essays are, by and large, as tweedy and self-satisfied as these lines make them sound. There are no wild hairs in them, no sudden deepenings of tone. Nothing is at stake. We are stranded with him on the putt-putt course.

Epstein fills his essays with quotation after quotation, as ballast. I am a fan of well-deployed, free-range quotations. So many of Epstein’s are musty and reek of Bartlett’s. They are from figures like Lord Chesterfield and Lady Mary Montagu and Sir Herbert Grierson and Tocqueville and Walpole and Carlyle. You can feel the moths escaping from the display case in real time.

To be fair, I circled a few sentences in “Familiarity Breeds Content” happily. I’m with him on his distrust of “fun couples.” He writes, “A cowboy without a hat is suitable only for bartending.” I liked his observation, which he borrowed from someone else, that a career has five stages:

(1) Who is Joseph Epstein? (2) Get me Joseph Epstein. (3) We need someone like Joseph Epstein. (4) What we need is a young Joseph Epstein. (5) Who is Joseph Epstein?

It’s no fun to trip up a writer on what might have been a late-career victory lap. Epstein doesn’t need me to like his work. He’s published more than 30 books, and you can’t do that unless you’ve made a lot of readers happy.

NEVER SAY YOU’VE HAD A LUCKY LIFE : Especially If You’ve Had a Lucky Life | By Joseph Epstein | Free Press | 287 pp. | $29.99

FAMILIARITY BREEDS CONTENT : New and Selected Essays | By Joseph Epstein | Simon & Schuster | 441 pp. | Paperback, $20.99

Dwight Garner has been a book critic for The Times since 2008, and before that was an editor at the Book Review for a decade. More about Dwight Garner

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

Salman Rushdie’s new memoir, “Knife,” addresses the attack that maimed him  in 2022, and pays tribute to his wife who saw him through .

Recent books by Allen Bratton, Daniel Lefferts and Garrard Conley depict gay Christian characters not usually seen in queer literature.

What can fiction tell us about the apocalypse? The writer Ayana Mathis finds unexpected hope in novels of crisis by Ling Ma, Jenny Offill and Jesmyn Ward .

At 28, the poet Tayi Tibble has been hailed as the funny, fresh and immensely skilled voice of a generation in Māori writing .

Amid a surge in book bans, the most challenged books in the United States in 2023 continued to focus on the experiences of L.G.B.T.Q. people or explore themes of race.

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .