Is Utilitarianism a Convincing Theory of Ethics?
I will conclude that non-hedonistic rule utilitarianism is the most convincing version of the theory. It successfully avoids the impracticality of the hedonic calculus and the 'tyranny of the majority' by establishing rules that protect liberty and satisfy individual preferences over long-term utility
- Utilitarianism is a consequentialist normative theory founded on the 'Principle of Utility': an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is an impartial and secular approach to ethics - I will distinguish between Act Utilitarianism (Bentham) and Rule Utilitarianism (Mill), and between Hedonistic (Mill/Bentham) and Preference Utilitarianism (Singer) - I will evaluate the theory against the Problem of Calculation, the Issue of Rights, and Nozick's Experience Machine. I will argue that combining Rule and Preference Utilitarianism provides a robust ethical framework
Section 1: The Issue of Calculation and Rule Utilitarianism
- Act Utilitarianism's 'Hedonic Calculus' is indeed too time-consuming for everyday life. Mill's transition to Rule Utilitarianism is a masterstroke: it uses the 'social wisdom' of generations to create secondary principles (don't lie, don't steal) that individuals can follow quickly - The dilemma between 'Weak' and 'Strong' Rule Util is important, but 'Strong' Rule is still consequentialist because the *rules itself* is justified by its long-term consequences. This solves the calculation issue once and for all
Jeremy Bentham / J.S. Mill: Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
- Bentham argues that we should calculate utility for every individual act. Mill argues that we should follow rules that have been shown to maximise happiness over time (e.g., 'Do not murder') - This bypasses the problem of not being able to predict the future or calculate complex data in the heat of a moral choice. We simply follow the rule that society has refined through trial and error
Section 2: The Issue of Liberty and Individual Rights
- The 'Organ Donor' and 'Majority Pleasure' cases (like gladiatorial combat) are the strongest critiques of pure utility. Mill's 'Harm Principle' handles these by arguing that liberty is the greatest instrument for happiness. A society that harvests organs may be happy today, but it lives in terror tomorrow—the long-term utility of rights outweighs the short-term utility of violation
Philippa Foot / J.S. Mill: The Tyranny of the Majority / Harm Principle
- Critics argue that Utilitarianism could justify slavery or organ harvesting if it pleased the majority. Mill responds with the 'Harm Principle': no one should be harmed unless they are harming others - Mill argues that liberty is essential for happiness because each person is the best judge of their own good. Therefore, a rule protecting individual liberty is the most 'useful' rule possible, preventing the 'tyranny of the majority' from destroying the social conditions of happiness
Section 3: Mill’s Proof vs. Nozick’s Experience Machine
- Mill's proof is logically flawed (confusing 'desired' with 'desirable'—an equivocation). However, Nozick's Experience Machine is the more lethal blow: most people *wouldn't* plug in, proving we value authenticity over pure mental states - This leads us to Preference Utilitarianism (Singer/Hare). By aiming to satisfy 'preferences' rather than just 'pleasure', the theory survives Nozick. If I prefer reality over a machine, the machine is not 'good' for me. This makes the theory much more convincing
J.S. Mill: The Proof of the Greatest Happiness Principle
- Mill attempts to prove happiness is the ultimate good by analogy: just as the only proof that something is visible is that people see it, the only proof that something is desirable is that people desire it - Since everyone desires happiness, happiness is desirable and therefore good
Robert Nozick: The Experience Machine
- Nozick asks if we would plug into a machine that gives us 100% pleasure but is a fake simulation. If we wouldn't, it shows we value 'truth' and 'authenticity' over pleasure - This undermines Hedonistic Utilitarianism, as it proves pleasure is not the only thing we desire or find good. We would prefer a real, painful life over a fake, pleasurable one
- While Act Utilitarianism is often crippled by the difficulty of calculation and the threat to minority rights, Mill's Rule Utilitarianism provides a viable solution. By grounding liberty in utility via the Harm Principle, the theory protects the individual 'as if' they had rights - Nozick's Experience Machine successfully defeats pure hedonism, but Preference Utilitarianism survives by valuing authenticity. When these improvements are integrated, Utilitarianism remains a highly convincing and practical guide to global morality