'How convincing is Utilitarianism as what makes an action morally right? (25)
In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism is not a convincing account of moral action. I will
discuss and reject the argument of the intuitive appeal of utilitarianism and conclude by
arguing that it cannot be a credible theory used to deduce a moral action due to its problems
with individual rights and method of calculating happiness.
Utilitarianism is divided into two main areas: act and rule. Act Utilitarianism and rule
Utilitarianism have a common base of both being consequentialist, hedonistic ethical
theories. This means that they both rely on the idea that moral judgements should be solely
based on the outcomes of actions, and that humans desire pleasure and seek to avoid pain.
However, whilst act Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action in each specific
instance, rule Utilitarianism looks at the consequences of adhering to general rules.
Bentham’s act utilitarianism focuses on the ‘telos’ (goal) of an action to define what makes it
moral, rather than the act itself. He proposes that “Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”, meaning our actions are aimed
at pleasure and avoiding pain, as it is the moral thing to do. Bentham summarises this idea
in his Greatest Happiness Principle, which holds that an act is good if it brings about the
greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people and bad if it brings about
more pain, or prevents happiness occurring. This works because Bentham believed that
pleasure equates to happiness, and therefore that “the greatest happiness of the greatest
number is the foundation of morals and legislation”. In this way, it could be argued that
utilitarianism’s intuitive appeal is enough to make it a convincing account of moral action.
The idea of happiness being equal to goodness seems intuitive because we can assume
through experience that a good action makes people happier and a bad action causes pain.
For example, an act utilitarian would argue that it is morally right for a poor person to steal
from a rich person because the money would cause more happiness for the poor person
than it would cause unhappiness for the rich person. In act utilitarianism, happiness is the
only good, and so it doesn’t matter if you are stealing or lying or killing as long as the action
results in the greatest happiness. Hence, if happiness is good, it is surely reasonable to think
that more happiness is better, and therefore that we should maximise happiness in order to
be moral.
However, I strongly believe that there are several impracticalities of act utilitarianism which
limit how convincing it is, one being an issue with its method of calculating what can be
considered a moral action. In order to help calculate moral worth, Bentham conceived the
hedonic calculus - a system which relies on the quantitative nature of act utilitarianism by
taking into account seven variables of pleasure, such as intensity and duration, and
calculating total utility. This calculus, in theory, provides a means to quantify happiness by
adding up all the pleasures and subtracting all the pains of specific actions, and then
selecting the action which brings about the most pleasure over pain. Nonetheless, I contend
that Bentham’s hedonic calculus seems impractically complicated to use every single time
you have to make a decision. One issue is that there is no way to quantify each of the seven
variables of the calculus. Concepts such as intensity cannot be objectively measured
because of the variability of human experience and differences between people’s standards
of these variables. However, even if they could, there is no way to compare the variables
against each other. For example, how do you decide between a more intense but shorter
In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism is not a convincing account of moral action. I will
discuss and reject the argument of the intuitive appeal of utilitarianism and conclude by
arguing that it cannot be a credible theory used to deduce a moral action due to its problems
with individual rights and method of calculating happiness.
Utilitarianism is divided into two main areas: act and rule. Act Utilitarianism and rule
Utilitarianism have a common base of both being consequentialist, hedonistic ethical
theories. This means that they both rely on the idea that moral judgements should be solely
based on the outcomes of actions, and that humans desire pleasure and seek to avoid pain.
However, whilst act Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action in each specific
instance, rule Utilitarianism looks at the consequences of adhering to general rules.
Bentham’s act utilitarianism focuses on the ‘telos’ (goal) of an action to define what makes it
moral, rather than the act itself. He proposes that “Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”, meaning our actions are aimed
at pleasure and avoiding pain, as it is the moral thing to do. Bentham summarises this idea
in his Greatest Happiness Principle, which holds that an act is good if it brings about the
greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people and bad if it brings about
more pain, or prevents happiness occurring. This works because Bentham believed that
pleasure equates to happiness, and therefore that “the greatest happiness of the greatest
number is the foundation of morals and legislation”. In this way, it could be argued that
utilitarianism’s intuitive appeal is enough to make it a convincing account of moral action.
The idea of happiness being equal to goodness seems intuitive because we can assume
through experience that a good action makes people happier and a bad action causes pain.
For example, an act utilitarian would argue that it is morally right for a poor person to steal
from a rich person because the money would cause more happiness for the poor person
than it would cause unhappiness for the rich person. In act utilitarianism, happiness is the
only good, and so it doesn’t matter if you are stealing or lying or killing as long as the action
results in the greatest happiness. Hence, if happiness is good, it is surely reasonable to think
that more happiness is better, and therefore that we should maximise happiness in order to
be moral.
However, I strongly believe that there are several impracticalities of act utilitarianism which
limit how convincing it is, one being an issue with its method of calculating what can be
considered a moral action. In order to help calculate moral worth, Bentham conceived the
hedonic calculus - a system which relies on the quantitative nature of act utilitarianism by
taking into account seven variables of pleasure, such as intensity and duration, and
calculating total utility. This calculus, in theory, provides a means to quantify happiness by
adding up all the pleasures and subtracting all the pains of specific actions, and then
selecting the action which brings about the most pleasure over pain. Nonetheless, I contend
that Bentham’s hedonic calculus seems impractically complicated to use every single time
you have to make a decision. One issue is that there is no way to quantify each of the seven
variables of the calculus. Concepts such as intensity cannot be objectively measured
because of the variability of human experience and differences between people’s standards
of these variables. However, even if they could, there is no way to compare the variables
against each other. For example, how do you decide between a more intense but shorter
