"Utilitarianism is a weak ethical theory." Discuss.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory underpinned by the ‘principle of utility’, meaning the idea
of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Though the theory takes inspiration
from Epicureanism and Mo Tzu’s practical hedonism, it is Jeremy Bentham who is accredited with
developing Utilitarianism into an established and modern ethical theory.
An argument fraught with weaknesses agreeing with the statement is that Utilitarianism is a simple,
comprehensible theory as it reduces humans to numbers in order to make the easiest decisions for
the greater good. For example, if a quantitative utilitarian, like Bentham, was faced with the Trolley
Problem, they would choose to sacrifice one person in order to save five. The action of killing is
justified because utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory and, therefore, is only concerned with
the outcome, not the act itself. However, this concept only works in principle as, by reducing hu-
mans to mere numbers, it fails to recognise that the qualities of a person can determine their worth.
An illustration of this is that the life of one innocent person should take precedence over the lives of
five mass murderers, despite the fact that more people would die, this would be the fairer and more
logical decision. Furthermore, there is undeniably a personal element to such decisions, for exam-
ple, the life of a family member would be valued more highly than the lives of several strangers. Ul-
timately, the greater good of humanity can come in many forms, and, contrary to Bentham’s
thought process, cannot always be calculable. Bernard Williams supports this criticism of Ben-
tham’s Utilitarianism through his belief that “no moral theory should have the demands of taking
life”. Williams emphasises that the prioritisation of the “greater good” over “integrity” is a major flaw
in the theory and would result in unjust decisions, such as the deaths of innocents. The criticisms
made do enough to discredit the argument as they highlight the limitations of the ethical theory,
namely, that it oversimplifies human lives. The criticisms suggest that utilitarianism would fail if ap-
plied to every situation, thus, it functions better as a concept than as a realised theory.
However, a convincing argument for the strength of utilitarianism is that it is designed specifically to
help humans to improve the quality of their lives, by maximising pleasure and minimising pain. In
order to achieve this, Bentham devised the Hedonic Calculus which puts forward 7 factors to be
used when calculating the morality of an action based upon the outcome. An example of a factor is
Extent, which sought to ensure that the pleasures and pains of others are taken into account, as
opposed to purely fulfilling the needs of the individual. Therefore, the calculus ensures that utilitari-
anism refrains from becoming an egoistic theory, highlighting Bentham’s aim to reject the oppres-
sive laws created by governments which negatively impacted the majority of people at the time.
This shows support for the statement as the Hedonic Calculus was designed with the purpose of
making utilitarianism an accessible and intuitive theory, allowing individuals to judge their own ac-
tions, by taking into account the variables which make humans unique. However, this argument is
not without fault as some argue a calculus can be too complex if applied to every situation. The
qualitative utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, lends weight to this as he rejects the idea of the Hedonic
Calculus, arguing that it could allow for immoral actions to be permitted and, therefore, it cannot be
a sufficient replacement for rules. As a result of this, Mill expounded Rule Utilitarianism, which
aimed to remedy the calculus’s flaw of being used on a case-by-case basis. This argument is fair
and balanced as though there are criticisms to the Hedonic Calculus, these are conceived in the
spirit of better achieving the core purpose of utilitarianism – attaining a life of pleasures. The foun-
dation of utilitarianism as a theory, therefore, is not disputed.
A further argument against the statement is that the sole pursuit of pleasure is not only damaging
but will not lead to a better life. Utility itself is ensuring that actions are only carried out if they pro-
duce happiness, pleasure or goodness and prevent pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism highlights this
through the Principle of Utility which advocates for achieving the greatest amount of pleasure for
the greatest number of people. Whilst the idea of a theory designed to access the greatest plea-
sures possible seems attractive, the weakness is shown by John Stuart Mill, who would argue that
the focus on pleasure is too narrow. Mill supports the principle of utility but argues instead that
there are lower pleasures, such as food and sex, and higher pleasures, which are intellectual and
social. Mill explained that it is “better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” which
counters Bentham’s belief of attaining the most pleasures possible, emphasising that pleasures are
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory underpinned by the ‘principle of utility’, meaning the idea
of doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Though the theory takes inspiration
from Epicureanism and Mo Tzu’s practical hedonism, it is Jeremy Bentham who is accredited with
developing Utilitarianism into an established and modern ethical theory.
An argument fraught with weaknesses agreeing with the statement is that Utilitarianism is a simple,
comprehensible theory as it reduces humans to numbers in order to make the easiest decisions for
the greater good. For example, if a quantitative utilitarian, like Bentham, was faced with the Trolley
Problem, they would choose to sacrifice one person in order to save five. The action of killing is
justified because utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory and, therefore, is only concerned with
the outcome, not the act itself. However, this concept only works in principle as, by reducing hu-
mans to mere numbers, it fails to recognise that the qualities of a person can determine their worth.
An illustration of this is that the life of one innocent person should take precedence over the lives of
five mass murderers, despite the fact that more people would die, this would be the fairer and more
logical decision. Furthermore, there is undeniably a personal element to such decisions, for exam-
ple, the life of a family member would be valued more highly than the lives of several strangers. Ul-
timately, the greater good of humanity can come in many forms, and, contrary to Bentham’s
thought process, cannot always be calculable. Bernard Williams supports this criticism of Ben-
tham’s Utilitarianism through his belief that “no moral theory should have the demands of taking
life”. Williams emphasises that the prioritisation of the “greater good” over “integrity” is a major flaw
in the theory and would result in unjust decisions, such as the deaths of innocents. The criticisms
made do enough to discredit the argument as they highlight the limitations of the ethical theory,
namely, that it oversimplifies human lives. The criticisms suggest that utilitarianism would fail if ap-
plied to every situation, thus, it functions better as a concept than as a realised theory.
However, a convincing argument for the strength of utilitarianism is that it is designed specifically to
help humans to improve the quality of their lives, by maximising pleasure and minimising pain. In
order to achieve this, Bentham devised the Hedonic Calculus which puts forward 7 factors to be
used when calculating the morality of an action based upon the outcome. An example of a factor is
Extent, which sought to ensure that the pleasures and pains of others are taken into account, as
opposed to purely fulfilling the needs of the individual. Therefore, the calculus ensures that utilitari-
anism refrains from becoming an egoistic theory, highlighting Bentham’s aim to reject the oppres-
sive laws created by governments which negatively impacted the majority of people at the time.
This shows support for the statement as the Hedonic Calculus was designed with the purpose of
making utilitarianism an accessible and intuitive theory, allowing individuals to judge their own ac-
tions, by taking into account the variables which make humans unique. However, this argument is
not without fault as some argue a calculus can be too complex if applied to every situation. The
qualitative utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, lends weight to this as he rejects the idea of the Hedonic
Calculus, arguing that it could allow for immoral actions to be permitted and, therefore, it cannot be
a sufficient replacement for rules. As a result of this, Mill expounded Rule Utilitarianism, which
aimed to remedy the calculus’s flaw of being used on a case-by-case basis. This argument is fair
and balanced as though there are criticisms to the Hedonic Calculus, these are conceived in the
spirit of better achieving the core purpose of utilitarianism – attaining a life of pleasures. The foun-
dation of utilitarianism as a theory, therefore, is not disputed.
A further argument against the statement is that the sole pursuit of pleasure is not only damaging
but will not lead to a better life. Utility itself is ensuring that actions are only carried out if they pro-
duce happiness, pleasure or goodness and prevent pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism highlights this
through the Principle of Utility which advocates for achieving the greatest amount of pleasure for
the greatest number of people. Whilst the idea of a theory designed to access the greatest plea-
sures possible seems attractive, the weakness is shown by John Stuart Mill, who would argue that
the focus on pleasure is too narrow. Mill supports the principle of utility but argues instead that
there are lower pleasures, such as food and sex, and higher pleasures, which are intellectual and
social. Mill explained that it is “better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” which
counters Bentham’s belief of attaining the most pleasures possible, emphasising that pleasures are
