Jeremy Bentham

Utilitarianism has become so entrenched in modern life, and particularly in public policy, that we often don’t even realize that an ethical framework is being deployed. Instead, we assume that the best action is going to be the one that produces the best consequences, and we’re accustomed to thinking that what counts as the best consequence is total human welfare.

But how do we measure happiness or welfare? One method that is is used is to measure the market cost of various goods (modern economic theory has its roots in utilitarianism). For goods that aren’t bought and sold on open markets (e.g., spending time hanging out with friends), we can measure how much people value a good by asking them what payment they would accept in order to give it up. At the same time, we have to keep in mind that for most people, their happiness cannot be reduced simply to material possessions (i.e., “Can’t buy me lo-o-ove“).

It’s worth distinguishing utilitarianism from several nearby positions.

1. ETHICAL EGOISM. The ethical egoist claims that morality demands that individuals always act in their own best long-term self-interest. Utilitarianism, similarly, evaluates what is good based on people’s preferences (Mill referred to the total sum of happiness of all people affected by an action). However, the utilitarian does not say that each individual should act in their own self-interest. Rather, individuals should do what is required for the good of the group as a whole, and it is the total welfare that determines what that desired action is.

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill

2. EPICUREANISM: Utilitarianism does share some elements with ancient Greek epicureanism. For instance, both hold that pleasure and pain are the measure of what is good and bad. And both put a high value on empirical investigation. For both, “the good life” is a life that has a high ratio of pleasure to pain, and so pursuit of pleasure is a basis for moral action. However, one difference is that Epicurus thought that this evaluation of pleasure and pain would lead people to value and pursue tranquility or a state of mental peace. Pursuing tranquility would lead people to withdraw from politics and other stressful situations or concerns. In contrast, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were very involved in politics. Mill was a Member of Parliament for several years and an advocate for women’s rights.

3. COMMUNISM: It seems ironic that utilitarianism has close relations both with the evaluative practices of capitalist economics, particularly cost-benefit analysis, and also with communism. In structure, the socio-economic theory of communism resembles Bentham’s utilitarianism in that both prioritize the good of the group over the good of the individual. However, the two theories differ at many points as well. For instance, redistribution of goods to create social and economic equality is a central tent of communism. But a common criticism of utilitarian theories is that they don’t necessarily pay attention to distributive justice. Indeed, Karl Marx was a prominent critic of utilitarianism.