ETHICS: FOUNDATION OF MORAL

VALUES

Chapter II: Utilitarianism

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter II: Utilitarianism

• The Principle of Utility
• Principle of the Greatest Number
• Justice and Moral Rights
 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
After this chapter, you should be able to:
• Discuss the basic principles of utilitarian ethics;
• Distinguish between two utilitarian models: the
quantitative model of Jeremy Bentham and the
qualitative model of John Stuart Mill; and
• Apply utilitarianism in understanding and
evaluating local and international scenarios.
 INTRODUCTION

On January 25, 2015, the 84th Special Action

Force (SAF) conducted a police operation at
Tukanalipao, Mamasapano in Maguindanao. Also
known as Oplan Exodus, it was intended to serve
an arrest warrant for Zulkifi bin Hir or Marwan, a
Malaysian terrorist and bomb-maker who had a
$5 million bounty on his head.
Although the police operation was
“successful” because of the death of
Marwan, the firefight that ensued claimed
67 lives – 44 Special Action Force (SAF)
troopers, 18 Moro Islamic Liberation
Front fighters, and five civilians.
In one of the Congress investigations that
followed this tragic mission, then Senate
President Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis
Escudero debated the public hearing of an audio
recording of an alleged conversation that
attempted to cover up the massacre of the PNP-
SAF commandos.
• Drilon questioned the admissibility of these
recordings as evidence under the Anti-Wire
Tapping Law whereas Escudero cited the
legal brief of the Free Legal Assistance
Group (FLAG) arguing that the Anti-Wire
Tapping Law protects only the recording
and interception of private communications.
 Senator Grace Poe, previous chairperson of the Senate
committee on public order and dangerous drugs, argued
otherwise. “Sinabi na ni Senator Drilon na ito daw ay
illegal, na hindi daw pwede, na ako daw ay pwedeng
maging liable kung ito daw ay ipapakinig ko sa Senado,
ako naman, ano ba itong mga batas na ito? . . . Ang mga
batas na ito ay para malaman natin ang katotohanan at
magkaroon tayo ng hustisya. Itong mga anti-wiretapping
or mga recording na ganito, kung hindi pwedeng ilabas sa
publiko, pwede naming gawing basehan sa executive
session.”
Senator Poe’s response leads us to ask: Can the
government infringe individual rights? If it is
morally permissible for the government to
infringe individual rights, when can the
government do so? Does it become legitimate to
sacrifice individual rights when considering the
greatest benefit for the greatest number of people?
 QUESTIONS

• How can you • Why is it justifiable to

wiretap private
differentiate the
conversations in
views of the instances of treason,
senators? What are rebellion, espionage,
your basis? and sedition?
 TRIVIA!!
Do you know that Utilitarianism has a flag.
Its amazing that it have its own flag! 

Quick question: How many stars does the flag have?

UTILITARIANISM FLAG
 SYMBOLISM

• The utilitarian flag seeks to represent, with

simple iconic symbolism, the most distinctive
elements of utilitarianism: inclusiveness,
impartiality, hedonism, aggregation, and
maximization.
• The five-pointed stars represent
individuals: Everybody is a star.
That is, everybody is fully included
in the utilitarian calculus.
• The stars, in number, equal the points of each
star. This represents the impartial ideal of
treating the collective as if it were one
individual. The separateness of persons lacks
moral significance.
•The field is yellow—the color of
happiness. It represents the
hedonistic part of utilitarianism:
Happiness is the only thing good
in itself.
• The stars form a smile together, rather than
on their own. This represents that it’s our
aggregated, collective happiness that
matters, not just the singular happiness of
individuals. One counts for one. That’s why
more count for more.
• Lastly, five stars, being the maximal
rating, represent the maximizing
element of utilitarianism—that is,
our duty to do the best we can.
 UTILITARIANISM

• The theory of Utilitarianism dates back to the early

Greek philosopher and elements of the theory can
be identified in the work of the 18th century
Scottish philosopher Francis Hutchenson (1694 –
1796 )
• It is most famously associated with
the English philosophers Jeremy
Bentham (1748 – 1832 ) and John
Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873 )
• Utilitarianism reach its peak in the
19th century.
 JEREMY BENTHAM

• Bentham was a political philosopher and

social reformer whose most famous work
is his multi volume Introduction to the
Principles of orals and Legislation
(1789)
•Bentham spent his life
outlining the implications of
utilitarianism for a variety of
social and political institutions.
• He was something of eccentric
who requested that his body be
stuffed after death as a
monument; to this day it is
kept at University College
London where it is
occasionally wheeled out to
attend lectures and special
dinners.
 JOHN STUART MILL

John Stuart Mill was the

son of the intellectual
james Mill, himself an
advocate of Utilitarianism
and a friend of Jeremy
Bentham.
• Mill had an intensive childhood
education prescribed by his father,
which led to him completing the
reading for a demanding Classics
Degree by the age of 10. by the age
of 12 he could read work of
Aristotle in the original Greek.
• John Stuart Mill went on to
become an MP and a prolific
influential philosopher whose
works include On Liberty (1859)
and Utilitarianism (1861).
 THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY

• For Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), the

principle of utility is about our
subjection to these sovereign masters:
pleasure and pain.
• On one hand, the principle refers to
the motivation of our actions as
guided by our avoidance of pain
and our desire for pleasure.
• John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) supports
Betham’s principle of utility. He
reiterates moral good as happiness and,
consequently, happiness as pleasure.
• Mill clarifies that what makes people
happy is intended pleasure and what
makes us unhappy is the privation of
pleasure.
• The things that produce
happiness and pleasure are
good; whereas, those that
produce unhappiness and pain
are bad.
• In determining the moral preferability of
actions, Bentham provides a framework for
evaluating pleasure and pain commonly
called felicific calculus, a common currency
framework that calculates the pleasure that
some actions can produce.
• Contrary to Bentham, Mill
argues that quality is more
preferable than quantity. An
excessive quantity of what is
otherwise pleasurable might
result in pain. Whereas eating
the right amount of food can be
pleasurable, excessive eating
may not be.
 THE PRINCIPLE OF THE
GREATEST NUMBER

• Utilitarianism is not only about our

individual pleasures, regardless of how
high, intellectual, or in other ways
noble it is, but it is also about the
pleasure of the greatest number affected
by the consequences of our actions.
• Utilitarianism is not dismissive
of sacrifices that procure more
happiness for others.
EXAMPLE SITUATION
 QUESTION
• If you are this person… • Are you willing to give your
Organs for this people?
 ROLE OF MOTIVE - JOHN STUART MILL

• He who saves a fellow creature from drowning

does what is morally right, whether his motive be
duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he
who betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a
crime, even if his object be to serve another friend
to whom he is under greater obligations.
• But to speak only of actions done from the
motive of duty, and in direct obedience to
principle: it is a misapprehension of the
utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive it as
implying that people should fix their minds
upon so wide a generality as the world, or
society at large.
 JUSTICE AND MORAL RIGHTS

• Justice as a respect for rights directed

toward society’s pursuit of the greatest
happiness for the greatest number. (Mill)
•Rights are a valid claim
on society and are
justified by utility. (Mill)
• Utilitarian's argue that issues of justice
carry a very strong emotional import
because the category of rights is
directly associated with the individual’s
most vital interests. All of these rights
are predicated on the person’s right to
life.
 MILL DESCRIBES RIGHT

To have a right, then is, I conceive, to have something

which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If
the objector goes on to ask why it ought, I can give him no
other reason than general utility. If that expression does not
seem to convey a sufficient feeling of the strength of the
obligation, nor to account for the peculiar energy of the
feeling,….
…..it is because there goes to the composition of
the sentiment, not a rational only but also an
animal element, the thirst for retaliation; and this
thirst derives its intensity, as well as its moral
justification, from the extraordinarily important
and impressive kind of utility which is concerned.
The interest involved is that of security, to
everyone’s feelings the most vital of all interests.
• Mill creates a distinction between legal rights and
their justification. He points out that when legal
rights are not morally justified in accordance to
the greatest happiness principle, then these rights
need neither be observed, nor be respected. This is
like saying that there are instances when the law is
not morally justified and, in this case, even
objectionable.
• While it can be justified why others violate legal
rights, it is an act of injustice to violate an
individual’s moral rights. Going back to the case of
wiretapping, it seems that one’s right to privacy
can be sacrificed for the sake of the common good.
This means that moral rights are only justifiable by
considerations of greater overall happiness.