Utilitarianism and the principle of utility: QCE Philosophy and Reason
“Explain and evaluate utilitarianism, including the principle of utility, act and rule versions, and major objections”
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory holding that the right action maximises happiness for the greatest number. Bentham's principle of utility treats happiness as pleasure minus pain, measured by the hedonic calculus, with each person counting equally. Mill refined it by distinguishing higher (intellectual) from lower (bodily) pleasures, ranked by quality as judged by competent judges. Act utilitarianism assesses each act by its consequences; rule utilitarianism assesses rules whose general adoption maximises utility. Major objections concern justice and rights (it may justify sacrificing an innocent or a minority), the separateness of persons, demandingness, measurement and the irrelevance of intentions.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
QCAA wants you to explain and evaluate the most influential consequentialist ethical theory: utilitarianism. You need the principle of utility, the contributions of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism, and the standard objections. This is prime IA and external-exam material for moral philosophy.
The answer
The principle of utility
Utilitarianism holds that the right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is a form of consequentialism: the morality of an act depends only on its consequences, not on intentions, rules or the kind of act it is. Jeremy Bentham, in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), stated the principle of utility: actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce its opposite.
Bentham's hedonic calculus
Bentham was a hedonist: happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain, and all pleasures count equally in kind. To measure utility he proposed the hedonic (felicific) calculus, weighing pleasures and pains by factors such as intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (nearness), fecundity, purity and extent (how many are affected). Each person's pleasure counts equally: "everybody to count for one, nobody for more than one."
Mill's refinement: higher and lower pleasures
John Stuart Mill, in Utilitarianism (1863), defended the theory against the charge that it is a "doctrine worthy only of swine." He distinguished higher pleasures (intellectual, aesthetic, moral) from lower (bodily) pleasures, arguing the higher are superior in quality, not just quantity. His test: competent judges who have experienced both prefer the higher. Hence his line that it is better to be a dissatisfied human than a satisfied pig, because the human knows both sides.
Act versus rule utilitarianism
- Act utilitarianism assesses each individual act by its consequences: do whatever maximises utility in this case.
- Rule utilitarianism assesses rules: follow the rules whose general adoption would maximise utility (such as "keep promises," "do not punish the innocent"). Rule utilitarianism aims to avoid the troubling one-off acts that act utilitarianism might license, while keeping a consequentialist foundation.
Major objections
- Justice and rights: utilitarianism can apparently justify punishing an innocent person, or sacrificing a minority, if doing so maximises total happiness. This seems to violate justice and individual rights.
- The separateness of persons (John Rawls): summing happiness across people treats society as if it were one person, ignoring that benefits to some do not simply compensate burdens on others.
- Demandingness: maximising overall good seems to require constant self-sacrifice, leaving no room for personal projects or for treating your own family specially.
- Measurement: comparing and aggregating different people's pleasures may be impossible in practice.
- Wrong intentions: because only consequences count, a good act done from malice is as right as one done from love, which many find counterintuitive.
Rule utilitarianism answers some objections (it forbids punishing the innocent as a rule), but critics argue it either collapses into act utilitarianism (break the rule when breaking it does most good) or becomes an unprincipled rule-worship.
A sheriff could frame and punish one innocent person to stop a riot that would otherwise kill several. Work out what each version recommends.
Step 1: Identify the consequences for act utilitarianism
Tally the utility of each option. Framing the innocent: one person suffers gravely, but several lives are saved and the riot is averted, so total happiness may be higher. Act utilitarianism, judging this single act by its consequences, can therefore recommend framing the innocent.
Step 2: Expose the justice objection
This verdict violates the innocent person's rights and our sense of justice, illustrating the standard objection that act utilitarianism can license sacrificing an individual for the greater sum.
Step 3: Apply rule utilitarianism
Ask which rule, generally adopted, maximises utility: "officials may frame the innocent when it seems to maximise utility" or "officials must never punish the innocent". A society following the first rule would lose trust in justice, deterrence and security, so the no-framing rule produces more utility overall. Rule utilitarianism forbids the framing.
Step 4: Note the residual problem
Rule utilitarianism gives the intuitive answer here, but a critic asks why, in this very case, one should follow the rule when breaking it does most good. If the answer is "break it", rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism, which is the unresolved tension.
For utilitarianism only outcomes determine rightness: not intentions, duties or the type of act. This is its great strength (it is impartial and outcome-focused) and the source of its deepest problem, since maximising total happiness can in principle justify sacrificing an individual's rights for the greater sum.
- Treating Bentham and Mill as identical
- Bentham measures pleasure by quantity alone; Mill adds qualitative higher and lower pleasures.
- Ignoring the act/rule distinction
- Many objections target act utilitarianism specifically; rule utilitarianism is designed to blunt them.
- Saying utilitarianism considers intentions
- It is consequentialist; intentions are irrelevant to whether the act is right.
- Reducing it to selfishness
- Utilitarianism is impartial: your own happiness counts no more than anyone else's.
Try this
Q1. State the principle of utility and explain Bentham's hedonic calculus. [4 marks]
- Cue. Maximise happiness for the greatest number; weigh pleasures and pains by intensity, duration, certainty, extent and so on.
Q2. Distinguish act from rule utilitarianism. [3 marks]
- Cue. Act assesses each act by its consequences; rule assesses rules whose general adoption maximises utility.
Q3. Explain the objection from justice. [3 marks]
- Cue. Maximising total happiness could justify punishing an innocent or sacrificing a minority, violating individual rights.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of QCAA exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Practice7 marksEvaluate utilitarianism as an account of right action, with reference to the objection from justice and the act/rule distinction.Show worked answer →
A 7 mark response explains the theory, the justice objection, and how rule utilitarianism responds.
The theory. Utilitarianism is consequentialist: the right act maximises happiness for the greatest number. Bentham measures pleasure by the hedonic calculus with each person counting equally; Mill adds higher and lower pleasures ranked by quality.
The justice objection. Act utilitarianism can apparently justify punishing an innocent person or sacrificing a minority when this maximises total happiness, violating individual rights and justice (linked to Rawls's separateness-of-persons point that summing across people ignores the distinctness of individuals).
Rule utilitarianism reply. Assess rules, not single acts: follow the rules whose general adoption maximises utility (never punish the innocent). This blocks the troubling one-off acts while staying consequentialist.
Limit of the reply. Critics argue rule utilitarianism either collapses into act utilitarianism (break the rule when breaking it does most good) or becomes unprincipled rule-worship.
Verdict. Utilitarianism is attractively impartial and outcome-focused but struggles with justice; rule versions mitigate without fully resolving the problem.
Markers reward the principle of utility, the justice objection, the act/rule distinction, and a justified conclusion.
Practice5 marksExplain Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures and assess whether it can be reconciled with the hedonistic basis of utilitarianism.Show worked answer →
A 5 mark response states the distinction and probes the tension.
The distinction. Against the charge that utilitarianism is "a doctrine worthy only of swine", Mill argues that higher (intellectual, aesthetic, moral) pleasures are superior in quality, not merely quantity, to lower (bodily) pleasures. His test: competent judges who have experienced both prefer the higher, hence "better to be a dissatisfied human than a satisfied pig".
The tension. Pure hedonism values pleasure as such, measured by quantity (intensity, duration). Introducing a quality ranking seems to appeal to a standard beyond pleasure itself (for example the use of our higher faculties), which arguably abandons strict hedonism.
Assessment. Mill can reply that the competent-judges test keeps the standard internal to preference, but critics say a preference for higher pleasures despite less quantity of pleasure shows that something other than pleasure is doing the evaluative work, straining the hedonistic basis.
Markers reward the quality distinction with the competent-judges test and a clear account of the tension with hedonism.