7/26/2019 Calculating Consequences

1/3

Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian

Approach to Ethics Developed by Manuel

Velasquez, Claire Andre, Thoas !han"s, !#$#,

and Michael $# MeyerSource: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html

Imagine that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency gets wind of a plot to set o a

dirty bomb in a major American city. Agents capture a suspect who they belie!e

has information about where the bomb is planted. Is it permissible for them to

torture the suspect into re!ealing the bomb"s whereabouts# Can the dignity of one

indi!idual be !iolated in order to sa!e many others# $reatest %alance of $oods &!er

'arms If you answered yes you were probably using a form of moral reasoning

called (utilitarianism.( Stripped down to its essentials utilitarianism is a moral

principle that holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the one

that produces the greatest balance of bene)ts o!er harms for e!eryone aected. Solong as a course of action produces ma*imum bene)ts for e!eryone utilitarianism

does not care whether the bene)ts are produced by lies manipulation or coercion.

+any of us use this type of moral reasoning fre,uently in our daily decisions. -hen

ased to e*plain why we feel we ha!e a moral duty to perform some action we

often point to the good that will come from the action or the harm it will pre!ent.

%usiness analysts legislators and scientists weigh daily the resulting bene)ts and

harms of policies when deciding for e*ample whether to in!est resources in a

certain public project whether to appro!e a new drug or whether to ban a certain

pesticide. Utilitarianism oers a relati!ely straightforward method for deciding the

morally right course of action for any particular situation we may )nd oursel!es in.

o disco!er what we ought to do in any situation we )rst identify the !ariouscourses of action that we could perform. Second we determine all of the

foreseeable bene)ts and harms that would result from each course of action for

e!eryone aected by the action. And third we choose the course of action that

pro!ides the greatest bene)ts after the costs ha!e been taen into account. he

principle of utilitarianism can be traced to the writings of 0eremy %entham who

li!ed in 1ngland during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. %entham a legal

reformer sought an objecti!e basis that would pro!ide a publicly acceptable norm

for determining what inds of laws 1ngland should enact. 'e belie!ed that the most

promising way of reaching such an agreement was to choose that policy that would

bring about the greatest net bene)ts to society once the harms had been taen into

account. 'is motto a familiar one now was (the greatest good for the greatestnumber.( &!er the years the principle of utilitarianism has been e*panded and

re)ned so that today there are many !ariations of the principle. 2or e*ample

%entham de)ned bene)ts and harms in terms of pleasure and pain. 0ohn Stuart +ill

a great 34th century utilitarian )gure spoe of bene)ts and harms not in terms of

pleasure and pain alone but in terms of the ,uality or intensity of such pleasure and

pain. oday utilitarians often describe bene)ts and harms in terms of the

satisfaction of personal preferences or in purely economic terms of monetary

7/26/2019 Calculating Consequences

2/3

bene)ts o!er monetary costs. Utilitarians also dier in their !iews about the ind of

,uestion we ought to as oursel!es when maing an ethical decision. Some

utilitarians maintain that in maing an ethical decision we must as oursel!es:

(-hat eect will my doing this act in this situation ha!e on the general balance of

good o!er e!il#( If lying would produce the best conse,uences in a particular

situation we ought to lie. &thers nown as rule utilitarians claim that we mustchoose that act that conforms to the general rule that would ha!e the best

conse,uences. In other words we must as oursel!es: (-hat eect would

e!eryone"s doing this ind of action ha!e on the general balance of good o!er e!il#(

So for e*ample the rule (to always tell the truth( in general promotes the good of

e!eryone and therefore should always be followed e!en if in a certain situation

lying would produce the best conse,uences. 5espite such dierences among

utilitarians howe!er most hold to the general principle that morality must depend

on balancing the bene)cial and harmful conse,uences of our conduct. 6roblems

-ith Utilitarianism -hile utilitarianism is currently a !ery popular ethical theory

there are some di7culties in relying on it as a sole method for moral decision8

maing. 2irst the utilitarian calculation re,uires that we assign !alues to the

bene)ts and harms resulting from our actions and compare them with the bene)ts

and harms that might result from other actions. %ut it"s often di7cult if not

impossible to measure and compare the !alues of certain bene)ts and costs. 'ow

do we go about assigning a !alue to life or to art# And how do we go about

comparing the !alue of money with for e*ample the !alue of life the !alue of time

or the !alue of human dignity# +oreo!er can we e!er be really certain about all of

the conse,uences of our actions# &ur ability to measure and to predict the bene)ts

and harms resulting from a course of action or a moral rule is dubious to say the

least. 6erhaps the greatest di7culty with utilitarianism is that it fails to tae into

account considerations of justice. -e can imagine instances where a certain course

of action would produce great bene)ts for society but they would be clearly unjust.

5uring the apartheid regime in South Africa in the last century South African

whites for e*ample sometimes claimed that all South Africans9including blacs9

were better o under white rule. hese whites claimed that in those African nations

that ha!e traded a whites8only go!ernment for a blac or mi*ed one social

conditions ha!e rapidly deteriorated. Ci!il wars economic decline famine and

unrest they predicted will be the result of allowing the blac majority of South

Africa to run the go!ernment. If such a prediction were true9and the end of

apartheid has shown that the prediction was false9then the white go!ernment of

South Africa would ha!e been morally justi)ed by utilitarianism in spite of its

injustice. If our moral decisions are to tae into account considerations of justice

then apparently utilitarianism cannot be the sole principle guiding our decisions. It

can howe!er play a role in these decisions. he principle of utilitarianism in!ites us

to consider the immediate and the less immediate conse,uences of our actions.

$i!en its insistence on summing the bene)ts and harms of all people utilitarianism

ass us to loo beyond self8interest to consider impartially the interests of all

persons aected by our actions. As 0ohn Stuart +ill once wrote: he happiness

which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not...one"s; own

happiness but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of

others utilitarianism re,uires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and

7/26/2019 Calculating Consequences

3/3

bene!olent spectator. In an era today that some ha!e characteri ?3 -inter 34@4;

e!ised @/>B3 D

See more at:

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.htmlEsthash.>sB0ii@.dpuf