Utilitarianism is a moral theory that gained popularity in the early 1800's and still influences many of our decisions today. On the face of it, it is pretty simple. The catchphrase of Utilitarianism is "Whatever action produces the most pleasure and the least pain for the greatest number of people is the morally right action." So the rightness or wrongness of an action is tied to the consequences of the action in question. It is for this reason that Utilitarianism is a member of the family of ethical theories known as consequentialism. Simply put consequential ethical theories are theories that make use of the ramifications of an action to determine its morality. Not all consequentialist theories however are as altruistic as Utilitarianism.

The first great champion of Utilitarianism was as English philosopher by the name of Jeremy Bentham. James Mill, a close friend of Bentham's and fellow Englishmen aided him in his work and is often given co-credit for Utilitarianism. However it was Mill's son, John Stuart Mill who made Utilitarianism into a viable working theory. To distinguish Bentham's theory from J. S. Mill's it is called Act Utilitarianism.

Bentham used what came to be known as the hedonistic calculus in determining if an action is right or wrong. Here is how it works in a very and I emphasize very simplified example.

Action X is in question. If X is done 100 people will experience an increased level of happiness. (For now we will not worry about how much of an increase that would be.) 1 person will experience pain as a result of X action. 100 positive -1 negative = +99 Action X is determined to be a morally right action with a positive rating of 99.

That is an example of the hedonistic calculus in action. Here is another.

Action Y is now in question.

Action Y will bring happiness to 6 people.

Action Y will bring pain to 5 people.

+6-5=+1 Action Y is morally right.

That one might sound a bit more questionable. How can 6 people cause pain to 5 people and feel good about it? We are just getting started.

Obviously not all things that bring pleasure or pain bring it in equal amounts. Bentham devised a series of criteria for determining the level of the pain or pleasure that needed to be taken into account. Without going into the details of all the criteria I will attempt to give an adequate example of the hedonistic calculus using pain and pleasure values.

You are at a store and interested in a particular item. We will say it's a bottle of scotch. You are hosting a swanky dinner party tonight, but have no money. Being a die-hard Act Utilitarian you ponder whether it would be right or wrong to steal it. Not having to pay is a positive but not a huge one. You assign it a +2. You may also get some satisfaction from stealing and living dangerously, +3. You are now up to +5. You would share it with your 6 guests; that's 7 people enjoying a drink. +2 for each for +14. That totals 19 positive points. Now for the negatives; you may feel guilty later -3. (if you were a true Bentham Utilitarian you wouldn't feel guilt as long as you go by the results of the hedonistic calculus because it determines right from wrong. So this point could be negated.) You could get caught but you reason this is a remote possibility -1. There will be lost revenue for the store but remember you are worried about pain levels, not lost revenue. You reason that the store will never notice the loss. That's a zero, neither positive nor negative. Negatives total 4. +19-4=+15. You go for it.

Most people would agree that stealing is wrong but in this situation stealing looks like the way to the greatest happiness and thus you would be in the wrong not to steal. How's that for a change! Let's continue with the story.

The storeowner is very meticulous and immediately notices the missing bottle. He is out $50 bucks and is furious. He fires the clerk who was on duty. He calls the police who are annoyed at the inconvenience. They recognize you from the security cameras. You are arrested at your party and spend 3 days in jail before being sentenced to 100 hours community service. I could go on but I'll stop there.

Now instead of being a moral hero like you expected you are guilty of a grievous offense. You have caused much more pain than pleasure. "But" you plead, " I didn't mean for this to happen! " Utilitarianism is not about what you meant to happen, remember it is a consequentialist theory. It only matters what happens in the end. So there is something that seems counterproductive about an ethical theory that is incapable of determining the morality of an action before the action is committed.

Another problem is that ultimately the hedonistic calculus is subjective. You may give a particular pleasure a +10 but someone else may give it only +7. Many people also take issue with a theory that would allow the immense suffering of a few for the pleasure of many.

There is the issue of practicality too. How many people really want to take the time to consider all the possible ramifications, assign them all numbers, and add all the numbers together to come up with what is in the end only a guess as to if an action would be moral or immoral?

Still there are many instances when people apply act utilitarianism often without realizing it. These are especially common during crisis situations such as warfare. Generals (and the public) may find themselves contemplating how many lives the mission is worth and Congress may be worried about how many dollars it is worth.

Because of its many flaws for everyday use, act utilitarianism today has few adherents. However you may remember John Stuart Mill from above. He took act utilitarianism and revolutionized it, dealing with most of the objections in the process. It is John Stuart Mill's Rule Utilitarianism that I will be discussing in my next article.