Imagine this scenario: your friend wants to borrow your favorite sweater. You understand the risk of the sweater getting stained or lost. However, your friend’s overall happiness outweighs the potential disappointments you might have from small damages to your sweater, so you decide to lend it to them. It seems like the correct, even moral, choice. 

Now think of another scenario, as mentioned in the book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? By Michael J. Sandel: a hospital has four patients who each need different organ transplants to survive. A person in good health walks in, and without consent, this person’s organs are harvested to save the four. The simple count of the four lives saved outnumbers the one lost, so the death should be justified. And yet, by any standards, this example would be considered unethical. 

So, how do we determine what is ethical and what is not? 

The above examples relate to one concept used to discern exactly the answer to that question—utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that judges the morality of actions solely by their consequences rather than the actions themselves; it is a philosophical approach that considers the well-being of all affected individuals, not solely that of the actor. Its core principle argues that the most ethical choice is the one that maximizes pleasure over pain. 

Jeremy Bentham is considered the founder of utilitarianism, first coining the term in 1781. Intrigued by the writings of Enlightenment philosophers David Hume, Joseph Priestly, Claude Adrien Helvétius, and Beccaria, Bentham came upon the “principle of utility,” stating that any action is right if it produces happiness, and wrong if it produces pain. 

In his 1789 work “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,” Jeremy Bentham formalized the principle of utility, also introducing the concept of classic utilitarianism. 

Bentham adopted a hedonistic theory of value, identifying the good with pleasure and the bad with pain, and advocated for maximizing overall pleasure or happiness. 

For him, happiness could be quantified by duration and intensity as it merely signifies pleasure and the absence of pain. This rejected the idea of inalienable rights: fundamental rights that cannot be taken away or given up. Quantifying happiness supersedes inalienable rights as the moral focus shifts from universal principles to flexible, outcome-based calculations. In other words, rights are no longer absolute–they are only valid insofar as their resulting degree of happiness. 

Later, John Stuart Mill wrote the prominent text “Utilitarianism” in 1861, further developing and popularizing the ethical theory. Mill defined happiness as “pleasure and the absence of pain” and unhappiness as “pain and the lack of pleasure.” Significantly refining utilitarianism, he stated that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” 

Whereas Bentham focused on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for most people, Mill’s idea of unhappiness recognizes the lack of positive experiences, not solely suffering. He explicitly states that happiness is not simply the presence of pleasure but also the lack of pain.  

According to Mill, the ethics of utility demand that social arrangements harmonize the happiness of every individual and the interest of the whole. He affirms the necessity of harnessing opinion and education to create an unbreakable link between individual happiness and common interest in every person’s mind. 

The democratic nature of utilitarianism has made it favorable to many as it considers the welfare of every individual affected, requiring an unbiased consideration of another’s happiness. Similarly, democratic governments helped popularize utilitarianism by aiming to maximize the overall happiness and well-being of society. 

Bentham sought to change corrupt laws and social practices by using utilitarianism as a method to evaluate policies and actions. However, it has key limitations, as represented by the aforementioned organ-harvesting scenario. In that example, both the losses and gains were pivotal (unlike the minor loss and moderate happiness gained in the case of the sweater). The rights to life and bodily autonomy were violated, hence revealing the criticisms of utilitarianism: quantification issues, failure to account for justice, and conflict with human rights. While utilitarianism worked for the sweater, it would not be as successful regarding the unconsented organ harvesting. 

So, is utilitarianism the optimal means to reach the “good life”? Shouldn’t we humans have faculties beyond mere pleasure to justify what is right and what should be done? After all, we are not beings that lack moral reasoning. Our advanced cognitive abilities and intellectual language should set us apart from beings that acquiesce to their desires without thinking. 

To provide a solution to this problem, Mill introduced the distinction between higher and lower pleasures, with a predilection towards pleasures that induce moral sentiments, intellectual pursuits, and emotional and creative experiences. To him, pleasures that stimulate our higher faculties have greater value than those that engage only our senses. 

Mill also presented qualitative hedonism, claiming that some types of pleasures are more valuable than others due to the virtue of their inherent quality. To live a good life and maximize utility, the quality of pleasure must be estimated along with quantity. However, by doing so, Mill fundamentally changed the foundation of utilitarianism, for Jeremy Bentham focused solely on maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

In a world with profuse ethical quandaries and vulnerable human rights, we seek various approaches to justice. As citizens of a democracy, we strive for the betterment of society, yet also the happiness of the individual; we aim for equality and the empowerment of marginalized groups; we honor self-sacrifices for the greater good but demand rights for every person. Bentham’s classic utilitarianism cannot be the defining approach to morality. The diversity of our society makes the consistent measurement of values nearly impossible–it complicates the interpretation of the “greatest good.” 

We are sentient beings, but we also have the distinguishing ability to think critically. Aiming for mere pleasure over pain should not be our sole ambition. Therefore, Mill’s refined version of utilitarianism provides a more developed course to reach justice by considering the quality of pleasure, not only its quantity. 

Utilitarianism provides only one principle in a sea of approaches to determine what is ethically right. Hopefully, we can one day collectively reach a consensus as a society, weaving together several ideologies and ultimately leading ourselves to the “good life.”