Intro to Phil: Utilitarianism

Util

Basics

Explanation

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that can be summed up as “greatest good for the greatest number.” It values outcomes that benefit the most amount of people. This means that if you were in a scenario where you had to kill a family member to save two people, it would be justified.

Why Util?

Despite the horrifying example before, util is one of the most read philosophies in LD. Even in PF, arguments about war, pandemics, or any consequentialist impact presume util because the outcome of that scenario would not produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

Util is primarily used because of two reasons. One is that it can easily access most impacts. While soft-left frameworks like structural violence can’t access impacts like nuclear war UNLESS there is a warrant for why nuke war harms marginalized populations the most, util only relies on body counts. In other words, nuclear war is bad under util because it results in deaths and suffering, and soft-left impacts like racism are also bad according to util because it does not constitute “good.” Two is that util explains policy/government action, especially for topics about the USFG, or the United States Federal Government. Governments must aggregate outcomes and decide what is best for the greatest number, as it is impractical and unfeasible for them to consider the different needs of all individuals.

Types of Util

Hedonism

Although it isn’t a “type” of util, it is essential to understand what hedonism is. The aforementioned “greatest good” is defined as “happiness” under hedonism. As long as an action makes an individual happy, it is a positive outcome. However, this raises concerns. If there was a scenario where murdering others made someone happy, would that be justified under hedonism? Proponents would say no—because the action of killing would cause suffering that outweighs the pleasure gained by performing the action. However, it is difficult to weigh that pleasure and pain.

Act Util

Act utilitarianism evaluates each individual action based on whether it maximizes happiness. If an action produces more good than bad in that specific situation, it is morally right. However, this can sometimes justify harmful actions if they have good outcomes.

Rule Util

Rule utilitarianism focuses on following rules that generally lead to the greatest happiness. Instead of looking at individual acts, it asks what would happen if everyone followed a certain rule. This avoids justifying harmful actions but may be too rigid in unique cases.

Negative Util

Negative utilitarianism argues that reducing suffering is more important than increasing happiness. It prioritizes avoiding harm over promoting pleasure. Critics worry it could lead to extreme solutions, like eliminating life to eliminate suffering.

Util Justifications

Actor Specificity

Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on outcomes, regardless of who performs them. This means it judges all actors by the same standard: maximize overall utility. The morality of an action doesn't change depending on the person doing it.

Phenomenal Introspection

Because people have direct access to their own feelings and experiences, they can report on what makes them happy or unhappy. Utilitarianism relies on this introspection to assess utility—subjective happiness is measurable through lived experience.

Degrees of Wrongness

Utilitarianism allows for moral gradation. Actions aren’t just right or wrong—they can be more or less wrong depending on how much harm they cause. This contrasts with moral theories that treat all violations as equally bad.

No Intent-Foresight Distinction

Utilitarianism doesn’t distinguish between what you intend and what you merely foresee. If the outcome causes harm, it counts morally, regardless of whether you meant to cause it. Only consequences matter, not motivations.

No Act-Omission Distinction

Utilitarianism sees no moral difference between doing harm and allowing harm if the outcomes are the same. Failing to prevent suffering when you could have is as morally significant as causing it.