In this era of globalisation and liberalisation, we often come across the term ‘utilitarianism’ either in books, papers or talks. Similarly, I had come across a situation where an action was done based on how many people were happy with it, and completely being ignorant of the other facet of the same action. This made me ponder whether utilitarianism is still relevant in the present day, or was it another concept that was sent to the history textbooks?
A concept that was devised in the 19th Century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is a theory that prioritises the morality and happiness of many over pain and suffering. It merely states that actions that result in happiness and pleasure should outweigh the actions that cause pain and suffering. It is an ethical philosophy that was widely popular in the 19th century. The concept of utilitarianism is governed by the maxim- ‘The greatest good for the greatest number’. The theory decides the morality of actions based on the effect of the said action – consequentialism. The action is supposed to be morally right if it brings happiness to people and morally wrong if it brings pain. This theory was of extreme importance during the 19th century as it sparked great interest and very interesting debates. The first one being, who measures the extent of happiness and pain? John Stuart Mill and Bentham answered this by stating that people’s purpose in life is to get pleasure and happiness, and that is the intrinsic motive behind every person’s action. Thus, when the majority of people are happy, that automatically makes the action a good one. They believed that the scale and unit of measure were nothing apart from the ones impacted by the very action. It aligns with the Greek philosophy in aspects of Eudaimonia, where happiness is stated as the end goal intended to be achieved.
Utilitarianism was confronted with multiple challenges and limitations during its introduction. The main limitation was the lack of a measure of any value. Happiness as a component does not have any unitary value, which makes it difficult to examine ‘the greatest happiness’. Let’s take an example, the famous trolley problem. Let’s assume the brakes on a trolley stop working, and now there are only two options. One, either hit the 5 people standing at the end of the track or divert the vehicle to kill one person standing on a different track. In this case, what constitutes as greatest good for the greatest number? Steering the trolley towards the one person on the other track. However, now if I state that the one person who is a doctor specialised in a particular type of cancer is the only one who is working towards solving it. Now, what would be the greatest good? If the trolley is not diverted, 5 people die, and if it is, then the person saving hundreds of people dies.
Classical Utilitarianism would have stated that saving 5 people is more important and would amount to the greater good, as utilitarianism does not account for the consequences of the action. An action might result in greater good and happiness, but the consequence of the same may either be good or bad, which is not considered under this theory. Furthermore, the role of justice and individual rights is very minimal in utilitarianism as it does not account for individual happiness and individual righteousness. Utilitarianism has an implied assumption that people seek intrinsic happiness, and due to the same, the action that results in the greatest good will not be morally wrong. The problem arises when the theory does not recognise any grey area. It is only black and white, that is, whether the action is good or bad. It does not account for the various other factors that determine the morality of an action.
A question that comes to all our minds at this stage is whether a morally wrong action becomes morally right if it results in a greater good?
There is a very famous case- R v. Dudley & Stephens, which is deliberated on the very question laid forth above. The case dealt with four people getting stuck in a boat in the middle of the sea, and as a week passes, no one comes to help, and one of the members, a 17-year-old boy, gets really sick. The remaining two people, Dudley and Stephens, decided to kill the boy as he was already sick and going to die to save themselves from starvation. The defence taken by Dudley and Stephens was utilitarianism, that is, it was in the interest of the greater good that they killed the boy. The court held them guilty and stated that utilitarianism cannot override the principles of justice and morality. This case is the classic example of the moral complications that come with utilitarianism.
How morally wrong can an action be, and who decides its morality? How relevant is utilitarianism in this evolving technological society?
The morality of an action is highly interconnected and dependent on the ethics and justice system followed in every society. What one may consider morally wrong may not be morally wrong to another. A very easy example is bigamy, which is considered morally wrong in India. However, Islamic countries do not consider it a moral wrong. Hence, it is inevitably the justice system and the social structure of the country that determines the morality of an action. This is what makes utilitarianism a relevant subject today.
At present, we can see the use of utilitarianism in various streams such as economics, public policy, technology, etc. Widely utilised by governments and organisations, cost-benefit studies are basically utilitarian calculations. Policymakers commonly balance the expected benefits against the possible expenses to decide which of building a roadway, investing in healthcare, or enacting a tax reform will be most beneficial for the largest number of people. Let’s take climate change as an example. Countries today are facing an issue of balancing sustainability with development. A utilitarian perspective would consider the long-term happiness of future generations alongside the immediate benefits to current populations.
In this era of technologisation and AI, the concept of utilitarianism is also undergoing digital nuances. Data-driven algorithms help tech corporations maximise user pleasure, engagement, and even morality. For example, autonomous cars have to be taught to make snap decisions—should the car give the pedestrian’s life top priority in a no-win scenario or the passenger’s life? These are problems debated under utilitarianism.
Utility theory has also found a friend in modern movements for justice and equality. Sometimes the maximising of happiness for the largest number of people marginalises minority interests. Critics contend this results in the “tyranny of the majority,” in which the comfort of the many sacrifices the happiness of the few.
Nonetheless, utilitarianism has changed. Modern thinkers like Peter Singer have expanded their reasoning to support animal rights, world poverty reduction, and successful charity. Utilitarians want to include more voices and weigh more interests in their calculus by extending the circle of moral concern. Particularly, the trend of effective altruism directs funds towards causes with the most quantifiable impact—a 21st-century application of utilitarian principles in action. It is no longer the same definition that was followed in the 19th century, but has evolved to a broader understanding which includes modern democratic principles of justice and is adapting to the technology-driven society.
However, despite its broader definition, one difficulty that yet remains is the difficulty in predicting outcomes. The consequences cannot be predicted in such cases. What may seem to be the greatest good now does not have to be the greatest good, let’s say, 5 years down the line. A simple example is that of using carbon as a fuel. Furthermore, the theory does not account for emotional situations and the mental health of people. Would people really be able to sacrifice something dear to them for the greater good? The challenge pertaining to quantifying happiness also still remains. How can we determine happiness as a unit or a scale? These are a few aspects that have not been resolved.
Utilitarianism does not just affect society at large. It has an impact on our day-to-day choices and lifestyle without our realisation. For example, if you decide to go to your friend’s place instead of your friend coming to your place, as everyone lives near that locality and it would be feasible for all of them, you are using a utilitarian thought process. We unknowingly and knowingly prioritise the goodness of people and the greater good in very simple and basic choices in our lives, and when we make all these choices, we use utilitarianism without even realising it.
Utilitarianism is not a panacea, but it offers a valuable lens through which to examine the ethical challenges of modern life. It pushes us to think beyond ourselves, to consider the broader impact of our actions, and to strive for outcomes that benefit the many rather than the few.
As the world grapples with pandemics, technological disruption, and climate crises, the appeal of a results-oriented moral framework is understandable. Utilitarianism encourages innovation in ethical reasoning, making it particularly suited for a world in flux. Utilitarianism does not have all the answers to our problems and moral dilemmas, but it keeps asking the right questions—and in a world as complex as ours, isn’t that the kind of philosophy we need the most?