Schueler 1

Adam Schueler
Primary Text Research Essay
October 18, 2014
Honors English 2089
Word Count: 2,365
Utilitarianism in Society
Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that determines what
makes a right and wrong decision. Decisions are based on the concept
of utility, or the amount of happiness, or lack of happiness, that a
decision will create. According to utilitarianism, the correct or moral
decision is always the one that will create the greatest amount of
happiness; all other options are then considered wrong or immoral
(Utilitarianism. MIT.edu). Although most people do not understand
the concept of utilitarianism, it is used in everyday life. An evident
place where utilitarian thought is used and can be easily analyzed is in
politics surrounding government policies. By evaluating primary
resources and field research, certain viewpoints can be used to
determine how the ideas of discourse influence a utilitarian decision
To gain a better understanding of how utilitarianism is influenced
by discourse, one must research the concept of the philosophy. The
Classical theory of Utilitarianism is credited to the theories of John
Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Bentham (1748-1832) was an Anglo
American philosopher and an early advocate for individual rights such

Schueler 2
as freedom of expression, womens rights, abolition of slavery, and
decriminalization of homosexual acts (Khan Academy. Ethics:
Utilitarianism Part 1). Bentham was influenced by Thomas Hobbes
account of human nature, that people are naturally bad, and Humes
account of social utility, that people tend to approve of qualities and
actions useful to society, leading to one of his theories that people
naturally seek pleasure and avoids pain. He also theorized utility as the
standard of right action for governments and individuals(The History of
Utilitarianism). Mill (1806-1873) was a follower of Benthams, but
disagreed with some of his claims. Mainly, Bentham believed that there
were only quantitative differences between pleasures, and qualitative
differences did not exist. This argument left room for criticisms
questioning the severity of an act, which Mill sought to correct (The
History of Utilitarianism).
Over time, utilitarianism has gained much criticism that
emphasizes holes left in the philosophy. E.F. Carritt of the University
College of Oxford records his arguments as such in an Introduction to
Ethical Philosophy: One critique discusses the topic of pleasures and
pains. It is impossible to quantitatively count the number of pleasures
or pains gained by a group of people; therefore, they cannot be
compared in such a manner. Second, this philosophy does not leave
room for justice. In a utilitarian decision, it does not matter to whom
the greatest pleasure is given, as long as that option provides the

Schueler 3
greatest amount. And third, inflicted pain is justified as long as it brings
about more happiness that offsets the pain (Criticisms of
Utilitarianism). After looking at these critiques it can be concluded that
utilitarianism differs from other ethical theories in that the motive of
the decisions verifies its rightness or wrongness. As for utilitarianism, it
is possible to do the right thing but with a bad motive? The different
perspectives that formulate around utilitarianism directly translate into
discourse communities that appear in the real world.
Most of the American and global society is part of a utilitarian
organization in one form or another. If a person voluntarily joins an
organization in order to receive something in return, he or she
becomes a part of a utilitarian organization. Examples include colleges
by which a person gains an education, hospitals in which someone can
receive a treatment, or even a business where a person receives a
salary. In a business, a person offers his or her skills or expertise in
return for money, which in turn, often results in an increase in
happiness for both parties. Even though most people are involved in
utilitarianism, how effective is the principle if most people do not
understand it?
Even without a strong understanding of utilitarianism, people can
easily understand the concept of morality, which in turn affects how
they would view utilitarianism. A leading utilitarian philosopher of the
late nineteenth century, Cambridge professor, Henry Sidgwick,

Schueler 4
rejected their [Bentham and Mill] theories of motivation as well as
Benthams theory of meaning of moral terms and sought to support
Utilitarianism by showing that it follows from systematic reflection on
the morality of common sense (Utilitarianism. Encyclopedia
Britannica). So, while utilitarianism and common sense are two
different concepts, they play hand-in-hand when making decisions, and
can easily influence one another. An instance when both morality and
utility are considered is when making or breaking a promise. Utilitarian
thought might support the breaking of the promise in order to create
more happiness, while morality would contradict and want to keep the
promise. Both arguments have their own sets of positives and
negatives, so it is up to the individual how they are influenced by the
discourse of the two and how they will make the decision. John Stuart
Mill argues for the lack of morality and believed that the only
philosophy that can influence a decision is ultimately utilitarianism.
Mill realized that utilitarianism was not a theory in which people
made decisions by their free will, but instead were influenced by other
sources. Mill states in his essay Utilitarianism, that humans do not
posses a moral instinct that tells them right from wrong, the existence
of such a moral instinct is itself one of the matters in dispute (Mill). He
has often been interpreted as a rule utilitarian, meaning that he
believes that a decision is deemed good or bad not only by the amount
of happiness it creates, but also if it follows a useful rule. However, the

Schueler 5
thought of morality combined with sure or expected outcomes has a
significant impact on how people make decisions. A study done by
Katherine V. Kortenkamp of the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse and
Colleen F. Moore of Montana State University used 140 college students
to test the impact of morality and appropriateness of a utilitarian
decision. In the study, the students had to read a series of moral
dilemmas that contained certain or uncertain consequences, and then
respond as to whether it was appropriate and whether it was moral to
kill 1 to save many (a utilitarian choice) (Kortenkamp). The results of
the study showed that participants were much less likely to make the
utilitarian choice when the outcomes of the decision were uncertain.
While some philosophers believe that utilitarianism should be used
when outcomes are uncertain, this study shows that morality plays just
as significant of a role, if not more, when making a life or death
decision. Instead of following a utilitarian trend, individuals tend to
support more a form of Kantian ethics in which a person fights to
preserve their own free will (The Implications of Just War Theory
Today). Kantian ethics are more concerned about the utility of the
individual, while Utilitarianism focuses on the utility of a community as
a whole. However, if each individual is fighting to preserve oneself,
then there is the potential to collectively form a utilitarian belief. Kant
justifies the right for self-defense, so if each person agrees that violent
action is necessary to protect themselves then they share a belief that

Schueler 6
will ultimately increase said communitys utility. Individuals make up
their own discourse communities that then come together to form a
larger discourse community, with a utilitarian belief. So, even though
individuals are more likely to choose the moral choice in a high stakes
matter, they influence governments to make the more utilitarian
decision in extreme matters such as war.
Governments throughout history and even today use utilitarian
principles when deciding on policies or making significant decisions.
During World War II, the US decided to drop atomic bombs on Japan,
thus ending the war in the Pacific. This decision is in fact utilitarian
when examining the outcomes. By dropping the bombs on Japan, the
US was able to save possibly thousands of lives before other countries
could get involved in the war, resulting in even more deaths. Looking
at this example from a utilitarian perspective, two cities were
completely wiped out, but if the war were to continue, more lives
probably would have been lost compared to those lost in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. Though the outcomes were uncertain, the government
used utilitarianism over morality and sought to create the most
expected happiness as possible. Jeremy Bentham describes in his
book, An Introduction to the Principals of Morals and Legislation, the
relationship between a government and its citizens and the influence
they have on the decision making process, specifically relating to
warfare or mischievous acts. Bentham states It is here to be

Schueler 7
observed, that if the influence exerted on any occasion by any
individual over the operations of the government be pernicious, it must
be in one or other of two ways: 1. By causing, or tending to cause,
operations not to be performed which ought to be performed; in other
words, by impeding the operations of government. Or, 2. By causing
operations to be performed which ought not to be performed; in other
words, by misdirecting them(Bentham). Like in society during the
eighteenth century, today, people have an immense effect on
governmental issues, especially in a democratic system. A vote or
political propaganda sways decisions in favor of a common factor,
which in this case is the viability of warfare. A idea that appears with
this discussion is the concept of a just war; do the ends justify the
means? People want to justify their utilitarian decisions by stating that
they are eliminating a potential threat. In doing so they are considering
the overall utility of the community and weighing potential gains and
losses, known as Preference Utilitarianism. By supporting the utilitarian
decision the public then influences the government to use militarized
force to maintain peace and security (The Implications of Just War
Theory Today). Bentham sees this relationship and states that the
government needs some form of protection against such impact,
Those which are destined to the particular function of guarding
against mischief from adversaries in general, but more particularly
from external adversaries may be distinguished from the rest under

Schueler 8
the collective appellation of the public military force, and, for
conciseness' sake, the military force (Bentham). Government policies
and actions are always met with strong camps of support and
opposition, leading to separate discourse communities associated with
each side.
Governmental decisions make up one of the clearest categories
of discourse on utilitarianism in society today. Like an individual
decision, governments can look at a problem from a moral or utilitarian
perspective. Often times the two viewpoints make up the two
discourse communities that surround the argument. Morality can be
viewed as the innate, that is genetic, dispositions for views on what is
right and wrong based on what is most likely to cause survival
(Utilitarianism. MIT.edu). Utilitarianism, on the other hand, bases the
authority of the government and the sanctity of the individual rights
upon their utility, thus providing an alternative to theories of natural
law, natural rights, or social contract thus becomes the question of
what kind of government has the best consequences (Utilitarianism.
Encyclopedia Britannica ). Utilitarians and moralists often find
democracy as the best form of government due to its search for
individual liberty and equality (Utilitarianism. Encyclopedia
Britannica). In a democracy, most policies have two opposing sides,
creating supporters of each (discourse communities). An example from
society today is the implication of universal health care where two

Schueler 9
distinct communities are formed on opposite sides of the discussion.
Judged by the amount of knowledge gained by these communities and
the amount of support given, a democratic government is able to make
a decision. While governments are a good example to use to analyze
the role of discourse communities, anyone who is in a leadership role
must consider the same issues when making a decision that will
impact others.
Professor Vanessa Carbonell is a Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Cincinnati. Though her decisions may not impact the
livelihood of others, she still must consider multiple options when
making decisions and think about how the outcomes will impact other
people. After interviewing Professor Carbonell, it is clear that she views
utilitarianism as an impactful philosophy, but not one that people
generally think about. She believes that utilitarianism is appealing
because of its focus on human wellbeing, and its insistence on treating
everyone equally, however, it is quite extreme and has many
compelling objections. She claims that utilitarianism is not necessarily
widely used in society today, but it is a direct ancestor to the modern
theory of cost-benefit analysis, which is used quite often in society
today. An example she uses to explain the concept is in healthcare,
where all interventions are reduced to the number of quality-adjusted
life-years they produce as compared to their cost in dollars. This
results in some strange decisions about what treatments to offer or

Schueler 10
pay for. Using her example of healthcare, it is a clear that there are
two sides of decision whose outcomes must be weighed to make a
decision; often times the answer utilizes the option that will create the
most positive outcome. Professor Carbonell has helped to make it clear
the exact role that utilitarianism-like philosophies play in society today.
In conclusion, utilitarianism exists in many facets throughout
society. Whether a person knows he or she is using it or not, we are
always making conscious decisions that weigh two opposing
arguments with two varying outcomes (utilitarianism versus morality).
These opposing sides can be viewed as different discourse
communities with opposing opinions that affect how a person is
exposed to each side of the argument, These differing viewpoints then
impact how a person will make a decision that promotes or demotes
the greatest amount of utility. This relationship becomes very evident
when analyzing discourse communities surrounding government
policies. Often times two defined groups of people have specific beliefs
regarding an issue. The amount of support each group gives will
generally greatly affect how an issue is voted upon in Congress.
Especially during periods of war, utilitarianism is posed against
morality when making decisions that could have unexpected
outcomes. Therefore, discourse communities surrounding utilitarianism
immensely impact how people analyze and make decisions.

Schueler 11

Bibliography
Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation. 1789.

Library of Economics and Liberty. Web-Ebook.

Carbonell, Vanessa. Interview via email. 27 October 2014.

Carritt, E.F. Criticisms of Utilitarianism. University College, Oxford. Book
scanned

onto web.

Khan Academy. Ethics: Utilitarianism Part 1. Online video clip. Khan

Academy.

Web. 18 October 2014.

Khan Academy. Ethics: Utilitarianism Part 2. Online video clip. Khan

Academy.

Web. 18 October 2014.

Kortenkamp, Katherinev, and Colleen F. Moore. Ethics Under

Uncertainty: The Morality And Appropriateness Of Utilitarianism When

Schueler 12
Outcomes Are

Uncertain. American Journal of Psychology 127.3

(2014). Academic Search

Complete. Electronic journal. 13 October

2014.
Mill, John Staurt. Utilitarianism. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
1879.

Gutenberg.net. Web-Ebook.

The History of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Driver, Julia.

27 March 2009 revised 22 September 2014. Web.

The Implications of Just War Theory Today. 1999. Bishopbriggs

Academy.

Microsoft Word file.

Utilitarianism. Encyclopedia Britannica. West, Henry, R. 26

September 2014.

Web.

Utilitarianism. MIT.edu. Taranovsky, Dymytro. 7 February 2003. Web.