Three features of utilitarianism:

• 1. Only consequences matter
• Right acts determined solely by the goodness of the results
• What kind of act it is, the motive behind the act, and the kind of person who did the act don't matter; all that matters in determining if an act is right/wrong is its consequences
• Questions about the kind of act that utilitarianism ignores:
  • Does it treat individuals with respect,
  • Does it treat them justly, fairly, equally, or as they deserve to be treated,
  • Does it avoid violating rights,
  • Is it universalizable,
  • Does it treat persons as ends and nor merely as means?
• None of these questions are relevant; all that matters is if the act produces results that maximize happiness
• 2. Only the happiness or unhappiness of the consequences matter
• 3. Strict impartiality
• Everyone who is affected gets included equally; whose happiness is not relevant; even the agent's own happiness doesn't get special treatment.
• Rules our special treatment of groups; rules out racism, sexism, egoism, nationalism, speciesism

Rachels criticizes each of these three features:

• 2. False that happiness is the only thing that matters (that is good in itself)
• Distinction between intrinsic value (good in itself or valued for its own sake) and instrumental value (good/valued as a means)
• Rachels rejects hedonism (while utilitarianism embraces it)
• Hedonism = Idea that happiness is the only thing good in itself, or that pleasure is the only intrinsic good/pain the only intrinsic bad
• Everything else is good only as a means to happiness/pleasure
• Pleasure/happiness is the only thing worth seeking for its own sake
• Assumes that things are good and bad only in terms of how they make us feel
• Pianist damaged hands counter-example: Is loss of her hands bad simply because it makes her unhappy? Would the tragedy be averted if we simply cheered her up? No, it is bad because her promising artistic talent has been ended.
• Friend ridicules you behind your back: But you never find out about it, so it doesn't make you unhappy, so nothing bad has happened according to hedonism. But clearly something bad has happened even if you never are aware of it
• We intrinsically value things other than happiness and pleasure; such as artistic creativity and friendship
• So utilitarians mistaken that only happiness/unhappiness of the consequences matter.
• Most contemporary utilitarians dropped hedonistic assumption; they define the good/bad of the consequences in some other way than pleasure/happiness and pain/unhappiness
• E.g., preference utilitarians, ideal utilitarians


• 1. False that only the consequences matter
• a. Utilitarians ignore considerations of justice/injustice
• Utilitarianism could justify the punishment of an innocent person (say to stop a race riot)
• This ignores the moral ideals of justice, fairness, treating people according to their merits and needs
• b. Utilitarians ignore individual rights (and could justify violating rights)
• Could justify the violation of the right of privacy by the police for the sake of their happiness or a peeping Tom if overall happiness was maximized
• Rights can't be set aside so easily
• Rights are not a utilitarian notion, but a limit on utilitarian thinking: Rights put limits on what can be done to individuals for the sake of the good results that might come about
• c. Utilitarian ignores backward looking moral considerations/reasons
• Utilitarianism looks to the results of an action to determine if it is right or wrong; results are in the future, so it ignores any considerations from the past (unless they were to affect the future)
• But what happened in the past is clearly morally relevant to determining if an act is right or wrong
• If I made a promise I should keep it, even if there is somewhat more utility (happiness) in my breaking it.
• Fact that someone did not do a crime is a good reason for why they should not be punished
• Fact that someone did you a favor may be a good reason for doing her a favor now


• 3. False that we should be equally concerned for everyone
• We should not always be impartial
• a. Equal concern for everyone is too demanding
• It would require us to not only give up luxuries but to radically alter our lives (e.g., move to a cheaper apartment) to help other in greater need,
• Requiring us to subordinate everything to the impartial promotion of general welfare would require us to give up our projects and activities (reading, exercise, friends) and devote ourselves full time to promoting the good of others
• Utilitarianism is unable to make a distinction between doing our duty and doing things that are praiseworthy but not required by duty (supererogatory acts-those above and beyond the call of duty).
• b. Utilitarianism would require we give up personal relationships, because they require partiality (and this violates impartiality)
• We are all deeply partial to friends and family; we love them and go to great lengths to help them (something we would not do for strangers)
• What would it be like to be no more concerned for one's spouse or children than for strangers?
• A person who saves not his child but some other child because the second would contribute more to the general welfare is not a hero but a "moral leper"



• Defenses of utilitarianism
• 1. Fanciful examples don't matter:
  • It is far from clear that punishing innocent people, violating people's rights, ignoring one's promises, etc. would bring about the overall best consequences
• Further, utilitarianism explains why we should treat people justly, not violate their rights and keep our promises: Because doing so promotes good consequences
• Far from being incompatible with common sense, utilitarianism is common sensical (and explains common sense)
• Rachels reply is that sometimes violating moral common sense does bring about good results and so utilitarianism sometimes will violate common sense