Video in Arabic.
A critique of the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism is one of the most prominent theories in moral and political philosophy. It was founded by Jeremy Bentham, who focused on the principle of achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. John Stuart Mill later developed the theory, giving it more complex and coherent dimensions. Despite its great influence on philosophy and politics, utilitarianism has been widely criticised by philosophers and thinkers who have raised many questions about its logic and practical application.
The basics of utilitarianism
- Jeremy Bentham: argued that moral conduct should rest on the principle of utility: actions are judged by their ability to increase happiness and reduce pain. He also proposed the “hedonic calculus” as a way of measuring the benefits and harms of actions.
- John Stuart Mill: developed the theory by adding the idea of the “quality of pleasure”, arguing that some forms of happiness (such as intellectual pleasure) are higher than others (such as physical pleasure).
First criticism: ignoring individual justice
One of the biggest criticisms of utilitarianism is that it ignores the rights of individuals in favour of collective happiness. According to utilitarianism, the interests or rights of one person can be sacrificed if this leads to greater benefit for the group. For example, utilitarianism could justify imprisoning an innocent person if this would calm public anger or secure social stability. Critics object that morality cannot be reduced to a calculation of benefits and harms; it must also respect principles of justice and individual rights.
Second criticism: happiness cannot be measured precisely
Despite Bentham’s attempt to introduce a “hedonic calculus”, the idea of measuring happiness or utility remains vague and impractical. How can happiness be measured accurately? Can one person’s happiness really be compared with another’s? Happiness itself means different things to different people, which makes measuring and comparing it complex and imprecise. This criticism weakens the practical foundation of the theory and makes it harder to apply in real situations.
Third criticism: focusing on outcomes and ignoring intentions
Utilitarianism focuses mainly on the consequences of actions, without considering the intentions or moral motives behind them. Any act is considered moral as long as its results produce happiness, regardless of the means used. Critics argue that morality is not only about results but also about the intentions and values that drive our actions. If someone does a good deed for personal gain rather than out of a genuine wish to help others, can we really call it moral?
Fourth criticism: neglecting minorities and individual interests
Because utilitarianism aims at the happiness of the greatest number, it may neglect the rights of minorities or of individuals whose interests do not match those of the majority. This makes it vulnerable to unjust application in diverse societies: a collective decision might harm a particular minority if it benefits most people. Philosophers criticise this aspect, arguing that justice requires protecting individual rights regardless of the interests of the majority.
Fifth criticism: undervaluing individual happiness
Although Mill tried to improve utilitarianism by adding the “quality of pleasure”, the theory still depends on collective happiness, which can undervalue the happiness of the individual. Critics argue that happiness cannot simply be added up or measured collectively; it is a subjective state that belongs to each person. The attempt to achieve “the greatest happiness” may therefore fail to appreciate the psychological complexity of individual experience.
Sixth criticism: the absence of fixed principles
Utilitarianism is a pragmatic theory that depends on circumstances and outcomes, so it lacks fixed moral principles. This is worrying, because it can be used to justify immoral acts if their results are useful — for example, spying on individuals or restricting their freedoms in the name of collective security. Critics argue that morality needs stable principles that protect rights and guide behaviour whatever the circumstances.
Seventh criticism: a tension between utility and happiness
Although utilitarianism aims at happiness, critics point out that an excessive focus on utility can sometimes backfire. If achieving a certain benefit requires great sacrifice or psychological pressure on some people, overall happiness may actually decrease. This tension weakens the theory in practice.
Conclusion
Utilitarianism is a major contribution to moral philosophy, highlighting the importance of happiness and utility in guiding human behaviour. Yet the criticisms it faces reveal serious theoretical and practical problems: it overlooks individual justice, it cannot measure happiness, and it focuses too heavily on outcomes. Important as it is, utilitarianism needs continual refinement to strike a better balance between happiness, justice and morality.
References
- Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
- Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sidgwick, H. (1907). The Methods of Ethics. London: Macmillan and Co.
- Crisp, R. (1997). Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge.
- Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
