Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill

The ethics of consequences

Utilitarianism says the right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness of the greatest number. It is the main form of consequentialism – judging actions by their results. Developed in Britain by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), it shaped modern law reform, welfare economics and cost–benefit analysis. Public policy in India uses utilitarian reasoning every day – in budgets, project appraisal and targeting of schemes – so you must know both its power and its dangers.

Jeremy Bentham

• Work: *An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation* (1789).
• Opening line: "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure."
• Principle of utility – approve or disapprove of any action according to its tendency to increase or reduce happiness.
• Felicific (hedonic) calculus – measure pleasure by seven factors: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (nearness), fecundity (chance of more pleasure), purity (freedom from pain) and extent (number of people affected).
• Quantitative hedonism – all pleasures are the same in kind; "quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry".
• Each to count for one, and none for more than one – equality in the calculation.
• Reformer: argued for prison reform (the Panopticon design), abolition of cruel punishment, freedom of speech, animal welfare ("The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?") and law codification.

John Stuart Mill

• Works: *On Liberty* (1859), *Utilitarianism* (1861), *Considerations on Representative Government* (1861), *The Subjection of Women* (1869).
• Qualitative hedonism – pleasures differ in quality; intellectual and moral pleasures are higher than bodily ones. "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
• Competent judges – those who have experienced both kinds of pleasure prefer the higher.
• Harm principle (*On Liberty*) – "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." His own good is not sufficient reason.
• Freedom of thought and speech – even false opinions should be heard, because truth gains from being tested.
• Rule-based thinking – Mill accepted that we should usually follow "secondary principles" like truth-telling that experience shows promote happiness.
• Women's rights – argued for equal rights and votes for women.

Act vs rule utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism reduces many objections, because rules protect rights and trust.

Utilitarianism in public policy

• Cost–benefit analysis of dams, highways and power plants.
• Welfare economics – maximising social welfare, Pareto improvement.
• Targeting of schemes – focusing resources where they give the biggest gains, such as vaccination of children.
• Triage in disasters and hospitals – treating those who can be saved first.
• Pandemic decisions – lockdowns weighed against livelihoods.
• Law reform – punishments based on deterrence rather than revenge.

Criticisms

1. Tyranny of the majority – a policy can make many people slightly happier while crushing a small group (for example, displacing tribal communities for a project). Mill himself worried about this.
2. Measuring happiness – pleasure and pain cannot be precisely added or compared across people.
3. Ignores justice and rights – could justify punishing an innocent person to calm a mob.
4. Ends justify means – conflicts with Gandhi's purity of means and Kant's dignity.
5. Demandingness – asks us to give up our own interests whenever others gain more.
6. Distribution – total happiness can rise while inequality worsens.
7. Uncertainty – consequences are hard to predict.

The trolley problem

A runaway trolley will kill five people unless you pull a lever to divert it, killing one. Most people would pull the lever (utilitarian). But in the "footbridge" version – pushing a heavy man off a bridge to stop the trolley – most refuse, showing that intentions and the use of a person as a means matter (Kantian). Philosophers Philippa Foot (1967) and Judith Jarvis Thomson developed these cases. Today they are applied to self-driving cars and AI decisions.

Utilitarianism and the civil servant

Useful for:

• Prioritising limited budgets for maximum benefit.
• Evidence-based policy and impact evaluation.
• Disaster triage and resource allocation.

Must be balanced by:

• Constitutional rights (Part III) that cannot be traded for majority benefit.
• Antyodaya and the Gandhian talisman – the last person, not only the average.
• Rawls's difference principle – inequalities only if they help the least advantaged.
• Fair process – consultation, consent, rehabilitation (e.g., the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013).

Other consequentialists

• Henry Sidgwick (*The Methods of Ethics*, 1874) refined utilitarianism and discussed the conflict between self-interest and universal benevolence.
• Peter Singer (*Practical Ethics*, 1979; *Animal Liberation*, 1975) applies utilitarian thinking to global poverty and animal welfare. His "drowning child" argument says that if you would ruin your shoes to save a child drowning in a pond, you should also give to save distant children from preventable death. This supports the idea of effective altruism and global duties.
• Ethical egoism – a different consequentialist view that the right act is the one best for oneself; it is generally rejected for public life because it conflicts with impartiality.

Worked example: a highway project

A State plans a highway that will cut travel time for lakhs of people, boost trade and reduce accidents, but will displace 300 families and cut through a forest corridor.

• Pure act-utilitarian view: benefits to lakhs outweigh losses to 300 families; build it.
• Rule-utilitarian view: a society where displacement happens without fair compensation will lose trust and face resistance in every project; so follow rules of consent, compensation and rehabilitation.
• Rights view: families have rights to life, livelihood and fair process (Article 21, LARR Act 2013); tribal areas need gram sabha consent under PESA and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
• Balanced decision: consider an alternative alignment, build wildlife underpasses, give fair compensation and jobs, and consult the gram sabha. The project goes ahead in a form that respects rights while delivering the greatest benefit.

This shows how utilitarian reasoning can be used within rights-based limits – the approach examiners reward.

Utilitarianism in Indian debates

Utilitarian reasoning appears in many Indian policy debates. The Sardar Sarovar dam promised irrigation and drinking water to millions in Gujarat and Rajasthan, but displaced tens of thousands of people in the Narmada valley; the Narmada Bachao Andolan argued that the benefits were overstated and that rehabilitation was poor. In *Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India* (2000), the Supreme Court allowed the dam to proceed but stressed rehabilitation before raising its height. Similar debates arise in mining, urban redevelopment and expressways. The ethical lesson is that aggregate benefit is necessary but not sufficient – the burden on those who lose must be fairly shared and compensated.

Mains practice question

"The greatest happiness of the greatest number" is a useful guide but a dangerous master in public policy. Discuss with examples. (250 words)

Answer framework

• Intro: Bentham, Mill; consequentialism.
• Useful: cost–benefit, welfare targeting, triage, deterrence.
• Dangerous: tyranny of majority, rights, measurement, ends-justify-means.
• Indian examples: dam displacement, lockdowns, LARR Act safeguards.
• Balance: rights as limits, rule utilitarianism, Rawls, antyodaya.