2 Chapter 2: Balancing the Scales—The Calculus of Utilitarian Ethics

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest-Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” (John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism)

In this chapter, you’ll step onto the scales of utility, navigating the balancing act that defines utilitarian ethics. A perspective that prizes the greatest good for the greatest number, utilitarianism gives us a unique framework to measure moral actions based on their outcomes.

Our chapter begins with astory: The Utilitarian Adventures of Princess Peach. This narrative brings the concept of utilitarianism to life in a relatable context, providing you with tangible examples of the moral dilemmas that utilitarian thought seeks to resolve. You’ll find accompanying questions that serve to test your understanding, encourage critical analysis, and trigger personal reflection about your own ethical compass.

In the ‘Big Ideas’ section, you’ll plunge into the heart of utilitarianism, exploring its tenets and its profound influence on moral philosophy. As we discuss the Greatest-Happiness Principle, you will wrestle with the concept of utility and what it means for an action to promote happiness, as well as the consequences when actions produce the opposite.

Next, you’ll travel through time, tracing the evolution of utilitarian thought from its roots to its modern interpretations. You’ll encounter significant figures such as Epicurus and Mozi, before meeting Jeremy Bentham, the architect of classical utilitarianism. Your journey will continue with John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill, advocates for rule utilitarianism and feminist utilitarianism respectively, demonstrating how this ethical theory has been developed and adapted over time. Later, you will engage with contemporary philosophers like Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse, who bring fresh perspectives and extend the utilitarian concept into new territories like animal ethics and bioethics.

The chapter then introduces you to ‘Ethical Thought Experiments’, challenging you to put the utilitarian framework to test in hypothetical situations. These exercises will challenge your ethical reasoning skills, helping you to understand, evaluate, and critique utilitarian ethics more robustly.

In this chapter, you’ll learn about the normative ethical theory of utilitarianism. We’ll be discussing major ideas, important figures, variants of the theory, and its strengths and weaknesses. But first, to get us started, Princess Peach!

Story: The Utilitarian Adventures of Princess Peach

Entry 1: Enchanted Discoveries. Today, while wandering through the castle’s library like a lost melody, I stumbled upon an ancient book on ethics and utilitarianism, its cover whispering secrets in intricate patterns. As I flipped through the pages, I felt as if I was stepping into another world—a world where ethics danced beyond the borders of our tranquil kingdom. These concepts tugged at my curiosity, beckoning me to explore how they might intertwine with my life as the ruler of the Toad Kingdom.

This tome sings of maximizing joy and vanquishing sorrow, a symphony of noble intentions. I can’t help but wonder if, in the past, I’ve waltzed through decisions without heeding these harmonious notes. If I can learn more about utilitarianism, perhaps I can compose a brighter future for my kingdom and its inhabitants.

But I cannot linger in these philosophical musings, for my kingdom calls out to me with its everyday needs and urgent matters. Still, I’ve vowed to steal moments each day to read and reflect on this bewitching subject. It’s curious how a chance encounter can spark a journey down uncharted roads.

Entry 2: The Ballad of the Toad Kingdom. As I gaze upon the tapestry of harmony and happiness that envelops our land, gratitude swells within me like a crescendo. Fortune has smiled upon us, but I sense stormy decisions looming on the horizon. I’ve often pondered if hidden ethical chords could guide my choices as princess. This newfound wisdom of utilitarianism has illuminated new pathways, and I stand ready to explore how they might shape my destiny.

Our Toad subjects dwell in contentment’s embrace, but a whisper in my heart tells me there’s always more we could do to elevate their well-being. It’s not just about ensuring life’s necessities; I yearn to see every soul in the kingdom bloom with joy and flourish in the sunlight. Might utilitarianism provide the compass to guide us toward that dream?

Yet, as I wade deeper into these philosophical waters, I find myself questioning the potential riptides. Could my quest to amplify happiness inadvertently cast shadows on some individuals or obscure crucial details? These are the enigmas that dance in my thoughts as I immerse myself in the study of ethics. It’s a peculiar revelation to think that once I believed life as a princess was all about swirling in the magic of tea parties and royal balls, when in truth, my responsibilities reach far beyond the castle’s enchanted walls.

Entry 3: The Trolley. Today, as I walked through Toad Town, the air grew thick with dread; a scene of horror unfolded before me, as if torn from the pages of my ethics book. A runaway trolley, a monstrous beast on wheels, roared down the tracks with Toads trapped on both sets of tracks. Five Toads on one side, paralyzed by fear; on the other, my dear friend Toadette, the very heart of my soul.

Seconds, mere seconds to decide. Utilitarianism whispered in my ear, urging me to maximize happiness. To sacrifice my dear friend for the five trembling souls. How could I make such a gut-wrenching choice in this fleeting instant?

My thoughts raced, clawing for an answer as the trolley thundered on. Utilitarianism offered guidance, but I struggled to reconcile the warmth of relationships with the cold calculus of numbers. Time’s sands slipped away; I grasped for the ideas behind other ethical perspectives.

I considered how different varieties utilitarianism might relate to the life-altering decision before me. Following a general rule that promotes the greatest good overall would entail saving the many, even at the cost of the few. In my dilemma, this would mean saving the five Toads and sacrificing Toadette. On the other hand, focusing on the specific consequences of this unique, desperate moment urged me to evaluate the outcomes of each individual action. Would saving Toadette lead to more happiness, given our deep bond? My heart pounded, aching under the pressure.

Moreover, I pondered whether pleasure and pain should be the sole factors contributing to overall happiness in this situation. Or, should I consider the preferences and desires of those involved, such as Toadette’s desire to live and the potential happiness of her continued life? In this urgent, breathless moment, I wondered if happiness had a certain threshold, if reaching an acceptable level of happiness could be enough, even if it didn’t maximize it. This thought challenged me to question whether saving Toadette and losing five lives could still achieve a satisfactory level of happiness.

The weight of my responsibility bore down upon me, heavy and suffocating, as these frantic thoughts converged into a single, agonizing conclusion. I could not sacrifice five of my subject’s lives, and with a tortured heart, I chose to save the five Toads.

The world seemed to slow, the breath caught in my throat, as I realized the unbearable truth: life’s hardest decisions must be made in the blink of an eye, leaving no time for leisurely contemplation. My thoughts swirled, a tempest of emotion, as the trolley’s brakes screeched, and I understood with harrowing clarity that ethics were a tangled, murky tapestry, beyond any simple measure of happiness.

Entry 4: The Decision. Ultimately, I made the heartrending choice to divert the trolley towards my friend. Five Toads saved, but my soul was rent asunder as I watched Toadette meet her end. The townsfolk hailed me as brave, selfless, but inside, a heavy burden consumed me.

In the aftermath, doubts plagued my mind. Was my choice truly right? Could some other path have spared all involved? As I pondered the events, I knew that utilitarianism had provided the guidance I needed, even if my emotions struggled to accept the outcome.

I resolved to defend my actions, knowing that I had followed the principles of utilitarianism and sought the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Though the pain of losing Toadette weighed heavily on my heart, I found solace in the knowledge that I had made the difficult choice in pursuit of a greater good. This experience deepened my understanding of ethics and taught me the importance of embracing multiple philosophical perspectives in the face of real-world dilemmas.

Entry 5: The Fungitron 3000. Today, I was invited to the laboratory of the renowned Toad Scientist, Professor Toadsworth. He excitedly unveiled his latest invention, which he called the Fungitron 3000. The device had a quirky design, with a mushroom-shaped exterior and a variety of colorful buttons and dials. Professor Toadsworth explained that the Fungitron 3000 was designed to simulate any experience a user could imagine, providing them with an unparalleled sense of joy and satisfaction.

He eagerly demonstrated how it worked: a user would sit in the cozy, cushioned interior of the Fungitron 3000 and place a snug-fitting helmet on their head. This helmet was equipped with advanced neural interface technology that could read the user’s desires and preferences. Once the user selected a scenario using the buttons and dials, the Fungitron 3000 would create a highly realistic simulation of the desired experience, engaging all five senses in the process.

Professor Toadsworth assured me that the Fungitron 3000 was completely safe and that users could exit the simulation at any time by pressing a large, bright red button on the helmet. He also mentioned that it had the potential to bring immense happiness and pleasure to the inhabitants of the Toad Kingdom, allowing them to experience their wildest dreams and deepest desires.

As I marveled at the Fungitron 3000, I couldn’t help but feel a mix of excitement and concern. On one hand, the device had the potential to provide immense joy to the kingdom’s inhabitants. On the other hand, I wondered about the implications of living in a simulated world, detached from reality. Would this align with the ethical principles I had been studying, or would it lead us down a path of artificial happiness and disconnection from what truly matters?

Entry 6: A Dilemma Emerges. As I pondered the potential benefits of the Fungitron 3000, I also began to grapple with its ethical consequences. The device promised unparalleled happiness for the inhabitants of the Toad Kingdom, but I couldn’t help but wonder whether this artificial joy would come at a cost. If everyone retreated into their own simulated worlds, would we lose the connections that bind us together as a community? Would we become complacent, neglecting our responsibilities and the challenges we must face together?

I found myself reflecting on the ethical principles I had been studying, particularly the different versions of utilitarianism. While the Fungitron 3000 could arguably maximize pleasure and satisfy desires, did it truly promote the greatest good for all? I feared that it might instead lead to a society that was disconnected from reality and from one another, ultimately undermining the happiness it promised.

Entry 7: The Final Decision. After days of contemplation and consultation with my advisors, I reached the difficult decision to not approve the Fungitron 3000 for public use. While I recognized its potential to provide immense joy and satisfaction, I couldn’t shake my concerns about its long-term impact on the Toad Kingdom.

I shared my decision with Professor Toadsworth, explaining that the ethical implications of the device were too uncertain to justify its implementation. I expressed my gratitude for his innovative spirit and encouraged him to continue his research, with the hope that future inventions might benefit the kingdom in more tangible and ethically sound ways.

My decision to reject the Fungitron 3000 was not an easy one, but it reinforced the importance of considering the ethical consequences of our actions and the choices we make as a society. As I continue to explore the realm of ethics, I am reminded that our pursuit of happiness must be tempered by a commitment to the greater good and a deep understanding of the complex, interwoven connections that define our world.

Entry 7: The Magical Utility Meter. During my visit to the castle’s ancient archives, I stumbled upon a fascinating artifact. The archivist, Old Toadly, explained that it was a magical utility measuring device, capable of quantifying the happiness generated by different actions and choices. The device was shaped like a golden mushroom with a delicate, crystal-like display that revealed numerical values representing the level of happiness, or “utility,” experienced.

Curious about its potential, I decided to use the magical utility meter to evaluate various ways of spending the kingdom’s resources. By quantifying the happiness generated from different expenditures, I hoped to gain insights into how best to allocate the kingdom’s coins in order to maximize the well-being of the Toad Kingdom’s inhabitants.

Entry 8: The Power of Aiding the Worst Off. As I experimented with the magical utility meter, I discovered a crucial insight: directing resources towards aiding the least fortunate members of our kingdom consistently yielded significantly greater returns in happiness compared to aiding those who were already well off.

For instance, when I considered building a new recreational park in an affluent neighborhood, the utility meter showed a modest increase in happiness. However, when I contemplated using the same resources to establish a healthcare center in an underserved area, the meter indicated a much larger surge in happiness.

Similarly, I found that investing in educational programs for underprivileged Toads generated far more happiness than hosting lavish events at the castle. This pattern held true across multiple scenarios, emphasizing that allocating resources to improve the lives of the worst off could dramatically increase overall happiness in the kingdom.

These revelations prompted me to reconsider my approach to resource allocation. By prioritizing the needs of the most disadvantaged inhabitants, I could maximize happiness and well-being for all. The magical utility meter and my newfound understanding of the power of aiding the worst off reinforced the importance of evaluating the broader impact of my decisions as the ruler of the Toad Kingdom.

Entry 9: A Moral Dilemma. As I delved deeper into the realm of ethics, I started to see parallels between the mistreatment I had faced as a female ruler and the oppression experienced by the Toads, who were once enslaved by the Koopas. I recognized that both racism and sexism were rooted in the unjust discrimination of individuals based on arbitrary characteristics, such as race or gender. This realization led me to consider the moral status of animals and whether they, too, deserved our care and consideration in a similar manner.

In particular, I found myself pondering the longstanding tradition in the Toad Kingdom of savoring Yoshi eggs as a prized delicacy. I acknowledged that animals were different from people in various ways, but I began to question whether these differences justified the potential suffering inflicted upon these gentle beings. Were we not perpetuating a similar form of discrimination, speciesism, by disregarding the well-being of animals based on their species?

Entry 10: A Change of Heart. After extensive contemplation, I arrived at the conclusion that the moral considerations of animals, including Yoshis, could not be overlooked. I acknowledged that animals were different from humans in terms of their abilities and cognitive capacities, but they still shared the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, just as I and the Toads had experienced in our own struggles against sexism and racism.

With this realization, I made the arduous decision to abstain from consuming Yoshi eggs. I publicly announced my decision to the kingdom, drawing parallels between the reasons why racism and sexism were wrong and the reasons why speciesism was wrong. I recounted my own experiences of being unfairly judged due to my gender and the plight of the Toads when they were oppressed by the Koopas. I also emphasized that although animals were different from humans, their interests still mattered, and we should strive to treat them with respect and consideration.

This decision struck a chord with many in the Toad Kingdom, igniting conversations about our obligations towards animals and prompting some citizens to reevaluate their own dietary choices. I discovered that the pursuit of ethical understanding could have wide-ranging consequences, leading us to question not only how we treat one another but also how we interact with the world around us.

As I continued to challenge sexism, racism, and now speciesism, I was reminded of the importance of empathy and compassion in shaping a more just and harmonious society. Our ethical journey, much like my own, is a never-ending quest to create a world where all beings, regardless of their differences, are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Entry 11: A Moment of Realization. One day, as I wandered through the enchanted forests of the Toad Kingdom, I stumbled upon a small pond. As I approached the water’s edge, I saw a young Toad struggling to stay afloat, desperately trying to keep its head above the water. It was clear that the child was in imminent danger and needed immediate help.

Without hesitation, I dove into the pond to save the drowning child. As I swam, the water soaked my royal garments, but I did not care for the potential damage to my attire. My only concern was the well-being of the child, whose life was at stake.

As I brought the child safely to shore, I began to reflect on my actions. It occurred to me that my willingness to sacrifice my attire to save a life was quite similar to the ethical obligation we have to help those in need, even when it requires us to give up some of our own comforts or possessions. I realized that there were countless others in the world who were suffering, and that we could significantly improve their lives with our aid, just as I had saved the drowning child.

The experience brought to mind Peter Singer’s “drowning child” thought experiment, in which one is asked to consider the ethical implications of choosing to save a drowning child at the expense of one’s own clothes. Although the circumstances of the real world are more complex, the essence of the thought experiment remained: we have a moral responsibility to help those in need when we have the capacity to do so.

This realization prompted me to extend my ethical journey beyond sexism, racism, and speciesism to include the plight of those in need around the world. I began working to develop programs and initiatives aimed at providing aid to the less fortunate, both within the Toad Kingdom and beyond our borders. In doing so, I continued to foster a more compassionate and empathetic society, striving to create a world where no one, regardless of their circumstances, is left to suffer alone.

Entry 12: Bowser’s Invasion. The days in the Toad Kingdom had been filled with the excitement of newfound ethical insights, and our collective awareness grew stronger with each passing day. However, the tranquility we enjoyed was about to be interrupted by a sinister threat: Bowser, the King of the Koopas, had launched a massive invasion on our peaceful lands.

His relentless army of Goombas, Koopas, and other fearsome creatures marched through our kingdom, leaving chaos and destruction in their wake. Our citizens, unaccustomed to conflict, were gripped by fear and panic as Bowser’s forces advanced, and the once-happy world I had worked so hard to cultivate seemed to crumble before my eyes.

I knew that the time for philosophy and contemplation had temporarily come to an end; I had to act decisively to protect my people and restore peace to the kingdom. I called upon Mario and Luigi, the valiant brothers and heroes of our realm, to stand by my side as we faced this overwhelming challenge.

As we prepared for battle, I contemplated the ethical implications of engaging in a conflict to defend our home. I wondered if utilitarianism could offer guidance in these dire circumstances. Was it right to fight and potentially harm Bowser’s minions, who were merely following orders, in order to protect our kingdom and its inhabitants? I weighed the potential suffering that could be inflicted on both sides against the happiness and security that could be regained for the Toad Kingdom.

Ultimately, I concluded that our actions were justified. Bowser’s invasion threatened the very foundation of our society, and the consequences of inaction would be devastating. By defending our kingdom and restoring peace, we could prevent immense suffering and ensure the continued happiness and well-being of our people.

Entry 13: Victory and Difficult Decisions. Our struggle against Bowser’s forces was long and arduous, but through the bravery and determination of Mario, Luigi, and the countless Toads who fought by our side, we emerged victorious. The day was won, and the Toad Kingdom was liberated from the clutches of Bowser and his minions.

As we celebrated our hard-fought victory, I found myself reflecting on the difficult decisions I had made throughout the conflict. Each choice weighed heavily on my conscience, as I tried to apply utilitarian principles to guide my actions in the heat of battle.

One such decision involved prioritizing the defense of vulnerable communities in our kingdom. I had to make the difficult call of directing our limited resources and troops to protect the areas most at risk, knowing full well that doing so would leave other regions more exposed to Bowser’s aggression. I reasoned that by focusing on the most vulnerable, we could minimize the overall suffering in the kingdom, even though it meant accepting the possibility of harm befalling other communities.

Another challenging choice came when we captured some of Bowser’s minions. I knew that harsh treatment or retribution could potentially deter further aggression, but I also recognized that many of them were acting under Bowser’s command, not out of genuine malice. In the spirit of utilitarianism, I chose to treat the prisoners with compassion, providing them with food, shelter, and an opportunity to renounce their allegiance to Bowser. I believed that this approach would not only minimize their suffering but also foster goodwill and the potential for reconciliation between our peoples.

These decisions were not easy, and the consequences of my choices weighed heavily on my heart. However, throughout the conflict, I strove to consider the greatest good for the greatest number and to minimize suffering wherever possible. As we began the process of rebuilding and healing, I found solace in the knowledge that I had attempted to make the most ethical decisions I could, even in the face of great adversity.

Entry 14: Final Thoughts. As the dust settled and our kingdom embarked on the path to recovery, I found myself reflecting on the lessons I had learned throughout this tumultuous journey. My exploration of utilitarianism had opened my eyes to new perspectives and provided me with a valuable ethical framework to navigate the challenges I faced as the ruler of the Toad Kingdom.

In my contemplation, I acknowledged the weaknesses of utilitarianism. Its demanding nature could be daunting, as it calls for the constant pursuit of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. The process of calculating and weighing the consequences of each decision could be overwhelming, especially in situations where time was of the essence or when the outcomes were uncertain.

However, despite these challenges, I recognized the value in the general approach of utilitarianism. Striving to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number had guided me through some of the most difficult decisions I had ever faced. While it wasn’t perfect, it provided a moral compass that aligned with my desire to ensure the well-being and happiness of my kingdom and its inhabitants.

As I moved forward, I resolved to continue refining my understanding of ethics, embracing the strengths of utilitarianism while remaining open to other perspectives that could complement or challenge my beliefs. I felt a renewed sense of purpose and responsibility, knowing that my role as the ruler of the Toad Kingdom demanded not only wisdom and strength but also a commitment to the ethical principles that would ensure the happiness and flourishing of all who called our kingdom home.

In the end, I was grateful for the unexpected discovery that had set me on this path of ethical exploration. It had not only enriched my own life but had also allowed me to become a better ruler, more equipped to face the complexities and challenges that lay ahead. With utilitarianism as my guide, I was determined to create a brighter future for the Toad Kingdom and all who called it home.

Questions

• How did Princess Peach’s understanding of utilitarianism evolve throughout her story? What challenges did she face when trying to apply this ethical theory to real-world situations?
• What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism as presented in Princess Peach’s story? Do you agree or disagree with her assessment of the theory? Why?
• How did Peach’s encounter with the Toad Scientist’s invention, the “Fungitron”, challenge her utilitarian beliefs? What ethical concerns did she grapple with regarding the use of such technology?
• How did Princess Peach address the moral status of animals, specifically Yoshi eggs, in her story? How did utilitarianism guide her decision on this issue?
• Analyze Peach’s approach to prioritizing resources during Bowser’s invasion. How did utilitarianism inform her decisions, and do you agree with her choices? Why or why not?
• In the final entry, Peach recognizes the weaknesses of utilitarianism but decides that the general approach is a good one. Do you agree with her assessment? Why or why not? Are there alternative ethical theories that could have provided her with better guidance in her dilemmas?

Big Ideas: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or utility while minimizing suffering. This consequentialist approach evaluates actions and decisions based on their outcomes, aiming to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. The story of Princess Peach provides an accessible and engaging illustration of the various forms of utilitarianism and their applications.

• Act Utilitarianism: In the trolley dilemma, Peach considered the consequences of each possible action in the specific situation. Act utilitarianism involves evaluating each action based on its direct consequences, with the morally right action being the one that generates the most happiness or utility. Peach ultimately saved the five Toads on one track, as this action produced the greatest good overall, despite the tragic loss of her friend Toadette.
• Rule Utilitarianism: Another form of utilitarianism Peach contemplated during the trolley dilemma was rule utilitarianism. This approach involves following general rules that, when consistently applied, maximize overall happiness. In Peach’s case, she considered the rule of saving the greater number of lives in order to generate the most happiness. This rule led her to the same decision as act utilitarianism, demonstrating that these two approaches can sometimes converge on the same conclusion.
• Hedonistic Utilitarianism: When faced with the trolley dilemma, Peach initially thought about the balance of pleasure and pain in her decision. Hedonistic utilitarianism measures happiness in terms of pleasure and the absence of pain. By this account, the morally right action maximizes pleasure while minimizing pain. In the story, Peach struggled with the emotional weight of her decision, but ultimately chose the action that resulted in the least pain and suffering for the Toads involved.
• Preference Utilitarianism: Peach also considered the preferences and desires of those affected by her decision in the trolley dilemma. Preference utilitarianism takes into account the satisfaction of individual preferences and desires when calculating overall happiness. This approach recognizes that there may be more to happiness than just pleasure and pain, and that respecting the preferences of those involved can contribute to the overall good.
• Maximizing Utilitarianism: Throughout her ethical journey, Peach grappled with the demanding nature of utilitarianism, which requires maximizing happiness at all times. Maximizing utilitarianism, as the name suggests, demands that we always choose the action that produces the greatest overall good, without any exceptions or compromises.
• Satisficing Utilitarianism: In the trolley dilemma, Peach briefly wondered if meeting a certain threshold of happiness might be enough. Satisficing utilitarianism allows for actions that achieve a satisfactory level of happiness, even if they don’t maximize it. While Peach acknowledged this approach, she ultimately recognized that in her specific situation, saving the five Toads was the only morally justifiable option, regardless of any threshold.

The story of Princess Peach provides an accessible introduction to the various forms of utilitarianism, demonstrating how these philosophical concepts can be applied in everyday situations and leadership roles. By exploring different versions of utilitarianism, readers can gain a deeper understanding of the theory’s complexities and nuances, and better appreciate its strengths and limitations as an ethical guide.

A History of Utilitarianism

Epicurus: The Pursuit of Pleasure

Epicurus (341-270 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher who founded the school of philosophy known as Epicureanism. He was born on the island of Samos and later moved to Athens, where he established his own school, the Garden, a community where his followers could study and practice his teachings.

Epicurus emphasized the importance of pleasure as the ultimate goal in life. He believed that the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain were the primary guides for human behavior. However, he differentiated between two types of pleasure: physical pleasure and mental pleasure. Epicurus argued that mental pleasures, such as tranquility, friendship, and the absence of fear, were far superior to physical pleasures, which were fleeting and could lead to pain.

One of Epicurus’ most significant contributions to utilitarianism is his hedonism (the theory that pleasure is the ultimate good, and pain the ultimate bad). Where Epicurus focused on a person’s own pleasure, later “hedonistic utilitarians” (such as Jeremy Bentham) would expand this to include the pleasure of all beings. In practical terms, though, Epicurus’s moral philosophy was similar to that of later utilitarianism: He advocated for equality, friendship, and for the ability of individuals to lead their lives “as they see fit” (without being interfered with by religions or governments). On a personal level, he thought one could only avoided chasing after money/fame/status.

Mozi: Universal Love and the Greater Good

Mozi (c. 470-391 BCE) was a Chinese philosopher and the founder of Mohism, an influential school of thought during the Warring States period. Born in the state of Lu, Mozi was a contemporary of Confucius, and his philosophy often stood in opposition to Confucian ideas.

Mozi’s main ethical principle was “universal love” or “jian’ai,” which advocated for the impartial treatment of all individuals, regardless of their social status or personal relationship to oneself. He argued that this principle would lead to a more harmonious society and minimize conflict. Mozi also emphasized the importance of utilitarianism, asserting that actions should be judged based on their consequences for the greater good.

A key aspect of Mozi’s utilitarianism was his focus on the “will of Heaven,” which he believed dictated that rulers should govern in a manner that promotes the welfare of their subjects. He argued for meritocracy, maintaining that rulers should choose their officials based on ability and virtue rather than birth or wealth. Mozi also (like Epicurus) advocated for frugality and the reduction of waste, arguing that resources should be used for the benefit of the people rather than on extravagant displays of wealth.

In the contemporary world, Mozi’s ideas can be applied in various ways. The principle of universal love can inform efforts to promote social justice and reduce discrimination, as it calls for the fair treatment of all individuals, regardless of their background or social standing. The emphasis on the greater good can guide public policy decisions, encouraging leaders to make choices that benefit the majority rather than a select few. Moreover, Mozi’s insistence on frugality and reducing waste can inspire sustainable practices in both public and private sectors, conserving resources for future generations.

Jeremy Bentham: The Architect of Classical Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was an English philosopher, jurist, and social reformer, who is often considered the founder of modern utilitarianism. Born in London, Bentham was a precocious child and went on to study law at Oxford. However, he became disillusioned with the legal profession and turned to philosophical pursuits instead. Bentham’s major contribution to utilitarianism is his development of the “greatest happiness principle,” which states that the most ethical action is the one that maximizes overall happiness for the greatest number of people. Bentham applied this principle to various social issues of his time, advocating for prison reform, animal rights, and the decriminalization of homosexuality. He believed that these reforms would lead to greater happiness and minimize suffering for society as a whole.

In the contemporary world, Bentham’s ideas continue to inspire social reform and activism. His greatest happiness principle can be used to argue for policies that promote equality, social justice, and the protection of vulnerable populations, including prisoners, animals, and LGBTQ+ individuals.

John Stuart Mill: The Advocate of Rule Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was an English philosopher, economist, and civil servant, and one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century. Born in London, Mill was educated by his father, James Mill, a close associate of Jeremy Bentham. As a result, he was introduced to utilitarianism from an early age. ill refined and developed Bentham’s utilitarianism, addressing some of its perceived shortcomings. He distinguished between higher pleasures and lower pleasures, arguing that intellectual and moral pleasures were inherently more valuable than physical pleasures. Mill also advocated for a version of utilitarianism known as rule utilitarianism, which posits that the most ethical action is the one that follows a set of rules designed to maximize overall happiness.

Mill applied his utilitarian ideas to various social issues, including women’s rights and the abolition of slavery. He believed that promoting equal rights for women and ending slavery would lead to greater happiness for society as a whole. In his famous essay “The Subjection of Women,” Mill argued for women’s suffrage and equal opportunities in education and employment. In the contemporary world, Mill’s ideas continue to inspire advocacy for gender equality, civil rights, and social justice. His rule utilitarianism can help inform the development of legal systems and ethical guidelines, ensuring that they are based on principles that promote the greatest overall happiness, including the protection of individual liberties and equal rights for all.

Harriet Taylor Mill: The Feminist Utilitarian

Harriet Taylor Mill (1807-1858) was an English philosopher, women’s rights advocate, and wife of John Stuart Mill. Born in London, Harriet was largely self-educated, and her intellectual partnership with John Stuart Mill significantly influenced his work, particularly in the areas of women’s rights and social reform.

Harriet’s utilitarian ideas were closely aligned with her husband’s, but her focus was predominantly on women’s rights and gender equality. She argued that the subjugation of women was not only unjust but also hindered societal progress and happiness. Harriet believed that empowering women to participate in all aspects of society would lead to increased happiness and well-being for everyone.

Harriet Taylor Mill’s ideas continue to inspire and inform efforts to promote gender equality. Her utilitarian arguments for women’s rights can be applied to contemporary debates surrounding equal pay, reproductive rights, and access to education, encouraging policies and practices that foster gender equality and contribute to the overall happiness of society.

Peter Singer: Expanding the Scope of Moral Consideration

Peter Singer (born 1946) is an Australian philosopher and professor of bioethics, known for his groundbreaking work in applied ethics, particularly in the areas of animal rights and global poverty. Born in Melbourne, Australia, Singer studied at the University of Melbourne and later at the University of Oxford. He is currently a professor at Princeton University and the University of Melbourne.

Singer is often described as a preference utilitarian, a variant of utilitarianism that focuses on satisfying the preferences or interests of those affected by an action rather than maximizing pleasure or happiness. His most influential work, “Animal Liberation” (1975), expanded the scope of moral consideration to include non-human animals, arguing that their capacity to suffer should be taken into account when making ethical decisions. Singer contends that our current treatment of animals, particularly in factory farming, is a form of “speciesism” – an unjustified bias in favor of our own species.

In the contemporary world, Singer’s ideas have inspired a growing movement for animal rights and the adoption of more compassionate dietary choices, such as vegetarianism and veganism. His work also encourages more humane treatment of animals in research and the development of alternatives to animal testing.

Singer has also applied his utilitarian framework to the issue of global poverty. In his influential essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” (1972), he argues that affluent individuals have a strong moral obligation to donate a significant portion of their income to help those in extreme poverty. This argument has inspired the effective altruism movement, which encourages individuals to use their resources to create the greatest positive impact in the world.

Helga Kuhse: The Intersection of Bioethics and Utilitarianism

Helga Kuhse (born 1948) is a German-born Australian philosopher who specializes in bioethics and moral philosophy. She studied at the University of Adelaide, the Australian National University, and later at Monash University, where she obtained her Ph.D. Kuhse has worked closely with Peter Singer and has made significant contributions to the field of bioethics from a utilitarian perspective.

Kuhse’s work focuses on the ethical implications of advancements in medical technology and practice. Her research includes topics such as euthanasia, assisted suicide, reproductive technologies, and the allocation of scarce medical resources. Kuhse adopts a utilitarian approach to these issues, analyzing the potential consequences of different actions to determine the most ethical course.

In the contemporary world, Kuhse’s ideas provide guidance for medical professionals, policymakers, and ethicists grappling with complex bioethical dilemmas. Her utilitarian perspective encourages a focus on the outcomes of medical decisions, ensuring that choices are made in the best interests of patients and society as a whole. For example, her work on euthanasia and assisted suicide contributes to ongoing debates about the right to die with dignity and the role of medical professionals in end-of-life care.

Big Ideas: Ethical Thought Experiments

Two Variations on the Trolley Problem (inspired by Philippa Foot and Judith Thomson):

• The Heavyset Koopa Problem (inspired by the Fat Man variation): In this variation, Princess Peach is standing on a bridge overlooking the same runaway kart scenario. This time, however, there is no lever to divert the kart. Instead, Peach notices a heavyset Koopa nearby who, if pushed onto the track, would be large enough to stop the kart, saving the five Toads but sacrificing the Koopa in the process. This scenario further complicates the moral calculus involved in these decisions, as it requires Peach to actively harm one individual to save a larger group.
• The Looping Racetrack Problem (inspired by the Loop variation): In this variation, Princess Peach faces a similar runaway kart scenario, but with a twist. The racetrack loops back on itself, meaning that if the kart is diverted, it will eventually come back and endanger the original five Toads. This scenario challenges utilitarian reasoning by forcing Peach to consider the long-term consequences of her actions and whether her intervention could potentially create a greater harm.

The Koopa Monster (inspired by Nozick’s Utility Monster): In this thought experiment, Princess Peach encounters a hypothetical creature called the “Koopa Monster” that derives much more pleasure from consuming resources, like mushrooms and fire flowers, than any Toad or fellow Mushroom Kingdom inhabitant could. According to utilitarianism, it would be morally right to give all available resources to the Koopa Monster, as it would maximize overall happiness. This thought experiment challenges the idea that maximizing utility should be the sole basis for moral decision-making in the Mushroom Kingdom.

The Shy Guy Alchemist (inspired by Bernard William’s “George the Chemist”). In this thought experiment, Princess Peach learns about a skilled Shy Guy alchemist who is faced with a moral dilemma. The Shy Guy is an expert in creating magical potions but strongly opposes using his knowledge to create harmful substances. However, he is offered a high-paying job by a powerful Koopa organization to develop dangerous potions, which could be used to harm the inhabitants of the Mushroom Kingdom. The Shy Guy alchemist knows that if he refuses the job, the Koopa organization will simply hire someone else, who is less morally scrupulous and more competent, potentially causing even more harm. He also needs the income from the job to support his family.

This scenario challenges utilitarianism by questioning whether it is morally acceptable for the Shy Guy alchemist to engage in an action that he finds morally repugnant, even if the consequences of not doing so may be worse. Princess Peach must grapple with the complexities of this situation, as it forces her to consider the trade-offs and moral costs associated with utilitarian decision-making in the Mushroom Kingdom.

The Overpopulated Mushroom Kingdom (inspired by Derek Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion): Princess Peach is asked to imagine a version of the Mushroom Kingdom with a vast population of Toads living barely above the level of misery but with a high total happiness due to its sheer size. According to some interpretations of utilitarianism, this overpopulated Mushroom Kingdom would be preferable to a smaller population with a higher average happiness. This conclusion may be considered repugnant, as it suggests that creating a large number of Toads with very low levels of well-being could be morally justified.

The Bob-omb Violinist (inspired by Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Violinist Analogy): In this scenario, Princess Peach wakes up to find herself connected to a famous, unconscious Bob-omb violinist who needs her energy to survive for nine months. (Importantly, the Bob-omb violinist didn’t hook itself up. Instead, Bowser did!). If she disconnects from the violinist, they will explode. The question is whether it is morally permissible for Peach to disconnect herself, even if it results in the Bob-omb violinist’s explosion. This thought experiment raises questions about the balance between utilitarian calculations and individual rights in the Mushroom Kingdom, and the extent to which its inhabitants are obligated to help others at the expense of their own well-being.

Discussion Questions

• How does utilitarianism differ from other ethical theories, such as deontological ethics or virtue ethics? Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
• How do the ideas of Epicurus, Mozi, Bentham, and Mill build upon and differ from one another in the development of utilitarianism? How have their contributions shaped the utilitarian tradition?
• Compare and contrast hedonistic utilitarianism and preference utilitarianism. What are the main differences between these two forms of utilitarianism, and what implications do they have for ethical decision-making?
• How do the works of Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse exemplify the application of utilitarianism to contemporary ethical issues? Discuss the impact of their ideas on animal rights, global poverty, and bioethics.
• Utilitarianism is often criticized for potentially justifying morally repugnant actions if they lead to the greatest overall happiness. How might a utilitarian respond to this criticism? Are there any limits to the pursuit of happiness in utilitarianism?
• Examine the role of individual rights and liberties in utilitarianism. How do utilitarian thinkers, such as John Stuart Mill, address the potential conflicts between the greater good and individual freedoms?
• How can the utilitarian principle of maximizing overall happiness be applied in public policy and governance? Discuss the challenges and benefits of implementing utilitarianism in policymaking.
• Explore the concept of “effective altruism” as it relates to utilitarian ethics. How does this movement apply utilitarian principles to philanthropy, and what are the implications for individual moral obligations?
• How does the feminist utilitarian perspective, as exemplified by Harriet Taylor Mill, contribute to the discussion of gender equality and women’s rights? What are the strengths and limitations of utilitarianism in addressing gender-based ethical issues?
• Consider the role of the hedonic calculus in utilitarian decision-making. How practical is this method for weighing the potential pleasure and pain resulting from different actions? What challenges might arise in applying this approach to real-world ethical dilemmas?

Glossary