This article has been written by Nehal Misra, a student at Nirma University, Ahmedabad. In this article, she discusses the concept of utilitarianism and the application of the utilitarianism principle in India.

Introduction

Utilitarianism, a tradition which has stemmed from the late 18th and 19th-century. English philosophers and economists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. The principle states that an action is right only if it tends to promote the happiness of everyone affected by the act. This theory is in opposition to egoism, which concentrates that a person should pursue his self-interest, even at the expense of others, as well as any ethical theory that regards some acts independent of the consequences. According to the utilitarian, the right thing may be done from a bad motive. The theory believes that man is social by nature and is motivated by the desire to obtain happiness and avoid pain. Through individual’s happiness involves relationships with other individuals which, by legislation, requires state regulation of men’s mutual relationships. Therefore, the utilitarian theory is closely related to practical ethics and practical politics. The state’s legislation aims to promote and secure the greatest number of happiness.

Nature of the utilitarianism principle

Utilitarianism is one of the ethical theories which addresses the “goodness” of any state of affairs. In the history of ideas, the most distinguished proponents and defenders of utilitarianism have been the great English thinkers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism attempts to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a person to do?” The act must produce the best consequences possible.

Basic concepts of the principle

Utilitarianism includes good and bad consequences produced by the performance of the act. If the difference in the consequences of alternative acts is not significant, some utilitarians do not find the choice between them as a moral issue. According to Mill, acts should only be classified as morally correct or wrong if the implications are of such importance that a person would wish to see the agent compelled, not merely persuaded and exhorted, to act in a preferred manner. Utilitarianism depends on a principle of intrinsic value when determining the consequences of actions: everything is considered good in itself, aside from further consequences, and all other qualities are assumed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Bentham and Mill were hedonists; they analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone were of intrinsic value and disability.

The utilitarians often believe that the intrinsic values generated by two alternative acts can be compared and calculated which would have better consequences. Bentham assumed that, theoretically, a hedonic calculus was possible. A moralistic, he maintained, should sum up the units of enjoyment and pain for anyone likely to be affected, immediately and in the future, and could use the balance as a measure of an action’s overall good or bad tendency. Such precise calculation as envisaged by Bentham may not be sufficient, but it is still important for the utilitarian to make certain interpersonal comparisons of the results values of alternative courses of action.

Evolution of the principle

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory to which Jeremy Bentham is generally credited. Bentham and John Stuart Mill are regarded as the theory’s two principal exponents. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist philosophy, based purely on the conditions brought on by the practice. It does not enforce set guideline rules on the behaviour to be followed in each case. This philosophy addresses issues with philosophies of absolutism such as moral law or Kantian ethics.

Many individuals who adhere to a utilitarian form of morality are inclined to fulfil their basic needs and are ‘animals,’ according to Carlyle. As humans have reason and intelligence, according to Carlyle they might prefer ethical theory over Utilitarianism. Bentham’s humanity concept revolved around two things- “everyone wants pleasure and nobody wants pain”. Bentham developed felicific calculus to judge each situation on seven criteria for evaluating pain and pleasure: Intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty of the pain or pleasure, propinquity, fecundity, and the extent of the pleasure. 

Bentham was anti-elitist as he considered everyone’s pleasure to be the same under the title ‘pleasure’. Carlyle criticized Bentham’s notion, he saw utilitarianism to be a means of promoting a lifestyle that was very unattractive as it catered only to basic needs and desires. However, utilitarianism can also be seen as a very compassionate theory, in the case of euthanasia where the desires of an individual upon weighing of pain and pleasure might deduce a compassionate conclusion. Nevertheless, Carlyle’s criticism was a strong one and in its reply, J.S. Mill’s theory promulgated. 

J.S. Mill’s theory

Mill, attracted by Bentham’s theory, attempted to change disputed parts of it to counter the issue. Mill described ‘happiness’ as the thing being sought instead of ‘pleasure’. He looked at purely physical pleasure differently: happiness as mental pleasure. His utilitarian thinking promoted mental pleasure over physical pleasure. Mill propagated the notion of “better unhappy than pleased with a donkey” and “better to dissatisfied Socrates than pleased with a fool.” Mill concluded that the ‘true’ approach was in the pursuit of mental or physical gratification. A major criticism of Mill was difficulty in discrimination of which pleasure rates over the other. Mill argued the idea of competent judgment by an individual who had both the pleasure in question, came to the decision. ‘Rule’ utilitarianism terminology also evolved wherein through past experiences plausible behaviour or decisions in the past were evaluated to determine a great sense of happiness among the pleasures. 

However, according to Bentham, an ‘Act’ utilitarian in every situation should be judged independently. His adaptation attempts to compensate for the lack of absolutism that is often felt essential to the search for a good code of ethics. However, this portion of his philosophy focuses on the pressures that absolutism carries by appeasing to the principle of absolutism. Mill is criticized for falling short in the same way that Bentham has. He fails to discuss the distribution of happiness and allows unjust or undeserved unhappiness. He also attempts to promote a virtuous code of living to be a morally good way of living.

Effects of utilitarianism

The influence of utilitarianism has been widespread and its significance in law, politics is especially notable. The Utilitarian Theory of punishment justification stands in opposition to the theory of “retribution.” In political theory utilitarianism bases upon their importance of government authority and the sanctity of human freedoms, thus offering an alternative to theories of moral law, civil freedoms, or social contract. Utilitarians typically advocate democracy as a means of making government interests align with the general interest; they have advocated for the greatest freedom of the individual together with equal freedom for others because each individual is usually the best judge of his welfare, and they have believed in the potential and desirability of radical social change through peaceful political processes.

Utilitarian claims can, therefore, lead to different conclusions with different factual assumptions. If the inquirer believes that a strong government is needed to manage the fundamental selfish interests of the individual and that any reform may threaten the stability of the political order, he may be guided to an authoritarian or conservative position by utilitarian arguments. On the other hand, William Godwin, a political philosopher at the beginning of the 19th century, assumed the fundamental goodness of human nature and argued that the greatest happiness would come from a radical transformation of society in the direction of anarchist communism.

Classical economics has received the most important statements, notably Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Ironically, the theory of economic value was focused largely on the expense of labor in production rather than on the consumer value or usefulness of commodities. Later developments more clearly reflected the philosophy of the Utilitarians. William Jevons, one of the founders of the marginal utility school of analysis, derived many of his ideas from Bentham; and, while replacing comparative preferences with comparative utilities, “welfare economics” reflected the basic spirit of Utilitarian philosophy. In economic policy, the early utilitarians had tended to reject governmental intervention in trade and industry on the premise that if left intact, the economy would control itself for the greater welfare; however, later utilitarians lost trust in private enterprise’s social efficiency and were willing to see governmental power and administration used to correct their violations. Utilitarianism of the 19th century was surprisingly popular in the long run as a movement for the reform of social institutions.

Impact of utilitarianism on India

Wendy Doniger’s book, The Hindus: An Alternative History drew a lot of attention. Though Article 19(1), the Indian Constitution memorializes the fundamental right of freedom of expression it was quite disappointing that the supposed vanguards and protectors of ‘freedom of expression’ yielded and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code was applied. Democracy is the government of the people but is not a form of majoritarianism where what is right or wrong is decided according to the interests of the majority.

Moreover, in the recent cases of sedition, even utterance of the words, “Pakistan Zindabad” is considered to be a seditious act depending on the masses. The objective of the principle of law is lost in the case of utilitarianism. India is a country that follows a positive theory of law and the Constitution of India holds the supreme authority. The Courts take decisions within the ambit of the law of the land. Thus, the view of the majority hold’s no essence in the judiciary. Moreover in democracy, the voice of each individual of the country holds an equal position. The vote of each citizen is equivalent irrespective of any basis. Thus, in India majoritarianism holds no relevance, however, its influence can be reflected in cases of sedition and fundamental rights.   

Utilitarianism and the criminal law in colonial India

The role of legal tradition in the reformist rhetoric of Benthamite Utilitarianism is a contradiction. The popular interpretation of Utilitarian jurisprudence, on the one hand, is historical and opposes the reworking of the criminal justice system that prevailed in Britain during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. On the other hand, in British India, the same utilitarian law theorists concerned themselves with local rather than abstract definitions of crime. For example, in his Essay on the Power of Time and Place in Legislative Matters of 1782, Bentham encouraged the political reformer to balance progress in India by fitting Utilitarian decisions on the law into the structures of local society. The first Burkean perspective viewed India in terms of settled, well-established communities that had come under danger with the onset of British rule. It contributed to ‘legal particularism’, its emphasis on difference/pluralism, and its concomitant advocacy of personal laws for India’s religious communities. Bentham’s utilitarianism and its influence are especially seen in the creation of a penal code, and a code of criminal and civil procedure in India.

Criticism of the utilitarianism principle

• Bentham’s hedonistic value philosophy holds that life’s worth is more than just a balance of satisfaction over suffering. Such emotions, however, can not be properly broken down into terms of pleasure and pain to maximize happiness and to minimize unhappiness. 
• Another objection to utilitarianism is that the prevention or elimination of suffering should take precedence over any alternative activities which would only increase somebody already happy. 
• Utilitarianism only looks at the consequences of actions and disregards the intention that motivates them. It is a huge moral oversight, especially regarding the legal system for where greater importance is given to the intention of the act over the consequence.
• Quantifying utility-  A common objection to utilitarianism is the impossibility of quantifying, comparing, or measuring happiness or wellbeing. 
• Utility ignores justice- Utilitarians are not concerned about having rules to set up a “straw man” and ignores the principle of justice because the intention fails to play an active role in the concept of utilitarianism.
• Predicting consequences- The calculation required by utilitarianism is impossible to do because the consequences are inherently unknowable. This is what Daniel Dennett describes as the Three Mile Island effect. 
• Demandingness objection- Act utilitarianism requires not only that everyone does what they can to maximize utility but that they do it without any favoritism. 
• Aggregating utility- The objection that “utilitarianism doesn’t make the distinction between persons seriously” came to prominence in 1971 when John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice was published. The satisfaction of a person is not part of any greater satisfaction. “Thus, the aggregation of usefulness becomes futile as both pain and happiness are intrinsic to and inseparable from the consciousness in which they are felt, making the task of adding up the various pleasures of multiple people impossible.
• Calculating utility is self-defeating- One early critique discussed by Mill is that if time is taken to determine the best course of action, then the chance to take the best course of action is likely to have already passed.
• Special obligations criticism- Some of the strongest critiques of utilitarianism is that individual commitments are overlooked. Such human behaviour is unethical, according to utilitarianism, and these personal desires should be disregarded for the common benefit of the largest number of men.

Conclusion

The two main principles of utilitarian philosophy are problematic – happiness and consequences. Whereas deontology places moral value on anything intrinsic to the agent, the utilitarianism of his / her motives places moral value on something extrinsic to the agent which produces the results of the behaviour in terms of happiness. To deontologists the end rarely justifies the means; the end still justifies the means to utilitarians. Utilitarianism is a moral code of ethics that is only as useful as the person who interprets and uses it.

This is just a method for addressing ethical issues, one that needs to be used with complete awareness of the good and the negative to balance. Perhaps it is a code of ethics that is valuable but imperfect for humans; we cannot make decisions that please everyone; this is impossible. Instead, it is in our best interests to act for the greater good, as what would be the sense in displeasing the majority unless the majority is morally repugnant and evil. Somehow this consideration is scary as it might be possible that an individual’s view is at stake if it is no longer in the best interests of the majority. Do my opinion and feelings no longer count to a utilitarian decision maker? However with sound reasoning and sensible interpretation utilitarianism shall work, but only for those whose intentions coincide with the majority.

References

• https://www.utilitarianism.com/hedcalc.htm#:~:text=%22
• https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/#:~:text=Utilitarianism%20is%20one%20of%20the,ba d% 20results%20that%20they%20produce
• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: