Does utilitarianism, by judging acts on the happiness they produce, give a sound moral theory, or do the calculation, the neglect of justice and the demandingness undermine it?
Component 3 utilitarianism: Bentham's act utilitarianism (principle of utility, hedonic calculus) and Mill's rule utilitarianism (higher and lower pleasures, the harm principle), with their application to life and death and their strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to utilitarianism. Covers Bentham's act utilitarianism (the principle of utility and the hedonic calculus), Mill's rule utilitarianism (higher and lower pleasures, the harm principle), the application to issues of life and death, and the strengths and weaknesses (calculation, justice, demandingness) the exam asks you to evaluate.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Eduqas Component 3 (Theme 3, Teleological Ethics) studies utilitarianism as a teleological and consequentialist theory: the right action produces the best consequences, measured as happiness. You study Bentham's act utilitarianism (the principle of utility and hedonic calculus), Mill's rule utilitarianism (higher and lower pleasures, the harm principle), the application to issues of life and death, and the strengths and weaknesses. The exam rewards explaining each form precisely (AO1) and evaluating whether maximising happiness is an adequate basis for morality (AO2).
The answer
Bentham: act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus
Mill: higher and lower pleasures
Mill: the harm principle and rule utilitarianism
Application, strengths and weaknesses
Applied to life and death, utilitarianism judges abortion and euthanasia by their consequences for overall happiness (an act utilitarian weighs each case; a rule utilitarian asks which rule maximises happiness), with no appeal to sanctity of life. Strengths: democratic (everyone counts for one), impartial, secular, consequence-sensitive, and it matches the everyday thought that suffering matters. Weaknesses: consequences are hard to predict and calculate; it can justify injustice (framing or punishing an innocent person to satisfy the majority, the tyranny of the majority); it neglects special obligations (family, promises) and individual rights; and it can be over-demanding.
Examples in context
Try this
Q1. Explain Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]
- What the marker wants. Accurate account of higher (intellectual) versus lower (bodily) pleasures, the competent-judges test, and how it answers the "swine" objection, organised and using specialist terms. AO1 band.
Q2. "Rule utilitarianism is no improvement on act utilitarianism." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, 30 marks]
- Cue. Weigh rule utilitarianism's protection of rights and stable guidance against the objection that it collapses into act utilitarianism (weak rules) or into non-utilitarian rule-worship (strong rules), and judge. AO2 band, the larger 30-mark tariff.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
Eduqas A120 2018 (style)20 marksExplain Bentham's act utilitarianism and Mill's rule utilitarianism. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]Show worked answer →
A part (a) AO1 question on the five-band scheme. Explain both forms accurately.
Bentham (act utilitarianism): the principle of utility seeks the greatest happiness of the greatest number; he is a hedonist (pleasure is the only good, pain the only evil); each act is judged by the hedonic (felicific) calculus, weighing seven factors (intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent). Each individual act is assessed on its own consequences. Mill (rule utilitarianism): answers the "swine" objection by distinguishing higher (intellectual) from lower (bodily) pleasures, ranked by competent judges who have known both; adds the harm principle (freedom may be restricted only to prevent harm to others); and follows rules whose general adoption maximises happiness, giving stable guidance and protecting rights. A top band answer distinguishes Bentham's quantitative, act-based approach from Mill's qualitative, rule-based one.
Eduqas A120 2021 (style)20 marks"Utilitarianism cannot protect the rights of the individual." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, the full Eduqas tariff is 30 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.]Show worked answer →
A part (b) AO2 question; the top band rewards balanced argument and a justified conclusion.
For the view: act utilitarianism can justify sacrificing an innocent individual for the majority's happiness (framing the innocent, the tyranny of the majority); it ignores special obligations and rights; calculation is impractical. Against: rule utilitarianism follows rules (do not punish the innocent) that maximise happiness in the long run, protecting rights; Mill's harm principle defends individual liberty. Weigh whether rule utilitarianism escapes the injustice objection or collapses into act utilitarianism (a weak rule can be broken; a strong rule looks non-utilitarian), and conclude. Links to situation ethics (both teleological).
Related dot points
- Component 3 Fletcher's situation ethics: agape as the one absolute, the four working principles and six fundamental principles, conscience as a verb, and its application to life and death, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to Fletcher's situation ethics. Covers agape as the sole absolute, the four working principles, the six fundamental principles, conscience as a verb, the legalism/antinomianism contrast, and its application to issues of life and death, with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 3 the application of ethical theories to issues of human life and death: abortion and euthanasia under natural law, proportionalism, situation ethics and utilitarianism, and whether ethical theories can be applied, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to the application of ethical theories to issues of human life and death. Covers how natural law, proportionalism, situation ethics and utilitarianism each handle abortion and voluntary euthanasia (sanctity versus quality of life), and whether ethical theories can be reliably applied, with the evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 3 Aquinas's natural law: the four tiers of law, the primary and secondary precepts, real and apparent goods, the doctrine of double effect, and its application to issues of life and death, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to Aquinas's natural law. Covers the four tiers of law (eternal, divine, natural, human), the primary and secondary precepts, real and apparent goods, the four cardinal and three theological virtues, the doctrine of double effect, and its application to abortion and euthanasia, with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 3 Hoose's proportionalism: the distinction between moral and pre-moral (ontic) goods and evils, the idea of a proportionate reason, its relation to natural law, and its application to life and death, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to Bernard Hoose's proportionalism. Covers the distinction between moral and pre-moral (ontic) goods and evils, the principle that there must be a proportionate reason to permit a pre-moral evil, its relation to natural law, and the charge that it collapses into consequentialism, with the evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 3 determinism: hard determinism, philosophical determinism (Locke), scientific determinism and psychological behaviourism (Skinner), and the implications for moral responsibility, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to determinism. Covers hard determinism, philosophical determinism (Locke's locked-room thought experiment), scientific determinism (universal causation), and psychological behaviourism (Skinner's conditioning), and the implications for moral responsibility, praise, blame and punishment, with the evaluation the exam rewards.
Sources & how we know this
- Eduqas A Level Religious Studies specification (A120QS) — WJEC Eduqas (2016)
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism — Project Gutenberg (1863)