How does utilitarianism decide what is right by maximising happiness, and how do Bentham and Mill differ?
Utilitarianism: the greatest happiness principle, Bentham's act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus, Mill's development with higher and lower pleasures and rule utilitarianism, and the main objections to a consequentialist ethic.
How utilitarianism judges right and wrong by happiness: Bentham's greatest happiness principle and hedonic calculus, Mill's higher and lower pleasures and rule utilitarianism, and the key objections to this consequentialist theory.
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
Utilitarianism is the consequentialist theory you study in Moral Philosophy. You must explain the greatest happiness principle, Bentham's act utilitarianism with its hedonic calculus, Mill's refinements (higher and lower pleasures, and the move towards rule utilitarianism), and the main objections to judging right and wrong purely by consequences. This is one of the two rival theories at the heart of the area.
The greatest happiness principle
Two features define the theory. It is consequentialist: only outcomes matter, not motives or rules in themselves. And it is impartial: everyone's happiness counts equally, so no one's interests get special weight. This makes utilitarianism a clear, secular way to decide right and wrong.
Bentham's act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus
Bentham applied the principle to each individual act: the right act, here and now, is the one that produces the most net happiness.
Bentham held that pleasures differ only in quantity, not quality: "pushpin is as good as poetry" if it yields as much pleasure. This makes the theory egalitarian and measurable, but exposes it to the charge that it is a "doctrine worthy of swine", treating base and refined pleasures as equal.
Mill's developments
Mill accepted the greatest happiness principle but revised Bentham on two points.
- Higher and lower pleasures. Pleasures differ in quality as well as quantity. Higher pleasures (intellectual, aesthetic, moral) are more valuable than lower (bodily) pleasures. The test is the verdict of competent judges who have experienced both, who prefer the higher: "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."
- Rule utilitarianism. Mill is widely read as moving towards rule utilitarianism: rather than calculating each act, we should follow rules that generally promote the greatest happiness (keep promises, do not steal). This protects justice and rights, which act utilitarianism can threaten, and answers the main objections to Bentham, especially the "swine" charge.
Objections to utilitarianism
- Injustice. It can justify harming an innocent person if doing so maximises overall happiness (framing one to prevent a riot), which seems plainly wrong.
- Prediction and measurement. Consequences are hard to foresee and pleasures hard to quantify and compare, so the calculus may be impractical.
- Too demanding. Maximising happiness impartially may require huge sacrifices and leave no room for personal projects.
- Ignores motives and special obligations. Only outcomes count, so a good motive earns no credit, and duties to family or friends get no special weight.
Rule utilitarianism answers some of these, which is part of why Mill's version is often preferred.
Examples in context
Take the stock objection: a surgeon could save five patients needing transplants by killing one healthy visitor for their organs. Act utilitarianism appears to endorse it, since one death producing five survivors looks like the greatest happiness for the greatest number, yet this is monstrous, the injustice objection in sharp form. A rule utilitarian replies that a general rule permitting doctors to kill healthy patients would destroy trust in medicine, so the rule fails to maximise happiness and the act is forbidden. The example both presses the theory and shows Mill's rule version answering back, exactly the analysis the evaluation questions reward.
Try this
Q1. State the greatest happiness principle. [2 marks]
- Cue. An action is right if it produces the greatest happiness (pleasure over pain) for the greatest number, counting each affected person's happiness equally.
Q2. How does Mill answer the charge that utilitarianism is a "doctrine worthy of swine"? [2 marks]
- Cue. By distinguishing higher pleasures (intellectual, moral, aesthetic) from lower (bodily) ones and holding the higher more valuable, as competent judges who have experienced both prefer them.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SQA Higher (P2)6 marksExplain Bentham's act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus.Show worked answer →
Marks reward explaining the principle and how the calculus applies it. Bentham's act utilitarianism holds that an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness (pleasure minus pain) for the greatest number; this is the greatest happiness principle, and it judges each act by its consequences.
The hedonic (felicific) calculus is Bentham's method for measuring the pleasure and pain an act produces, using factors such as intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (nearness), fecundity (likelihood of leading to more pleasure), purity (freedom from pain) and extent (how many are affected). You weigh the total pleasure against the total pain across everyone affected, count each person equally, and the act with the greatest net happiness is right. A strong answer notes that Bentham treated all pleasures as differing only in quantity, not quality.
SQA Higher (P2)5 marksHow does Mill's utilitarianism differ from Bentham's?Show worked answer →
The marks reward identifying Mill's main developments and the reasons for them. Mill kept the greatest happiness principle but argued, against Bentham, that pleasures differ in quality as well as quantity: there are higher pleasures (intellectual, aesthetic, moral) and lower pleasures (bodily), and the higher ones are more valuable.
Mill defended this with the test of competent judges who have experienced both ("it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied"), and with his famous line that it is "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". Many readings also credit Mill with a move towards rule utilitarianism: we should follow rules that generally promote the greatest happiness, rather than calculating each act, which protects justice and rights. State that Mill's changes answer the "doctrine worthy of swine" objection to Bentham.
Related dot points
- The nature of moral decisions: distinguishing moral from non-moral decisions, the key concepts of moral philosophy (right and wrong, good, duty, consequences, intention), and central distinctions such as normative versus descriptive and consequentialist versus non-consequentialist.
How SQA Higher Philosophy frames moral decisions: the difference between moral and non-moral decisions, the key moral concepts (right, wrong, good, duty, consequences, intention), and core distinctions like normative versus descriptive and consequentialist versus non-consequentialist.
- Kantian deontology: the good will and duty, the distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives, the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity (ends in themselves), and the main objections to a duty-based ethic.
How Kant grounds morality in duty and reason: the good will, categorical versus hypothetical imperatives, the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity, and the main objections to this non-consequentialist theory.
- Applying and evaluating moral theories: using utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to reason about a moral issue, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of each, and reaching a comparative judgement on which better answers how we should act.
How to apply utilitarianism and Kantian ethics to a moral issue and evaluate them in SQA Higher Philosophy: the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, how they handle hard cases, and a comparative judgement on how we should act.
- Evaluating arguments: judging the premises for acceptability, judging the premises for relevance to the conclusion, judging whether the premises are sufficient to support the conclusion, and applying the principle of charity when interpreting an argument.
How to evaluate an argument in SQA Higher Philosophy using the criteria of acceptability, relevance and sufficiency, how these criteria connect to validity and soundness, and why the principle of charity matters when interpreting an argument.
- Inductive arguments and reliability: how induction differs from deduction, the main inductive patterns (generalisation from a sample, argument from analogy, causal and predictive inference, appeal to authority), and the criteria that make an inductive argument reliable or weak.
How SQA Higher Philosophy treats inductive reasoning: the difference between induction and deduction, the main inductive forms (generalisation, analogy, causal and predictive inference, appeal to authority), and what makes an inductive argument reliable rather than weak.
- The course assessment: the structure of the externally marked question papers covering Arguments in Action, Knowledge and Doubt and Moral Philosophy, the command words used, and how marks are awarded across short-answer, analysis and extended-response questions.
An overview of how SQA Higher Philosophy is assessed: the externally marked question papers across the three areas of study, the command words (explain, analyse, evaluate), and how marks are awarded across short-answer, analysis and extended-response questions.
Sources & how we know this
- Higher Philosophy Course Specification — SQA (2022)