Sociology Index

UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism is the theory that individuals are best able to define their needs, desires and goals, and where they have freedom to make choices the result will be the greatest possible satisfaction for the greatest number. Utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. Utilitarianism and Egalitarianism are both forms of Consequentialism. Consequentialism holds that one must act so as to maximize the overall intrinsic value of some population. Consequentialism holds that one must distribute resources within some population so as to maximize its overall intrinsic value.

In Philosophical thought utilitarianism is the doctrine that the greatest good of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

Utilitarianism is an individualistic perspective because it claims that individuals making free choices necessarily leads to a society where satisfaction and happiness are maximized.

Utilitarianism theory overlooks the potential for one individual's choice to constrain or remove the choices of others.

As a justification for punishment utilitarianism asserts the utility of the act of punishment or the punishment of a particular offender.

The utility of punishment refers to any future benefit for the society (or the greatest number) which can be derived from the act.

Justifications in terms of deterrence (individual or general), rehabilitation, incapacitation, and crime prevention are all aspects of utilitarianism.

In utilitarianism, utilitarian justifications are contrasted with retribution.

Teleology and Utilitarianism - James R. Heichelbech
Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
Abstract: Teleology and utilitarianism describe approaches to ethical thinking that are goal oriented and focused on consequences. Teleology is specifically concerned with purposes or goals, while utilitarianism is the view that an act is ethical to the extent that it satisfies interests or increases happiness. Together, teleology and utilitarianism are contrasted with deontological conceptions of ethics, which are focused on obligations and motives.

Utilitarianism and the Disabled: Distribution of Resources
Mark S. Stein, Yale University - Department of Political Science - Bioethics, Vol. 16, 2002
Abstract: Utilitarianism is more convincing than resource egalitarianism or welfare egalitarianism as a theory of how resources should be distributed between disabled people and nondisabled people. Unlike resource egalitarianism, utilitarianism can redistribute resources to the disabled when they would benefit more from those resources than nondisabled people. Unlike welfare egalitarianism, utilitarianism can halt redistribution when the disabled would no longer benefit more than the nondisabled from additional resources. The author considers one objection to this view: it has been argued, by Sen and others, that there are circumstances under which utilitarianism would unfairly distribute fewer resources to the physically disabled than to nondisabled people, on the ground that the disabled would derive less benefit from those resources. In response, the author claims that critics of utilitarianism have fallaciously exaggerated the circumstances under which the disabled would benefit less than the nondisabled from additional resources.

Distributive Justice and Disability: Utilitarianism Against Egalitarianism
Mark S. Stein, Harvard Law School, Petrie-Flom Center, Yale University Press, 2006
Abstract: Mark Stein argues that utilitarianism performs better than egalitarian theories in dealing with the problems of disability. Egalitarian theories either give too little help to the disabled or too much, depending on what is sought to be equalized. Utilitarianism achieves the proper balance by placing resources where they will do the most good.
As pure egalitarian theories fail to address disability issues in a plausible way, egalitarian theorists are driven to incorporate elements of utilitarianism into their theories. Sometimes this incorporation of utilitarianism is done relatively openly, as by Amartya Sen; sometimes is it done in an obscure fashion, as by Ronald Dworkin.
Stein also discusses the proper use of examples in moral theory. Many examples used by the opponents of utilitarianism, such as Robert Nozick's famous utility monster, evoke utilitarian intuitions and then turn those intuitions, deceptively, against utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-Evaluation of the Public Interest Justification for Planning - Heather Campbell, University of Sheffield, UK, Robert Marshall, University of Sheffield, UK, Planning Theory, Vol. 1, No. 2, 163-187 (2002)

Utilitarianism Shot Down by Its Own Men? - TUIJA TAKALA
Docent of Practical Philosophy in the Department of Moral and Social Philosophy, University of Helsinki, Finland and Visiting Academic at the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, England.
I think that utilitarianism is a good moral theory, and definitely better than its rivals, deontology and teleology. Utilitarianism has a bad reputation in bioethics. The economic doctrine sometimes labeled as utilitarianism could be guilty as charged, but ethics and economy are not interchangeable words. Also as a theory that can actually propose answers to no-win situations, utilitarianism has been an easy target for criticism.

Beyond Utilitarianism: A Method for Analyzing Competing Ethical Principles in a Decision Analysis of Liver Transplantation - Michael L. Volk, MD, Anna S. F. Lok, MD, Peter A. Ubel, MD, Sandeep Vijan, MD - Medical Decision Making, Vol. 28, No. 5, 763-772 (2008)
Utilitarian foundation of decision analysis limits its usefulness for many social policy decisions. The authors examine a method to incorporate competing ethical principles in a decision analysis of liver transplantation for a patient with acute liver failure (ALF).

Medicaid Eligibility Policy in the 1980s: Medical Utilitarianism and the "Deserving" Poor - Sandra J. Tanenbaum, Ohio State University - Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1995 20(4):933-954; Duke University Press.