Traditional utilitarianism judges moral worth based on the happiness produced as a result of an action, which is sometimes criticized as it can ignore concepts of justice and rights. However, rule utilitarians argue that utilitarianism can include social justice in the long run, seeking to reconcile moral rules with happiness.
Traditional utilitarianism is the predominant ethical theory based on three elements. It was developed systematically, especially by 19th-century philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who emphasized individual happiness and pleasure as the basis for moral judgment. This approach profoundly changed ethical discussions of the time, and its influence continues to permeate modern moral philosophy. First, utilitarianism is consequentialism, which holds that the ethical value of an action depends on its consequences. An action is judged good or bad solely by its expected consequences. From this perspective, the morality of an action depends on the utility of its consequences rather than its intentions or motivations. Second, the only criterion for evaluating the consequences of an action is the calculable amount of happiness it will produce. According to this, the more happiness an action produces relative to unhappiness, the more virtuous it is, and the most virtuous action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This evaluation criterion leads utilitarians to emphasize the best option for the greatest number in various social and economic decisions. Because of this, utilitarianism has been highly influential in policy decisions, such as the formation of the welfare state. Third, when calculating the amount of happiness that will occur before an action is taken, all individuals’ happiness is considered equally important, so no one person’s happiness is more important than another’s. So when comparing the happiness of two people, we only consider the amount of happiness that will be produced for them. This shows that utilitarianism is a classic egalitarianism.
The most serious problem that anti-utilitarianism raises against utilitarianism is that it sometimes leads to the exclusion of the concept of justice. This criticism reflects a concern that utilitarianism can ignore individual rights or notions of justice, which can lead to ethical dilemmas, especially in extreme situations. He supposes that Minwoo, a utilitarian who practices the three elements above, visits a country where there is a serious conflict between Group A and Group B. Minwoo happens to witness a group A person severely assaulting a group B person. If Minwoo testifies to the truth, he could exacerbate the conflict between the two groups and cause bloodshed, but if he testifies falsely by naming an innocent member of Group B, he could prevent the conflict between the groups. The uncertainty of not testifying is even more dangerous. What would Minwoo, a traditional utilitarian, do in this situation?
Of the several responses utilitarians have to situations like this one, the most notable is that utilitarianism can also include a notion of justice. This is done by first assuming that there are two societies, one that bears witness to the truth and one that does not, and then examining which society produces more happiness in the end. This approach can be seen as the beginning of utilitarianism’s shift from being a theory that simply values outcomes to recognizing the importance of moral rules and social justice. The conclusion is that the former is a good society because it produces more happiness in the long run, so it creates rules that uphold justice by testifying to truths that produce more happiness and constrains individual behavior to act accordingly. Utilitarians who make this response are called rule utilitarians.
