Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

Posted: Mon, Sep 22, 2025

Axiological theories of right: X is the morally right/wrong thing to do because of its value (goodness/badness).

• Consequentialist theories: This value is grounded entirely in the value of what X brings about.
  • The consequences of an action can go beyond what the action results in: Reparations for slavery are both forward- and backward-looking.
  • What makes consequences good/bad?
    • Utilitarianism is a specific version of a consequentialist axiological theory of right with a specific theory of what makes consequences good/bad.
• Non-consequentialist theories: This value is grounded not entirely in the value of X’s consequences.
  • Some possibilities: X’s intrinsic value, the moral worth of the person doing X, etc.

Bentham’s principle of utility:

that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question (chap. 1, § 2)

where “happiness” is understood as net pleasure/pain, and “party” could be an individual or a “community” whose interest is “the sum of the interests of the several members who compose it” (chap. 1, § 4).

• Consequentialism: The deontic status of actions is grounded in the goodness/badness of their consequences.
• Welfarism: The goodness/badness of a state of affairs is grounded in its contribution to individual well-being (i.e., how life is going for an individual).
  • Universalism about welfare: Everyone’s well-being counts.
  • Egalitarianism about welfare: Well-being counts equally.
    • Agent-neutrality: No special consideration given to personal relationships.
    • Non-prioritarianism: No special consideration given to the most disadvantaged in society.
• Hedonism: Well-being is grounded in pleasure/pain.

A second formulation:

An action then may be said to be conformable to the principle of utility . . . when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to diminish it. (chap. 1, § 6)

These two formulations are not identical:

	Pleasure to community	Pain to community
Action A	1,000 units	975 units
Action B	300 units	299 units
Action C	100 units	50 units

How good makes right?

• Maximizing consequentialism: The morally right action must produce the best consequences.
• Satisficing consequentialism: The morally right action must produce good enough consequences.
• Scalar consequentialism: The better consequences an action produces, the more morally right it is.

Worry about universalist, egalitarian aggregation (explanatory power): Is it morally okay to “sacrifice one to save five”?

• Broader consequences response: Doing so incurs further bad consequences that outweigh the utility of saving five.
• Rule consequentialist response: The more general rule “you can sacrifice one to save five” does not produce the most/enough utility across all cases even if it does so in this case.
  • But rules don’t themselves produce consequences; we are talking about the consequences of actions performed following these rules (however successfully) -> the problem of partial compliance.
• Does either response speak to Ursula K. Le Guin’s Omelas?

Worry about action guidance: Would the principle of utility approve of following the principle of utility in practice?

• The principle of utility as a moral principle vs. decision procedure.