   #copyright

Utilitarianism

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Philosophy

   Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is the ethical doctrine
   that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its
   contribution to overall utility. It is thus a form of consequentialism.
   Utility--the good to be maximized-- has been defined by various
   thinkers as happiness, pleasure, or well-being. While it is natural to
   consider only the well being of humans when interpreting this doctrine,
   some utilitarians count the interests of any and all sentient beings
   when assessing overall utility. According to them, the interests of
   animals and possibly even extraterrestrial beings have importance.

History of utilitarianism

   Utilitarianism was originally proposed by Jeremy Bentham. From the
   principle of utility, Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only
   intrinsic values in the world: "nature has put man under the governance
   of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain." From this he derived the
   rule of utility: that the good is whatever brings the greatest
   happiness to the greatest number of people. Later, after realizing that
   the formulation recognized two different and potentially conflicting
   principles, he dropped the second part and talked simply about "the
   greatest happiness principle."

   Jeremy Bentham's foremost proponent was James Mill, a significant
   philosopher in his day and the father of John Stuart Mill. John was
   educated according to Bentham's principles , including transcribing and
   summarising much of his father's work whilst still in his teens."

   In his famous (and short) book, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill argued
   that cultural, intellectual, and spiritual pleasures are of greater
   value than mere physical pleasure, because the former would be valued
   more highly by competent judges than the latter. A competent judge,
   according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower
   pleasures and the higher. Like Bentham's formulation, Mill's
   utilitarianism is hedonistic, because it deals with pleasure or
   happiness.

   The classic utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill influenced many other
   philosophers and the development of the broader concept of
   consequentialism. As a result, there now exist many different accounts
   of the good, and therefore many different types of consequentialism
   besides utilitarianism. For example, some philosophers reject the sole
   importance of well-being and argue that there are intrinsic values
   other than happiness or pleasure, e.g. knowledge and autonomy.

   Other past advocates of utilitarianism include William Godwin and Henry
   Sidgwick; modern-day advocates include R.M. Hare and Peter Singer.

   Utilitarianism has been used as an argument for many different
   political views. In his essay On Liberty and other works, John Stuart
   Mill argued that utilitarianism requires that political arrangements
   satisfy the "liberty principle", according to which "the only purpose
   for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
   civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
   Prevention of self-harm by other persons is expressly forbidden,
   although Utilitarian happiness means Mill states that self-harm is a
   good reason for other persons to remonstrate with or to try to persuade
   a person not to do so.

   Ludwig von Mises advocated libertarianism using utilitarian arguments.
   Likewise, some Marxist philosophers have also used these principles as
   arguments for political socialism.

Types of utilitarianism

Negative utilitarianism

   Most utilitarian theories deal with producing the greatest amount of
   good for the greatest number. Negative utilitarianism (NU) requires us
   to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest
   amount of harm for the greatest number. Proponents argue that this is a
   more effective ethical formula, since, they contend, the greatest harms
   are more consequential than the greatest goods. The founder of NU
   referred to an epistemological argument: “It adds to clarity in the
   fields of ethics, if we formulate our demands negatively, i.e. if we
   demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of
   happiness.” (Karl R.Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, London
   1945). In the practical implementation of this idea the following
   versions can be distinguished:

   1. Some advocates of the utilitarian principle were quick to suggest
   that the ultimate aim of NU would be to engender the quickest and least
   painful method of killing the entirety of humanity, as this ultimately
   would effectively minimize pain. NU would seem to call for the
   destruction of the world even if only to avoid the pain of a pinprick .

   2. Newer, moderate versions of NU do not attempt to minimize all kinds
   of suffering but only those kinds, which are created by the frustration
   of preferences. In most supporters of moderate NU the preference to
   survive is stronger than the wish to be freed from suffering, so that
   they refuse the idea of a quick and painless destruction of life. Some
   of them believe that by time the worst cases of suffering will be
   defeated and a world of minor suffering can be realized. The principal
   agents of this direction can be found in the environment of
   transhumanism .

   Supporters of moderate NU who do not believe in the promises of
   transhumanism would prefer a reduction of the population (and in the
   extreme case an empty world). This seems to come down to the position
   of radical NU, but in moderate NU the world could only be sacrificed to
   prevent extreme suffering and not to avoid the pain of a pinprick. And
   from the preference for an empty world does not follow a corresponding
   political claim. Such a claim would definitely (and in analogy to
   radical NU) be counterproductive. Pessimistic supporters of moderate NU
   therefore tend towards a retreat oriented way of living.

   3. Finally there are theoreticians who see NU as a branch within
   classical utilitarianism, demanding for a higher priority in the fight
   against suffering. . This interpretation though cannot be counted as an
   independent version of NU, because it does not avoid Derek Parfits
   “Repugnant Conclusion” . NU is precisely characterized by overcoming
   this theoretical weakness of classical utilitarianism.

Act utilitarianism vs. rule utilitarianism

   Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first
   consider the likely consequences of potential actions, and from that,
   choose to do what we believe will generate the most happiness. A rule
   utilitarian, on the other hand, begins by looking at potential rules of
   action. To determine whether a rule should be followed, he looks at
   what would happen if it was constantly followed. If adherence to the
   rule produces more happiness than otherwise, it is a rule that morally
   must be followed at all times. The distinction between act and rule
   utilitarianism is therefore based on a difference about the proper
   object of consequentialist calculation: individual actions or rules?

   To illustrate, consider the following thought experiment, which can be
   compared with the survival lottery scenario and the Trolley problem: A
   surgeon has five terminal patients: one needs a liver, one needs a
   pancreas, one needs a heart, and two need kidneys. A sixth,
   non-terminal patient just came in to have his appendix removed. Should
   the surgeon kill the sixth man and pass his organs around to the
   others?

   An act utilitarian would consider the probable consequences of
   sacrificing the sixth patient on that particular occasion, while a rule
   utilitarian would look at the consequences of performing such a
   sacrifice every time such a situation arises. One potential rule would
   be: "whenever a surgeon could kill one relatively healthy person in
   order to transplant his organs to more than one other person who needs
   them, he ought to do so." If instituted in society, this rule would
   obviously lead to bad consequences. Relatively healthy people would
   stop going to the hospital, many risky transplant operations would be
   performed, etc. Therefore, a rule utilitarian would say we should
   implement the opposite rule: "don't harvest healthy people's organs to
   give them to sick people." For a rule utilitarian, therefore, it would
   be immoral for the surgeon to kill the sixth man. Of course, it is
   possible that the act utilitarian would decide not to sacrifice the
   sixth man, but most would agree that rule utiltarianism would provide
   stronger reasons not to.

   Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules
   that will in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if
   followed. To never kill a human might seem to be a good rule, but this
   could make defense against aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians
   would then add that there are general exception rules that allow the
   breaking of other rules if this increases happiness, one example being
   self-defense. Critics would then argue that this reduces rule
   utilitarianism to act utilitarianism, and the rules become meaningless.
   Rule utilitarians respond that the rules in the legal system (i.e.
   laws) which regulate such situations are not meaningless. For instance,
   self-defense is legally justified while murder is not.

   Rule utilitarianism should not be confused with rules of thumb. Many
   act utilitarians agree that it makes sense to formulate certain rules
   of thumb to follow if they find themselves in a situation in which the
   consequences are difficult, costly, or time-consuming to calculate
   exactly. If the consequences can be calculated relatively clearly and
   without much doubt, then the rules of thumb can be ignored.

   And, of course, utilitarianism instructs us to find the one action that
   will best improve future experiences, not merely any old act that will
   have positive net benefit, no matter how slight or dicey. And thus
   utilitarians, of both the act and rule stripe, should be energetic in
   seeking and finding better alternatives.

Motive Utilitarianism

   This approach is an interesting hybrid between act and rule
   utilitarianism first developed by Robert Adams ("Motive
   Utilitarianism," Journal of Philosophy, 1976) which attempts to deal
   realistically with how human beings function psychologically. We are
   indeed passionate, emotional beings, we do much better with positive
   goals rather than negative prohibitions, and so on and so forth. Motive
   utilitarianism proposes that our initial moral task be to inculcate
   motives within ourselves that will be generally useful across the
   spectrum of the situations we are likely to encounter. For example,
   similar to the 80-20 rule in business, we might be able to most improve
   the future package of experiences if we do a large number of activities
   in honest partnerships with others, rather than doing a few things
   sneakily ourselves.

Other species

   Peter Singer, along with animal rights activists, has argued that the
   well-being of all sentient beings (conscious beings who feel pain,
   including animals) deserve equal consideration with that given to human
   beings. Bentham made a similar argument. Even those utilitarians
   arguing otherwise note that suffering in animals often causes humans to
   suffer, thus making it often immoral to harm an animal even if the
   animal itself is not given a moral status.

Combinations with other ethical schools

   In order to overcome perceived shortcomings of both systems, several
   attempts have been made to combine utilitarianism with Kant's
   categorical imperative. For instance, James Cornman proposes that in
   any given situation we should treat as "means" as few people as
   possible, and treat as "ends" as many people as are thus then
   consistent with those "means". He refers to this as the "Utilitarian
   Kantian Principle".

   Other consequentialists may consider happiness an important
   consequence, but in addition argue that consequences such as justice or
   equality should also be valued, regardless if they increase happiness
   or not.

Biological explanation for utilitarianism

   It has been suggested that sociobiology, the study of the evolution of
   human society, provides support for the utilitarian point of view. For
   example, in The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, the
   utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer argues that fundamentally
   utilitarian ethical reasoning has existed from the time primitive
   foraging bands had to cooperate, compromise, and make group decisions
   to survive. He elaborates: "In a dispute between members of a cohesive
   group of reasoning beings, the demand for a reason is a demand for a
   justification that can be accepted by the group as a whole." Thus,
   consideration of others' interests has long been a necessary part of
   the human experience. Singer believes that reason now compels the equal
   consideration of all people's interests:


   Utilitarianism

   "If I have seen that from an ethical point of view I am just one person
    among the many in my society, and my interests are no more important,
     from the point of view of the whole, than the similar interests of
    others within my society, I am ready to see that, from a still larger
    point of view, my society is just one among other societies, and the
     interests of members of my society are no more important, from that
     larger perspective, than the similar interests of members of other
    societies… Taking the impartial element in ethical reasoning to its
   logical conclusion means, first, accepting that we ought to have equal
                       concern for all human beings."


   Utilitarianism

   This conclusion -- that everybody's interests should be considered
   equally when making decisions -- is a core tenet of utilitarianism.

   Singer elaborates that viewing oneself as equal to others in one's
   society and at the same time viewing one's society as fundamentally
   superior to other societies may cause an uncomfortable cognitive
   dissonance. This is the sense in which he means that reason may push
   people to accept a broader utilitarian stance. Critics (e.g. Binmore
   2005) point out that this cognitive dissonance is apparently not very
   strong, since people often knowingly ignore the interests of faraway
   societies quite similar to their own. They also note that the "ought"
   of the quoted paragraph applies only to someone who has already
   accepted the premise that all societies are equally important. Singer
   has responded that his argument in Expanding the Circle wasn't intended
   to provide a complete philosophical justification for a utilitarian
   categorical imperative, but merely to provide a plausible explanation
   for how some people come to accept utilitarianism.

Criticism and defense of utilitarianism

Utilitarianism and "common sense" morality

   Utilitarianism has been criticized for leading to a number of
   conclusions contrary to "common sense" morality. For example, it might
   be argued that it is "common sense" that one should never sacrifice
   some humans for the happiness of other humans (an ethical position
   famously explored in Le Guin's modern fable " The Ones Who Walk Away
   From Omelas"). Utilitarians, however, argue that "common sense" has
   been used to justify many positions on both sides of controversial
   issues and varies greatly from individual to individual, making it an
   unsuitable basis for a "common" morality. Regarding the example, it is
   equally "common sense" that one must sacrifice some soldiers and
   civilians in a defensive war.

Comparing happiness

   Another difficulty with utilitarianism is that of comparing happiness
   among different people. Many of the early utilitarians hoped that
   happiness could somehow be measured quantitatively and compared between
   people through felicific calculus, although no one has ever managed to
   construct a detailed one in practice. It has been argued that the
   happiness of different people is incommensurable, and thus felicific
   calculus is impossible, not only in practice, but even in principle.
   Defenders of utilitarianism reply that this problem is faced by anyone
   who has to choose between two alternative states of affairs where both
   impose burdens to the people involved. If happiness were
   incommensurable, the death of a hundred people would be no worse than
   the death of one. Triage is an example of a real world situation where
   utilitarianism seems to be applied successfully.

   That the pleasure of a sadist should have the same importance as the
   pleasure of an altruist has also been criticized. Supporters note that
   in practice almost no decisions will be made to cater to the sadist.
   While creating pleasure for an altruist simultaneously helps other
   people, creating pleasure for a sadist simultaneously hurts other
   people. Furthermore, many utilitarians feel that sadist pleasure is
   superficial and temporary, and thus it is detrimental to the sadist in
   the long run. In practice, therefore, the pleasure of a sadist almost
   never has a weight of any significance in a utilitarian calculation.

Predicting consequences

   Daniel Dennett uses the example of Three Mile Island as another example
   of the difficulty in calculating happiness. Was the near-meltdown that
   occurred at this nuclear power plant a good or a bad thing (according
   to utilitarianism)? He points out that its long-term effects on nuclear
   policy would be considered beneficial by many and might outweigh the
   negative consequences. His conclusion is that it is still too early (20
   years after the event) for utilitarianism to weigh all the evidence and
   reach a definite conclusion. Utilitarians note that utilitarianism
   seems to be the unspoken principle used by both advocates and critics
   of nuclear power. That something cannot be determined at the moment is
   common in science and is frequently resolved with further advancements.

   Utilitarians, however, are not required to have perfect knowledge;
   indeed, certain knowledge of consequences is impossible because
   consequences are in the unexperienced future. Utilitarians simply try
   their best to maximize happiness (or another form of utility), and to
   do this, makes their best estimates of the consequences. If the
   consequences of a decision are particularly unclear, it might make
   sense to follow an ethical rule which has promoted the most utility in
   the past. Utilitarians will also note that people trying to further
   their own interests run into situations in which the consequences of
   their decisions are very unclear. This does not mean that they are
   unable to make a decision.

The importance of intentions

   Utilitarianism has been criticized for only looking at the results of
   actions, not at the desires or intentions which motivate them, which
   many people also consider important. An action intended to cause harm
   but that inadvertently causes good results would be judged equal to the
   result from an action done with good intentions. However, many
   utilitarians would argue that utilitarianism applies not only to
   results, but also to desires and dispositions, praise and blame, rules,
   institutions, and punishment. For instance, bad intentions may cause
   harm (to the actor and to others) even if they do not result in bad
   acts. Once this is recognized, supporters argue that utilitarianism
   becomes a much more complex, and rich, moral theory, and may align much
   more closely with our moral intuitions.

   Furthermore, many utilitarians view morality as a personal guide rather
   as a means to judge the actions of other people or actions which have
   already been performed. In other words, morality is something to be
   looked at when deciding what to do. In this sense, intentions are the
   only thing that matter, because the consequences cannot be known with
   certainty until the decision has already been made.

   One philosopher to take this view was Henry Sidgwick in his main work
   The Methods of Ethics, 1874.

Human rights

   Some critics reject utilitarianism, both rule and act, on the basis
   that it seems to be incompatible with human rights. For example, if
   slavery or torture is beneficial for the population as a whole, it
   could theoretically be justified by utilitarianism. Utilitarian theory
   thus seems to overlook the rights of minority groups. It might also
   ignore the rights of the majority. A man might achieve such pure
   ecstasy from killing 100 people so that his positive utility outweighs
   the negative utility of the 100 people he murdered.

   Utilitarians may argue that justification of either slavery, torture or
   mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh
   the direct and extreme suffering to the victims (although some may
   support one of these practices as being justifiable by the consequences
   achieved). Utilitarianism would also require the indirect impact of
   social acceptance of inhumane policies to be taken into consideration;
   for example, general anxiety and fear might increase for all if human
   rights are commonly ignored.

   Act and rule utilitarianisms differ in how they treat human rights
   themselves. Under rule utilitarianism, a human right can easily be
   considered a moral rule. Act utilitarians, on the other hand, do not
   accept human rights as moral principles in and of themselves, but that
   does not mean they are rejected altogether. First, most act
   utilitarians, as explained above, would agree that acts such as
   enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and little
   happiness. Second, human rights could be considered rules of thumb;
   although torture might be acceptable under some circumstances, as a
   rule it is immoral. Finally, act utilitarians often support human
   rights in a legal sense, because utilitarians support laws that cause
   more good than harm.

Sacrifice of an important individual interest for a greater sum of lesser
interests

   Since utilitarians judge all actions by their ability to maximize good
   consequences, any harm to one individual can always be justified by a
   greater gain to other individuals. This is true even if the loss for
   the one individual is large and the gain for the others is marginal, as
   long as enough individuals receive the small benefit. Thus,
   utilitarians deny that individuals have inviolable moral rights. As
   explained above, utilitarians may support legal rights or rights as
   rules of thumb, but they are not considered inherent to morality. This
   seems problematic to many critics of utilitarianism, one of whom notes
   that according to utilitarianism there is "nothing intrinsically wrong
   with sacrificing an important individual interest to a greater sum of
   lesser interests. That assumption is retained in the foundations of the
   theory, and it remains a source of moral concern."

   Although the above criticism may not be, two other related criticisms
   of utilitarianism are based on misconceptions. The principle of "the
   greatest good for the greatest number", introduced by Bentham, is often
   mistaken as meaning that if something hurts one person and helps many,
   it is always morally justified. This is not the case, however; as noted
   above, Bentham dropped the misleading "greatest number" part of the
   principle, replacing the original formulation with the more direct
   "greatest happiness principle." Thus, the morality of an action is not
   determined by the number of people made happier, but rather the
   quantity of happiness produced. A great loss to one individual might be
   outweighed by small gains for many, but it might not. Even if 1 person
   is hurt and 100 people are helped, the harm to the one might be so
   great as to outweigh the small gains for the rest of the people.

   Second, some criticize utilitarianism for implying that individuals'
   interests can be sacrificed for the sake of the "society" or the
   nation. Modern utilitarianism however proposes that one individual's
   interests can only be sacrificed for the sake of the interests of other
   individuals. As Bentham put it, "It is vain to talk of the interest of
   the community, without understanding what is the interest of the
   individual." While it may benefit individuals to have a healthy society
   or a functional state, neither of these are ends in themselves.

Right and wrong dichotomy

   A further criticism is in regard to Utilitarianism's judgement of right
   and wrong. Utilitarianism holds that in any given situation the 'right'
   act is that which produced the greatest good, while all other acts are
   wrong. Therefore even charitable actions could be considered wrong
   under this theory. For example, if someone donated $1,000 to a charity
   that provided starving children with food when that person could have
   donated the money to a charity that does the same thing but is more
   efficient, and in doing so created even more good, that action would be
   judged as wrong by Utilitarianism.

   In response to criticism of this nature the contemporary philosopher
   and utilitarian William Shaw claimed that, although Utilitarianism
   would clearly dictate the above conclusion, a good utilitarian would
   still praise the wrongdoer for their charitable donation even though it
   is wrong. This is because punishing such a person would likely push
   them to no longer make any charitable contributions, so praising the
   wrongdoer would better serve the greater good than punishing them.

   Furthermore, the decision to donate to charity was still morally good,
   even if the decision to ignore efficiency was immoral. And since
   utilitiarianism presumes imperfect knowledge, any immoral behaviour
   relative to the charity's inefficiency would be limited by the
   difficulty in determining the charities' relative effectiveness.

Proof

   Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it is not proven by science
   or logic to be the correct ethical system. However, supporters claim
   that this is common to all ethical schools (and indeed the system of
   logic itself) and will remain so until the problem of the regress
   argument or at least the is-ought problem is satisfactorily solved.
   Indeed, utilitarians are some of the first to recognise this problem.
   It might instead be argued that almost all political arguments about a
   future society use an unspoken utilitarian principle, all sides
   claiming that their proposed solution is the one that increases human
   happiness most. Some degree of utilitarianism might very well be
   genetically hard-coded into humans.

Why be moral?

   Critics have also asked why one should follow utilitarianism instead of
   egoism. A legal system might punish behaviour which hurts others, but
   this incentive is not active in a situation where one can personally
   gain by breaking it and others cannot punish this. However, one egoist
   may propose means to maximize self-interest that conflicts with the
   means proposed by another egoist. As a result, they are behooved to
   compromise with one another to avoid conflict, out of self-interest.
   The means proposed may incidentally coincide with those prescribed by
   utilitarianism, though the foundational ethical imperative would not,
   of course, be utilitarian.

   Another reason for an egoist to become a utilitarian was proposed by
   Peter Singer in Practical Ethics. He presents the paradox of hedonism,
   which says that if your only goal in life is personal happiness, you
   will never be happy; you need something to be happy about. One goal
   which Singer feels is likely to bring personal happiness is the desire
   to improve the lives of others. This argument is similar to the one for
   virtue ethics.

Karl Marx's argument concerning the importance of human nature

   Karl Marx, in Capital, writes:

          Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time
          and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever
          strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of
          utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his
          dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit
          in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must
          study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from
          the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would
          criticise all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the
          principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in
          general, and then with human nature as modified in each
          historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the
          driest naiveté he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the
          English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to
          this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful.
          This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and
          future. The Christian religion, e.g., is "useful," "because it
          forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal
          code condemns in the name of the law." Artistic criticism is
          "harmful," because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment
          of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow,
          with his motto, "nulla dies sine line!," piled up mountains of
          books.

   Marx's accusation is twofold. In the first place, he says that the
   theory of utility is true by definition and thus does not really add
   anything meaningful. For Marx, a productive enquiry would have to
   investigate what sorts of things are good for people; that is, what our
   nature (which he believes is alienated under capitalism) really is.
   Second, he says that Bentham fails to take account of the changing
   character of people, and hence the changing character of what is good
   for them. This criticism is especially important for Marx, because he
   believed that all important statements were contingent upon particular
   historical conditions. Marx argues that human nature is dynamic, so the
   concept of a single utility for all humans is one-dimensional and not
   useful. When he decries Bentham's application of the 'yard measure' of
   now to 'the past, present and future', he decries the implication that
   society, and people, have always been, and will always be, as they are
   now; that is, he criticizes essentialism. As he sees it, this
   implication is conservatively used to reinforce institutions he
   regarded as reactionary. Just because in this moment religion has some
   positive consequences, says Marx, doesn't mean that viewed historically
   it isn't a regressive institution that should be abolished.

   Marx's criticism is more a criticism of Bentham's views (or similar
   views) of utility, than utilitarianism itself. Utilitarians would not
   deny that different things make different people happy, and that what
   promotes happiness changes over time. Neither would utilitarians deny
   the importance of investigations into what promotes utility.

   Marx's criticism applies to all analytical philosophy, all philosophy
   which does not take explicit account of the movement of history
   (against dialectics). While he's right that all things change, and that
   it is necessary to take account of this when making practical
   judgements, this doesn't mean that it isn't useful to have a theory
   which gives some means to evaluate those changes themselves.

   Also, utilitarianism was originally developed as a (moderate) challenge
   to the status quo. The demand that everyone count for one, and one
   only, was anathema to the elitist society of Victorian Britain.

Utilitarian criticism of other schools

   One criticism is that many other schools cannot even in theory solve
   real world complex ethical problems when various inviolable principles
   collide, like triage or if the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
   Nagasaki were the right decision.

   A criticism of Kantianism is leveled by R. M. Hare in Could Kant Have
   Been a Utilitarian?. He argued that a number of different ethical
   positions could fit with Kant's description of his Categorical
   Imperative, and although Kant did not agree with this assessment,
   utilitarianism could be among them.

Works cited

    1. ^ Mill, John Stuart. 'On Liberty' , ed. Himmelfarb. Penguin
       Classics, 1974, Ed.'s introduction, p.11.
    2. ^ Mill, John Stuart. 'On Liberty' , ed. Himmelfarb. Penguin
       Classics, 1974, 'Introductory' of main text, p.68.
    3. ^ Waldron, Jeremy. 'Rights' in A Companion to Contemporary
       Political Philosophy, ed. Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip.
       Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.581.

   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
