After a semester of classes in Philosophy 1, many concepts pertaining to nature,

knowledge, politics and ethics were introduced. Too many concepts mean too many
knowledge but despite of the myriad of concepts injected to us, some retained in my
mind, and even my being. And one of those that made a huge impact, or lets say was
engraved on my mind, is the concept of Utilitarianism. So before we talk on how it was
engraved on my mind, let us first talk of what the concept is really about.
According to an article DEFINITION AND ORIGINES in http://utilitarianphilo
sophy.com/definition.eng, Utilitarianism is mainly characterized by two elements:
happiness and consequentialism. Connecting utilitarianism to happiness, the article
denotes that the biggest happiness or greatest pleasure that all man is looking for is
the Utilitarian happiness. And this happiness is connected to consequentialism.
Consequentialism, as the root word consequence denotes, is based on the
consequences. So happiness in utilitarianism is based on consequences. John Stuart
Mill, one of the forerunners of Utilitarianism, defines utilitarianism as a theory based on
the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. In this way, happiness is a
consequence of actions and on the same way, the rightness and wrongness of an act is
determined

whether

the

action

promotes

or

decreases

happiness.

As

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/utilitarianism%20notes said, An action is

right if it brings about the best outcome of the choices available. Otherwise it is wrong.
So, actual consequences determine moral rightness as said by Walter, S. in his article
Consequentialism or it is the consequence of the act that determines the acts value.
However, the measure of right and wrong in utilitarianism is not just a personal thing; it

is far greater than that because utilitarianism is mostly associated to, another forerunner
of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Benthams most famous maxim, It is the greatest happiness
of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong, greatest number
meaning most people or majority. So the rightness of an act in utilitarianism is not just
based whether it promotes the happiness of the self but if it promotes the happiness of
most. So whether the happiness of the self is jeopardized or not when an act is
committed as long as it promotes for the greater happiness or pleasure for the greater
number of people then that act is right.
To be able to say It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the
measure of right and wrong, there must be some sort of basis for actions whether an
act produces the greatest happiness to the greatest number. In this way, Jeremy
Bentham formulated a measure for pleasure with seven categories: intensity, duration,
certainty, proximity, fecundity, purity and extent called the calculus of felicity as a basis
to know whether an act is utilitarianism right. However, for Jeremy Bentham, happiness
is measured only quantitatively. This is where John Stuart Mill comes into the picture.
For John Stuart Mill, it is dangerous to let ourselves be guided by the calculus of
felicity because some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than
others. For him, pleasure is more of qualitative rather than quantitative, introducing the
two kinds of happiness, the lower kind of happiness which refers to bodily pleasures
and the higher kind of happiness which refers to the mental, aesthetic and moral
pleasures. In estimating the value of anything else, we take into account quality as
well as quantity; it would be absurd if the value of pleasures were supposed to depend
on quantity alone according to Jonathan Bennett in his article, Utilitarianism.

Why of all did I choose utilitarianism? Why not the concept of Freedom or the
Doctrine of Moderation? (Doctrine of Moderation though is one of my favorites.) Why?
Many of us act in such a way that benefits ones self and I am not an exception to this.
But this is normal. We are after all, human beings, selfish beings. Our life is our life. My
life is my life not yours. We are all our own individuals. But let us not forget that we are
also social beings. That whatever we do affects people that surround us and whatever I
do affects people around me. The concept of Utilitarianism in good life reminds us that
No man is an island that we are all a part of a social circle. As someone who is a part
of a social circle, I have obligations to accomplish one of which is the slogan of
utilitarianism: Act in such a way that benefits most not just myself, or my family, or my
friends, but most. Whenever bounded to circumstances or when we have to make a
decision or have to act, the first thing that pops into our mind is whether or not it benefits
the self, whether or not we can get something out of it and this is normal, very normal.
But Utilitarianism teaches us not to be selfish or egoistic but to be selfless and consider
what act shall be for the greater good of the greater people and this teaches me not to
be selfish but to be selfless. As a human being, I admit, I am selfish. I do things for my
own good, I act in such a way that will benefit me but this concept teaches me to think
about others, not just if it benefits me but whether an act benefits most. Utilitarianism
requires that we consider everyones pleasure, not just our own.
But it does not just teach me to be selfless but it teaches me also how to weigh
different acts, whether a certain act is better than the other by looking at Jeremy
Benthams calculus of felicity and John Stuart Mills two kinds of happiness. It teaches
me not only to weigh the pleasure when an act is done quantitatively but also to

consider it qualitatively. Just as what Mill wrote: It is better to be a human being

dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. It taught me that even happiness is measured
qualitatively: that mental, aesthetic and moral pleasure are preferred to bodily
pleasures. That studying is better than sleeping. I for one prefer sleeping over studying
but for Mill, sleeping is a lower kind of happiness and studying is a higher kind of
happiness; and for Bentham, if you measure the pleasure of both using the calculus of
felicity, although sleeping is high at intensity, certainty, proximity and purity, in the long
run, the consequence of failing will overtake the pleasure of sleeping, making me realize
that studying is indeed better than sleeping.
Not only does this concept relevant to myself but it is also relevant to the
community I live in, Marawi City. Marawi City is a very blessed place but due to many
circumstances, it is not improved. This city fails to recognize the concept of utilitarianism
not just the government but the society itself. In making laws, utilitarianism should be
employed; every single category should be scrutinized carefully and weighed, whether
such a law would be beneficial not just directly but also in the long run. Due to the
culture that this place holds, it fails to improve in many aspects of the community.
Culturally, there is the existence of maratabat or pride within families which is one of the
reasons why Marawi City cannot advance. Each families act in such a way that their
own families are uplifted or benefited and rarely to uplift other peoples family. This is the
opposite of utilitarianism. If you consider big families though, you might think that there
is after all utilitarianism but it should be considered for the "greater number. If a ruler
from a big family acts in such a way that benefits his family but the big family is not the
greater number then that is not utilitarianism. Each ruler should think for the greater

good of the greater number of people. Utilitarianism teaches the ruler not to be selfish
and corrupt but to be selfless and to think of what is good for the community.
How about the justice system in Marawi City? Is it utilitarianism good that some
criminals are not being prosecuted and detained if they belong to a big family? If you
just flatly look at the slogan of utilitarianism that It is the greatest happiness of the
greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong without taking the utilitarianism
at a broader perspective, you might say that since those criminals are from a big family
and since it promotes the happiness of the big family which is a greater number then it
is utilitarianism good. Now this is one of the most common misconceptions in
utilitarianism: if an act is bad but still promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest
number then it is good. And this is wrong, certainly wrong because there is another side
of utilitarianism which is Rule Utilitarianism. According to Kay, C. D. in his article, Notes
on Utilitarianism, that there are many objections to utilitarianism and of these is that
The theory fails to acknowledge any individual rights that could not be violated for the
sake of the greatest good. Indeed, even the murder of an innocent person would seem
to be condoned if it served the greater number. However, in Rule Utilitarianism,
behavior is evaluated by rules that, if universally followed would lead to the greatest
good for the greatest number. Meaning that just because it promotes the greatest good
for the greatest number doesnt mean it is good, but it has to follow some rules. This is
certainly something that has to be embraced by the society in Marawi. The concept of
utilitarianism is not only relevant to the Marawi City but to the whole Philippines as well,
even to the whole world, that in every law to be made, every action of the government to

be made should be weighed and be measured to ensure that it would produce the
greatest happiness to the greatest number.

REFLECTION ON THE CONCEPT OF UTILITARIANISM

A Reflection Paper
Presented to
MS. AURORA LYN T. RACMAT
Philosophy Department
College of Social Sciences and Humanities
Mindanao State University
Marawi City

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
Philo 1 - Ff (Introduction to Issues and Isms)
First Semester, 2016-2017

by
SHEMAIAH JOY BEDOYA
November 28, 2016