This paper argues that utilitarianism, as developed by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is the ethical theory best suited to guiding people toward a life that is both happy and morally right. Drawing on Callahan's framework of moral theories that integrate thinking, doing, and living, the paper compares utilitarianism with Kantian ethics and Aristotle's virtue ethics. It contends that utilitarianism's emphasis on promoting the greatest happiness for all affected parties — rather than acting from duty or self-centered virtue — makes it uniquely suited to fostering reason, community-mindedness, and genuine moral goodness in everyday life.
Moral theories have become theories because philosophers throughout history have believed they can help guide people toward a life that is both happy and morally right. Some of these theories include utilitarianism, which holds that right and wrong can be determined by a cost-benefit analysis — weighing the costs against who will benefit and who will not; Kantianism, which includes Kant's categorical imperative, stating that we must act only in ways we could will to become universal laws (for example, one can only justify stealing if one is willing for everyone in the world to steal — including from oneself); and Aristotle's virtue ethics, which argues that personal happiness is the ultimate goal we should promote.
There are, of course, other moral theories, but for the purposes of this paper these three are highlighted to illustrate the most commonly discussed differences among ethical frameworks. While all three have solid arguments behind them, it is utilitarianism — an ethical theory advanced by philosophers such as David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, William Godwin, and John Stuart Mill, among others — that is the ethical theory most representative of living well and rightly.
In his article "Moral Theory: Thinking, Doing, and Living," Callahan (18) states that the best moral theories are those that can integrate all three actions named in the title: thinking, doing, and living. A good ethical theory, in terms of understanding and applying it to our lives, is one that can "make sense of our moral instincts, intuitions, and traditions" and offers us a "plausible perspective on the making of moral judgments, the fashioning of rules and principles, and the devising of a virtuous life" (18).
Utilitarianism is, arguably, the best ethical theory when it comes to living a good and right life because it allows us to integrate all three of those actions. It is not a difficult theory to understand, it is easy to apply to everyday life, and it will ultimately help us lead morally good lives that are also genuinely fulfilling.
The entire principle behind utilitarianism is that an action is right if it produces as much or more happiness for all those affected by it than any other available action, and wrong if it does not. John Stuart Mill focuses on the Greatest Happiness Principle: actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they do not. The more happiness produced, the better; the less suffering caused to others, the better as well.
Some have argued that Mill's utilitarianism leaves room for confusion — particularly regarding the fact that even when we act with the intention of producing the greatest happiness, our actions might take an unexpected turn and produce consequences we could not have foreseen. This is a viable concern, but it applies equally to all ethical theories, since no one can ever know with certainty what the future holds. A person can only act in the moment and within a particular situation. Acting so that our behavior promotes the greatest happiness is the only way we can and should live, because any other approach reduces morality to mere duty — as with Kant's categorical imperative, which demands we act only as we would will something to be universally accepted.
Where Kant and Mill differed is in how they measured morality; beyond that distinction, both simply wanted people to act in moral ways, which is admirable. Pretty much all ethical theories are sound when it comes to their core function — helping people act morally — but some are either too one-sided or place the acting person at the center in a way that seems overly self-interested or egoistical. Aristotle's virtue ethics is one such theory that centers the individual, and while his framework is philosophically sound, utilitarianism is distinctive because it places others before oneself — and there is something deeply moral about that orientation. This is not to say that people should go about acting exclusively for others (that is probably not what Mill intended), and many would argue that while ethics are something we should consider every day, ethical deliberation does not arise in every situation. Does one really have to think about ethics while grocery shopping? Perhaps — if one is considering cutting in line or taking the last available cart when an elderly woman would otherwise be left with only a basket.
"Utilitarianism contrasted with Kantian and virtue ethics"
"Mill's emphasis on reason and its social implications"
Callahan, Daniel. "Moral Theory: Thinking, Doing, and Living." Journal of Social Philosophy, 20(1–2), 1989, pp. 18–24.
Smith, Steve. Ways of Wisdom. University Press of America, 1983.
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.