Utilitarianism can be characterised as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It is a type of naturalism.2 It can be contrasted with deontological ethics (which do not regard the consequences of an act as a determinant of its moral worth) and virtue ethics (which focuses on character) as well as with other varieties of consequentialism.

In general usage the term utilitarian refers to a somewhat narrow economic or pragmatic viewpoint. Philosophical utilitarianism however is a much broader view that encompasses all aspects of people's life.

Both rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism are teleological (from the Greek for "end" "purpose" or "goal") meaning that they are consequential however Bentham's act utilitarianism is primarily absolutist even though it is much more free than theories such as those put forward by Immanuel Kant. This means that in all acts require "Felicific calculus" to achieve "the greatest pleasure for the greatest number."citation needed Therefore there are definite rules and codes as to what the person must do in each situation to benefit the most people. The hedonic calculus is what Bentham thought all people must do before deciding the utility of the certain act in question. It is dependent on: Its intensity. Its duration. Its certainty or uncertainty. Its propinquity or remoteness. Its fecundity or the chance it has of being followed by similar sensations: that is pleasures if it is pleasure: pains if it is pain. Its purity or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind: that is pain if it is pleasure: pleasure if it is pain. Its extent (the number of people who are affected by it).

However Mill's rule utilitarianism is much more relative in that he encourages people to do acts that are pleasurable to themselves as long as they are what he calls a "higher pleasure" for example the arts like literature poetry the opera. However the meta-ethics of rule utilitarianism can be questioned as they are much more absolutist since Mill is absolute in what he values as a higher pleasure. Contents 1 Types of Utilitarianism 1.1 Act vs rule 1.1.1 Collapse of rule utilitarianism into act utilitarianism 1.2 Two-level 1.3 Motive 1.4 Negative 1.5 Average vs total 1.6 Other species 1.7 Combinations with other ethical schools 2 Biological explanation 3 Criticism and defense 3.1 Lack of convincing proof 3.2 Aggregating utility 3.3 Predicting consequences 3.4 Importance of intentions 3.5 Human rights 3.6 Individual interests vs a greater sum of lesser interests 3.7 Infinitarian paralysis 3.8 Karl Marx's criticisms 3.9 The Wittgensteinian Critique 4 Criticism of other schools 5 See also 6 Notes 7 References and further reading 8 External links Types of Utilitarianism Act vs rule This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2011) Main articles: Act utilitarianism and 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 pleasure. The rule utilitarian on the other hand begins by looking at potential rules of action. To determine whether a rule should be followed he or she looks at what would happen if it were 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 consequential calculation specific to a case or generalized to rules. 'Also to achieve the greater good for the most amount of people.'

Rule utilitarianism has been criticized for advocating general rules that in some specific circumstances clearly decrease happiness if followed. Never to kill another human being may seem to be a good rule but it could make self-defense against malevolent aggressors very difficult. Rule utilitarians add however that there are general exception rules that allow the breaking of other rules if such rule-breaking increases happiness one example being self-defense. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and makes rules meaningless. Rule utilitarians retort that rules in the legal system (i.e. laws) that regulate such situations are not meaningless. Self-defense is legally justified while murder is not.

However within rule utilitarianism there is a distinction between the strictness and absolutism of this particular branch of utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist theory which frames strict rules that apply for all people and all time and may never be broken. John Stuart Mill proposed Weak Rule utilitarianism which posits that although rules should be framed on previous examples that benefit society it is possible under specific circumstances to do what produces the greatest happiness and break that rule. An example would be the Gestapo asking where your Jewish neighbours were; a strong rule utilitarian might say the "Do not lie" rule must never be broken whereas a weak rule utilitarian would argue that to lie would produce the most happiness. Rule utilitarianism should not be confused with heuristics (rules of thumb) but many act utilitarians agree that it makes sense to formulate certain rules of thumb to follow if they find themselves in a situation whose consequences are difficult costly or time-consuming to calculate exactly. If the consequences can be calculated relatively clearly and without much doubt however the rules of thumb can be ignored. Collapse of rule utilitarianism into act utilitarianism It has been argued3 that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism because for any given rule in the case where breaking the rule produces more utility the rule can be sophisticated by the addition of a sub-rule that handles cases like the exception. This process holds for all cases of exceptions and so the rules have as many sub-rules as there are exceptional cases which in the end makes an agent seek out whatever outcome produces the maximum utility.4 Two-level Main article: Two-level utilitarianism Two-level utilitarianism states that one should normally use 'intuitive' moral thinking in the form of rule utilitarianism because it usually maximizes happiness. However there are some times when we must ascend to a higher 'critical' level of reflection in order to decide what to do and must think as an act utilitarian would. Richard Hare supported this theory with his concept of the Archangel which holds that if we were all 'archangels' we could be act utilitarians all the time as we would be able to perfectly predict consequences. However we are closer to 'proles' in that we are frequently biased and unable to foresee all possible consequence of our actions and thus we require moral guidelines. When these principles clash we must attempt to think like an archangel to choose the right course of action. Motive Motive utilitarianism first developed by Robert Adams (Journal of Philosophy 1976) can be viewed either as a hybrid between act and rule or as a unique approach all on its own terms. The motive approach attempts to deal realistically with how human beings actually function psychologically. We are indeed passionate emotional creatures we do much better with positive goals than with negative prohibitions we long to be taken seriously and so on and so forth. Motive utilitarianism proposes that our initial moral task be to inculcate within ourselves and others the skills inclinations and mental focuses that are likely to be most useful (or in less perfectionist terms merely highly useful) across the spectrum of real-world situations we are likely to face rather than the hypothetical situations seemingly so common in philosophical publications. Indeed motive utilitarianism can even be seen as a response to this unofficial rule against textured real-world examples. For example similar to the 80-20 rule in business and entrepreneurship we might be able to most improve the future prospects of all sentient creatures if we do a large number of activities in open partnerships with others rather than a few perfect things done sneakily.Two examples of motive utilitarianism in practice might be a gay person coming out of the closet and a politician publicly breaking with a war. In both cases there is likely to be an initial surge of power and confidence as well as a transitional period in which one is likely to be losing old friends before making new friends and unpredictably so on both counts. Another example might be a doctor who is a skilled diagnostician. Such a physician is likely to spend most of their serious study time or continuing education time on current research direct skills for running a successful practice etc. and only occasionally return to first principlesthat is only occasionally do something as an interesting study in biochemistry and then as much as a hobby as anything else. Negative See also: Abolitionism (bioethics) Most utilitarian theories deal with producing the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Negative utilitarianism (NU) requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm or to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number. Proponents like Karl Popper Christoph Fehige and Clark Wolf argue that this is a more effective ethical formula since they contend the greatest harms are more consequential than the greatest goods. Karl Popper also 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..5 In the practical implementation of this idea the following versions can be distinguished: 1. R.N.Smart an advocate of the utilitarian principle was 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 suffering. NU would seem to call for the destruction of the world even if only to avoid the pain of a pinprick.6 2. Newer moderate versions of NU do not attempt to minimize all kinds of suffering but only those kinds that are created by the frustration of preferences.7 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 in time the worst cases of suffering are defeated and a world of minor suffering can be realized. The principal agents of this direction can be found in the environment of transhumanism and abolitionism (bioethics).8 Supporters of moderate NU who do not believe in the promises of technology would prefer a reduction of the world 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 claim that an empty world would be a preferable state of affairs it does not follow that a political movement should be formed with the aim of achieving such a state of affairs. The latter 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 rather than an independent theory. This interpretation overlooks Derek Parfit's Repugnant Conclusion.9 NU is precisely characterized by overcoming this theoretical weakness of classical utilitarianism. Average vs total Total utilitarianism advocates measuring the utility of a population based on the total utility of its members. According to Derek Parfit this type of utilitarianism falls victim to the Repugnant Conclusion whereby large numbers of people with very low but non-negative utility values can be seen as a better goal than a population of a less extreme size living in comfort. In other words according to the theory it is a moral good to breed more people on the world for as long as total happiness rises.10 Average utilitarianism on the other hand advocates measuring the utility of a population based on the average utility of that population. It avoids Parfit's repugnant conclusion but causes other problems like the Mere Addition Paradox. For example bringing a moderately happy person in a very happy world would be seen as an immoral act; aside from this the theory implies that it would be a moral good to eliminate all people whose happiness is below average as this would raise the average happiness.11 Most utilitarianswho consider this type of argument as flawed or merely hypothetical however since a real-world society allowing the non-consensual elimination of people would inevitably create severe amounts of suffering and unhappiness. Other species Further information: Speciesism animal welfare Peter Singer Peter Singer along with many animal rights activists has argued that the well-being of all sentient beings ought to be seriously considered. Singer suggests that rights are conferred according to the level of a creature's self-awareness regardless of their species. He adds that humans tend to be speciesist (disciminatory against non-humans) in ethical matters. Bentham made a similar argument writing "the question is not Can they reason nor Can they talk but Can they suffer".1 In his 1990 edition of Animal Liberation Peter Singer said that he no longer ate oysters and mussels because although the creatures might not suffer they might its not really known and its easy enough to avoid eating them in any case12 (and this aspect of seeking better alternatives is a prominent part of utilitarianism). All the same this view still might be contrasted with deep ecology which holds that an intrinsic value is attached to all forms of life and nature whether sentient or not. According to utilitarianism most forms of life (i.e. non-animals) are unable to experience anything akin to either enjoyment or discomfort and are therefore denied moral status.citation needed Thus the moral value of one-celled organisms as well as some multi-cellular organisms and natural entities like a river is only in the benefit they provide to sentient beings. Similarly utilitarianism places no direct intrinsic value on biodiversity although as far as indirect contingent value it most probably does. Combinations with other ethical schools To overcome perceived shortcomings of both systems several attempts have been made to reconcile utilitarianism with Kant's categorical imperative. James Cornman proposes that in any given situation we should treat as "means" as few people as possible and as "ends" as many as are consistent with those "means". He refers to this as the "Utilitarian Kantian Principle". In How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time: Solving the Riddle of Right and Wrong (2008) Iain King develops a quazi-Utilitarian system compatible with consequence virtue and act based accounts of ethics.13 Other consequentialists may consider happiness an important consequence but argue in addition that consequences such as justice or equality should also be valued regardless of whether or not they increase happiness. Biological explanation 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: "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." 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 A concern has been raised that this article's Criticism section may be compromising the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Possible resolutions may be to integrate the material in the section into the article as a whole or to rewrite the contents of the section. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (August 2009) Lack of convincing proof One possible criticism of utilitarianism is that it is not "proven" to be the correct ethical system by either science or logic. Utilitarians claim that this is common to all ethical schools and even formal logic itself. As anyone attempts to justify a claim (e.g. "we ought to maximize the pleasure of conscious creatures") they must appeal to other facts which themselves must be justified. Eventually one is forced to justify their system of justification. This is called the regress argument and philosophers have attempted to address it in various ways. In light of the regress argument some philosophers make a sort of appeal to common sense or practicality. In that vein during discussions on philosophy of law H.L.A. Hart mentions that foundational philosophical definitions are not "true" but rather agreed upon;14 for example discussions cannot reasonably begin unless all parties simply accept basic laws of thought. This may be the case for discussions of morality; a philosopher does not discover and share the true nature of morality but rather invites other philosophers to define words like "good" (in the case of ethics) a certain way. Philosophy and moral systems thus involve a sort of scientific process of operationalization. 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 the most. Mill's own argument for utilitarianism holds that pleasure is the only thing desired and that therefore pleasure is the only thing desirable. Critics counter argue that Mill is neglecting things that are "morally desirable" even though humans may not desire them. Indeed there may be things that humans cannot desire that are "morally desirable". This criticism however reads the word "desirable" as "able to be desired" rather than "worth being desired". That is the utilitarian may contend that only pleasure can be meaningfully said to be "desirable". The is-ought problem may remain yet another barrier to proving any ethical system although ethical naturalists reject this problem. Aggregating utility John Rawls gives a critique of Utilitarianism in A Theory of Justice that rejects the idea that the happiness of two distinct persons could be meaningfully counted together. He argues that this entails treating a group of many as if it were a single sentient entity mistakenly ignoring the separation of consciousness.15 Animal Rights advocate Richard Ryder calls this the boundary of the individual through which neither pain nor pleasure may pass.16 Thus the aggregation of utility becomes futile as both pain and happiness are intrinsic to and inseparable from the consciousness in which they are felt rendering impossible the task of adding up the various pleasures of multiple individuals. However it should be noted that the apparent separation and consistency of individual consciousness which is both a strong human intuition and an implicit premise in this critique is itself a subject of debate and criticism in the philosophy of mind. One defense of Rawls criticism can be made by asking the simple question: who must figure out the exact sum of all individuals' happiness No objectively calculated measure of aggregate happiness is necessary nor useful in this case. To doubt the ability (for someone) to add up individuals feelings is to suggest that there necessarily is someone (a person a bunch of persons or computers) whose job is to figure out that sum before a related social decision can be made. If there were such "someone" the situation would be analogous to a centrally-planned economy where a few socialist bureaucrats constantly struggle to figure out what and how much goods to produce for the people.17 Advocates of an ethically naturalistic utilitarianism might contest Rawls claim that the happiness of multiple entities cannot be meaningfully counted. Sam Harris muses that although our intuitions may be correct we can use science to find the moral truth about a question like "Which of the two groups of sentient beings are happier: the one group involved in a bloody civil war or the other group at peace" Indeed Harris describes how a science of morality could add a neurological context to such a question. Predicting consequences Daniel Dennett uses the case of the Three Mile Island accident as an example of the difficulty in calculating happiness.18 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 32 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.citation needed That something cannot be determined at the moment is common in science and frequently resolved with later 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 maximise happiness (or other forms of utility) and to do this make their best estimates of the consequences. If the consequences of a decision are particularly unclear it may make sense to follow an ethical rule that promoted the most utility in the past. Utilitarians also note that people trying to further their own interests frequently run into situations in which the consequences of their decisions are very unclear. This does not mean however that they are unable to make a decision; much the same applies to utilitarianism. Anthony Kenny argues against utilitarianism using the "standard argument" against free will. The argument supposes that determinism is either true or false: if it is true we have no choice over our actions; but if it is false the consequences of our actions are unpredictable not least because they depend upon the actions of others whom we cannot predict. This may render incoherent claims about moral responsibility.19 On the other hand a Hard determinist utilitarian see no problem for moral responsibility. They suggest that certain notions of "retributive justice" for its own sake may now be incoherent but there remain other more reasonable purposes for punishment. Importance of intentions Utilitarianism has been accused of looking only at the results of actions and disregarding the desires or intentions that motivate them. Intentions seem somehow important: it seems undesirable to call an action intended to cause harm but that inadvertently causes good "overall good". Many utilitarians argue that utilitarianism although it is consequentalist is not so simply restricted. While the results of a hatefully motivated action may indeed be "good" this does not suggest that the motivation of "hate" should be normatively advocated in society. Put simply when using utilitarianism to decide which practices or even values to promote in a society one might consider whether "hate" normally leads to "good" or "bad" outcomes. This may allow utilitarianism to become a much more complex and rich moral theory and may align far more closely with our moral intuitions. In this sense intentions are important to utilitarians in as much as they tend to lead to certain actions which themselves lead to certain outcomes. One classic philosopher to take this view is Henry Sidgwick in his main work The Methods of Ethics (1874). Human rights Utilitarians argue that justification of slavery torture or mass murder would require unrealistically large benefits to outweigh the direct and extreme suffering to victims. Utilitarianism would also require the indirect impact of social acceptance of inhumane policies to be taken into consideration and general anxiety and fear could increase for all if human rights are commonly ignored. Act and rule utilitarians 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 that they reject them altogether: first most act utilitarians as explained above would agree that acts such as enslavement and genocide always cause great unhappiness and very little happiness; second human rights could be considered rules of thumb so that although torture might be acceptable under some circumstances as a rule it is immoral; and finally act utilitarians often support human rights in a legal sense because utilitarians support laws that cause more good than harm. Individual interests vs a greater sum of lesser interests A reason for an egoist to become a utilitarian was proposed by Peter Singer in Practical Ethics. He presents the paradox of hedonism which holds that if your only goal in life is personal happiness you will never be happy: you need something to be happy about. One goal that Singer feels is likely to bring about personal happiness is the desire to improve the lives of others; that is to make others happy. This argument is similar to the one for virtue ethics. Infinitarian paralysis Some modern cosmology theories predict an infinite Universe.20 Philosopher Nick Bostrom claims that in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of planets and each of them has "nonzero chance of giving rise to intelligent life". This means that in an infinite universe there is (with probability of one) an infinite number of intelligent beings and therefore an infinite amount of pain and pleasure. We can affect only finite amount of pain and pleasure but an infinite quantity cannot be changed by adding or subtracting a finite quantity.21 To Bostrom this means that "every possible act of ours therefore has the same net effect on the total amount of good and bad in a canonically infinite world: none whatsoever."21 He further states that we cannot use an ethical theory that combined with current best scientific guesses means it is always ethically indifferent to what we do.21 Though modern science is undecided on the topic even if the universe is infinite there are other reasons that utilitarianism seems to remain useful. First of all the effects of actions might not be finite since their consequences extend infinitely. Utilitarianism might also limit considerations of utility to a single planet or to known conscious creatures (similarly hedonism considers only a single individual).22 Finally even if the universe is infinite its mass number of planets useful energy and hence possible intelligent life all appear to be finite.23 Karl Marx's criticisms Karl Marx in Das Kapital 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 Helvtius 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 who 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 naivet 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.24 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 inquiry had to investigate what sorts of things are good for peoplethat is what our nature 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 do 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 philosophy that does not take explicit account of the movement of history (against dialectics). Also utilitarianism was originally developed as a challenge to the status quo. The demand that everyone count for one and one only was anathema to the elitist society of Victorian Britain.citation needed Although Marx criticized utilitarianism some Marxist philosophers have used utilitarian principles as arguments for political socialism. The Wittgensteinian Critique Contemporary philosophers such as Matthew Ostrow have critiqued utilitarianism from a distinctly Wittgensteinian perspective. According to these philosophers utilitarians have expanded the very meaning of pleasure to the point of linguistic incoherence. The utilitarian groundlessly places pleasure as his or her first principle and in doing so subordinates the value of asceticism self-sacrifice or any other "secondary" desire. The utilitarian denies that this is a problem either by claiming that "secondary" desires amount to different paths to achieving the first desire of pleasure or that any practice of asceticism that does not create pleasure either for the ascetic or for others is valueless. Such an argument may be tautological ("What is it that people want Pleasure. But what is pleasure What people want.") The utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for why we ought to primarily value pleasure. If this is the case utilitarianism would be reduced to a form of dishonest ethical intuitionism unable to recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness. This is unlikely. For the ethically naturalistic utilitarian operationalization easily terminates processes of circular defining ("What is it that people want Pleasure. And what is that Pleasure is X neural correlates). Criticism of other schools A criticism of Kantianism is levelled by R. M. Hare in Could Kant Have Been a Utilitarian Hare argues that a number of different ethical positions could fit with Kant's description of his Categorical Imperative. See also Prioritarianism Appeal to consequences Altruism (ethical doctrine) Classical liberalism Eudaimonism Greedy reductionism Gross National Happiness Hedonism List of utilitarians Social Choice and Individual Values Rule according to higher law Utilitarian bioethics Utility monster Charity International Utility theory Decision theory Decision Analysis Probabilistic reasoning Uncertainty Bounded Rationality Relative Utilitarianism Notes This article includes a list of references but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (August 2009) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007) a b AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION Jeremy Bentham 1789 (printed in 1780 first published in 1789 "corrected by the Author" in 1823.) See Chapter I: Of the Principle of Utility. For Bentham on animals see Ch. XVII Note 122. C. L. Sheng; Qinglai Sheng (April 2004). A defense of utilitarianism. University Press of America. p. 170. ISBN 9780761827313. http://books.google.com/booksidAZF5t-PhbMC&pgPA170. Retrieved 23 April 2011.  David Lyons Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism 1965 Allen Habib (2008) Promises in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Karl R.Popper The Open Society and its Enemies London 1945 utilitarianism.com: The pinprick argument Fabian Fricke - Verschiedene Versionen des negativen Utilitarismusdead link Open Directory - Negative Utilitarianism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Repugnant Conclusion Authors: Jesper Ryberg Torbjrn Tnnsj Gustaf Arrhenius Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Repugnant Conclusion Shaw William H. Contemporary Ethics: taking account of utilitarianism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. 1999. pp. 31-35 Animal Liberation Second Edition Singer Peter 1975 1990 excerpt pages 171-174 main passage on oysters mussels etc. page 174 (last paragraph of this excerpt). And in a footnote in the actual book Singer writes My change of mind about mollusks stems from conversations with R.I. Sikora. How to Make Good Decisions and Br Right All the Time: Solving the Riddle of Right and Wrong (2008) p81 Dyzenhaus David Sophia R Moreau and Arthur Ripstein. 3rd ed. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press 2003. Print. Rawls John A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press 1971. pp. 22-27 Ryder Richard D. Painism: A Modern Morality. Centaur Press 2001. pp. 27-29 J. H. Burns Utilitarianism and Democracy The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 9 No. 35 (Apr. 1959) pp. 168-171 Dennett Daniel (1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea Simon & Schuster ISBN 0-684-82471-X. Anthony Kenny What I Believe p7580 NASA: WMAP's Universe - Is the Universe Infinite Foundations of Big Bang Cosmology a b c Nick Bostrom - The infinitarian challenge to aggregative ethics (2008) millongenerations The Universe Might Last Forever Astronomers Say but Life Might Not New York Times Jan 1 2002 Ultimate fate of the universe Rdiger Vaas: DARK ENERGY AND LIFES ULTIMATE FUTURE arXiv:physics/0703183v1 Das Kapital Volume I Chapter 24 endnote 50 References and further reading Cornman James et al. Philosophical Problems and Arguments - An Introduction 4th edition Indianapolis IN: Hackett Publishing Co. 1992. Glover Jonathan Causing Death and Saving Lives Penguin Books 1977. A good example of a broadly utilitarian approach. See esp. the last two chapters on war and moral distance. Harwood Sterling "Eleven Objections to Utilitarianism" in Louis P. Pojman ed. Moral Philosophy: A Reader Indianapolis IN: Hackett Publishing Co. 2003) and in Sterling Harwood ed. Business as Ethical and Business as Usual Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1996 Chapter 7. Lyons David "Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism". Oxford: Oxford University Press 1965. Martin Michael "A Utilitarian Kantian Principle" Philosophical Studies (with H. Ruf) 21 1970 pp. 9091. Rosen Frederick (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge p. 28. ISBN 0-415-22094-7 Silverstein Harry S. A Defence of Cornmans Utilitarian Kantian Principle Philosophical Studies (Dordrecht u.a.) 23 212215. 1972 Singer Peter. The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux 1981. ISBN 0-374-15112-1 Singer Peter. Practical Ethics 2nd edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993. ISBN 0-521-43971-X Smart J. J. C. Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism The Philosophical Quarterly Oct. 1956 pages 344-354. Smart later stated that he made mistakes in this essay (for example that probably maximizing benefit is not the same thing as maximizing probable benefit). However perhaps because of that perhaps because he did not fixate on being overly precise Smart also lays out a good clear presentation of act utilitarianism. Smart J. J. C. and Williams Bernard. Utilitarianism; For & Against Cambridge University Press 1973. Stokes Eric. The English Utilitarians and India Clarendon Press 1963. ASIN B0026QQ5GE Sumner L. Wayne Abortion: A Third Way Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. External links Utilitarianism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Wiki Felicifia the collaboratively edited encyclopaedia for utilitarians Felicifia Currently the web's only Utilitarianism forum. utilitarian.org FAQ A FAQ on utilitarianism by a Web Site affiliated to David Pearce. A Utilitiarian FAQ A FAQ on utilitarianism by Ian Montgomerie. The English Utilitarians Volume l by Sir Leslie Stephen The English Utilitarians Volume ll by Sir Leslie Stephen Utilitarian Philosophers Large compendium of writings by and about the major utilitarian philosophers both classic and contemporary. Utilitarianism A summary of classical utilitarianism and modern alternatives with application to ethical issues and criticisms Utilitarian Resources Collection of definitions articles and links. Charity International Primer on the Elements and Forms of Utilitarianism A convenient summary of the major points of utilitarianism. Consequentialism From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. International Website for Utilitarianism and Utilitarian Scholar's Conferences and Research Utilitarianism as Secondary Ethic A concise review of Utilitarianism its proponents and critics. Utilitarisme the web's only Utilitarian forum in French 1 Essays on Reducing Suffering v d eEthics Related articles Applied ethics  Normative ethics  Meta-ethics  Descriptive ethics  Medical ethics  Professional ethics Concepts in ethics Freedom  Autonomy  Rights  Conscience  Value  Morality  Responsibility  Care  Justice  Principles  Virtue  Happiness  Norm  Suffering or Pain  Equality  Trust  Free will  Consent  Moral right  Human rights  Just War  Axiology  more... Theories Consequentialism  Deontology  Virtue ethics   Ethics of care Philosophers Plato  Aristotle  Confucius  Mencius  Augustine of Hippo   Thomas Aquinas  Baruch Spinoza  David Hume  Immanuel Kant  Georg W. F. Hegel  Arthur Schopenhauer  Jeremy Bentham  John Stuart Mill  Sren Kierkegaard  Henry Sidgwick  Friedrich Nietzsche  G. E. Moore  Karl Barth  Paul Tillich  Philippa Foot  John Rawls  Bernard Williams  J. L. Mackie  Alasdair MacIntyre  Peter Singer  Derek Parfit  Thomas Nagel   more... Portal  Category  Task Force  Stubs  Discussion v d ePhilosophy Schools of thought Anarchism  Deism  Deontology  Dualism  Empiricism  Epiphenomenalism  Feminism  Functionalism  Hedonism  Hermeneutics  Humanism  Idealism  Materialism  Monism  Naturalism  Nihilism  Process  Solipsism  Rationalism  Realism  Relativism  Skepticism  Utilitarianism  more... By historical era Ancient  Western (Medieval  Renaissance  Modern)  Eastern  Contemporary (Analytic  Continental) Ancient Chinese (Taoism  Confucianism  Legalism  Mohism  Neotaoism)  Hellenistic (Aristotelianism  Cynicism  Epicureanism  Neoplatonism  Peripatetic  Platonism  Presocratic  Sophism  Stoicism)  Indian (Buddhist  Hindu  Jain)  Persian (Mazdakism  Zoroastrianism  Zurvanism) 5th - 16th centuries Christian Europe (Scholasticism  Thomism)  East Asian (Korean Confucianism  Japanese Neoconfucianism  Neo-Confucianism)  Islamic (Averroism  Avicennism  Sufi)  Jewish (Judeo-Islamic) 17th - 21st centuries Australian realism  Cartesianism  Classical liberalism  Deconstruction  Dialectical materialism  Egoism  Existentialism  Hegelianism  Kantianism  Kyoto School  Legal positivism  Logical positivism  Marxism  Modernism  Neo-Kantianism  New Confucianism  New Philosophers  Ordinary language  Particularism  Phenomenology  Posthumanism  Postmodernism  Post-structuralism  Pragmatism  Structuralism  Transcendentalism Lists Outline  Index  Schools  Glossary  Philosophers  Movements  Publications Branches Metaphysics  Epistemology  Logic  Ethics  Aesthetics Philosophy of Action  Art  Biology  Chemistry  Education  Economics  Engineering  Environment  Film  Geography  Information  Healthcare  History  Human nature  Humor  Language  Law  Literature  Mathematics  Mind  Music  Being  Philosophy  Physics  Politics  Psychology  Religion  Science  Social science  Technology  War By region African  American  Greek  Aztec  British  Chinese  Danish  French  German  Indian  Indonesian  Iranian  Italian  Japanese  Korean  Romanian Portal  Category  WikiProject  changes v d ePolitical ideologies Anarchism  Christian democracy  Communism  Communitarianism  Conservatism  Fascism  Feminism  Green politics  Islamism  Liberalism  Libertarianism  Nationalism  Progressivism  Social democracy  Socialism  Utilitarianism Politics portal List of political ideologies v d eSocial and political philosophy Related articles Philosophy of economics  Philosophy of education  Philosophy of history  Jurisprudence  Philosophy of social science  Philosophy of love  Philosophy of sex Social concepts Society  War  Law  Justice  Peace  Rights  Revolution  Civil disobedience  Democracy  Social contract  more... Social theories Anarchism  Authoritarianism  Conservatism  Liberalism  Libertarianism  National liberalism  Socialism  Utilitarianism  Conflict theory  Consensus theory Philosophers Plato  Augustine  Marsilius  Machiavelli  Grotius  Montesquieu  Comte  Bosanquet  Spencer  Malebranche  Durkheim  Santayana  Royce  Confucius  Hobbes  Leibniz  Hume  Kant  Rousseau  Locke  Burke  Smith  Bentham  Mill  Thoreau  Marx  Gandhi  Gentile  Maritain  Berlin  Schmitt  Debord  Camus  Sartre  Foucault  Rawls  Popper  ilas  Habermas  Kirk  Oakeshott  Nozick  Alinsky  Chomsky  Baudrillard  Badiou  Strauss  Rand  iek  Walzer Portal  Category  Task Force  Discussion  Changes v d eJurisprudence Related articles: Law  Political philosophy  more... Concepts in law Justice  Legal system  Judicial interpretation  Rational-legal authority  Rights Theories of law Analytical jurisprudence  Deontological ethics  Legal moralism  Legal positivism  Legal realism  Libertarian theories of law  Maternalism  Natural law  Paternalism  Utilitarianism  Virtue jurisprudence Philosophers of law Alexy  Allan  Amar  Aquinas  Aristotle  Austin  Beccaria  Bentham  Betti  Bickel  Blackstone  Bobbio  Bork  Castanheira Neves  Chafee  Coleman  Del Vecchio  Derrida  Durkheim  Dworkin  Ehrlich  Feinberg  Feldman  Finnis  Fuller  Gardner  George  Green  Grisez  Grotius  Gurvitch  Habermas  Hand  Hart  Hayek  Hegel  Hohfeld  Holmes  Kant  Kelsen  Kchler  Kramer  Llewellyn  Luhmann  Lyons  MacCormick  Marx  Olivecrona  Petrazycki  Posner  Pound  Radbruch  Rawls  Raz  Reinach  Renner  Savigny  Scaevola  Schmitt  Simmonds  Tribe  Unger  Waldron  Weber Category  Portals: (Law  Philosophy)  WikiProjects: (Law  Philosophy)  Changes