Criticisms of Utilitarianism

An earlier article on this site introduced Utilitarianism — the idea that the right action is the one that produces the most good for the most people. This article looks at the strongest objections raised against it, a common way the exam tests deeper understanding of the theory.

MCQ Questions

Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Six objections to “the greatest good for the greatest number”

Justice Objection

Punishing the Innocent

Can justify unfair treatment, if the overall outcome is “best”

Tyranny of the Majority

Minority Harm

A policy can badly harm a minority if it benefits a bigger majority

Measurement Problem

Comparing Happiness

No reliable way to measure and compare well-being across people

Nozick

The Utility Monster

A being gaining outsized pleasure could claim all resources

Bernard Williams

Integrity Objection

Can demand acting against your own deepest moral commitments

Amartya Sen

Distribution Problem

High total utility can still leave some people in deep poverty

⇩ Download as image Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

Must Know

• The “justice objection” is the criticism that Utilitarianism can justify treating an innocent person unfairly, as long as it produces enough overall benefit. For example: punishing an innocent person to calm an angry crowd, if doing so produces the “best” outcome on paper.
• The “tyranny of the majority” problem is related. Utilitarianism can, in theory, justify a policy that badly harms a small minority — as long as it benefits a larger majority by more than the minority is harmed.
• The measurement problem asks a practical question: how do you actually measure and compare happiness or well-being across different people? Utilitarianism needs this comparison to work, but critics say true comparison may be impossible.
• The “utility monster” thought experiment comes from philosopher Robert Nozick. It imagines a being that gains far more pleasure from any resource than anyone else does. Strict Utilitarianism would then say all resources should go to this one being — a conclusion most people find clearly wrong.

Good to Know

• Philosopher Bernard Williams raised the “integrity objection.” Utilitarianism can demand that a person personally act against their own deepest moral commitments, if doing so produces a better outcome overall. Williams argued this treats a person’s own character and integrity as unimportant.
• The trolley problem is a well-known thought experiment, often used to test Utilitarian reasoning directly. Is it right to divert a runaway trolley to kill one person instead of five? Utilitarianism says yes. But many people’s moral intuition resists this — especially when the choice requires directly causing harm, rather than just failing to prevent it.
• Rule utilitarianism is one response to these criticisms. Instead of judging each individual act by its outcome, it judges which general rules, if consistently followed, would produce the best outcomes overall. This can avoid some of Act Utilitarianism’s harsher conclusions, like the innocent-punishment case.
• Utilitarianism’s defenders respond that many of these criticisms rely on rare, extreme hypothetical cases. These rarely arise in real policy-making. In practice, Utilitarian reasoning tends to support widely accepted values, like preventing suffering and increasing welfare.

Test Yourself

Please wait…

1. Which response to criticisms of Utilitarianism judges general rules by their overall outcomes, rather than judging each individual act by its own outcome?

Rule utilitarianism

Virtue ethics

Existentialism

Care ethics

 Loading…

 

Great to Know

• Philosopher Amartya Sen, already covered on this site, has separately argued that standard Utilitarianism pays too little attention to the distribution of well-being. A society could have very high total utility while still leaving some people in deep poverty. Only the total or average matters in the basic Utilitarian calculation.
• Some of these criticisms directly connect to Rawls’s theory, already covered on this site. Rawls’s “difference principle” was partly designed as an alternative to Utilitarianism — specifically to protect the worst-off from being sacrificed for an aggregate gain.
• In real Indian governance debates, this tension shows up in questions about large infrastructure projects. A dam or highway may produce a large net benefit while displacing a smaller number of people. The criticisms covered here explain exactly why that trade-off is ethically contested, not just practically difficult.