Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #530

by Katarzyna De Lazari-Radek, Peter Singer

Utilitarianism may well be the most influential secular ethical theory in the world today. It is also one of the most controversial. It clashes, or is widely thought to clash, with many conventional moral views, and with human rights when they are seen as inviolable. Would it, for example, be right to torture a suspected terrorist in order to prevent an attack that could kill and injure a large number of innocent people?

In this Very Short Introduction Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek provide an authoritative account of the nature of utilitarianism, from its nineteenth-century origins, to its justification and its varieties. Considering how utilitarians can respond to objections that are often regarded as devastating, they explore the utilitarian answer to the question of whether torture can ever be justified. They also discuss what it is that utilitarians should seek to maximize, paying special attention to the classical utilitarian view that only pleasure or happiness is of intrinsic value.

Singer and de Lazari-Radek conclude by analyzing the continuing importance of utilitarianism in the world, indicating how it is a force for new thinking on contemporary moral challenges like global poverty, the treatment of animals, climate change, reducing the risk of human extinction, end-of-life decisions for terminally-ill patients, and the shift towards assessing the success of government policies in terms of their impact on happiness.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Humanities

144 pages, Paperback

First published June 22, 2017

Reviews

[Henne · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great modern introduction to utilitarian ethics, with up-to-date examples from philosophy and psychology research and brief coverage of utilitarianism in practice, e.g. highlighting the effective altruism community. Great for those who haven't come across these ideas before in a philosophy class, or even for those that have but would enjoy a concise summary of the best arguments for and against the view. A lot of what I believe in is nicely expressed in this book.

“Effective altruism takes an impartial perspective on whom we should help. The goal is to do the most good we can with whatever resources we are prepared to apply to that objective, and if we can do more good by helping people in a developing country than in our own community, that is what we should do. The same impartial perspective applies to the choice between present and future: effective altruists discount the future only to the extent that we are less certain about the impact of what we do when that impact will not be felt until some future period.”

[Daniel Wolf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente livro introdutório sobre a Ética Utilitarista, perpassando pelo pensamento utilitarista, desde o clássico (Bentham e Mill), até o desenvolvimento do utilitarismo por autores como Blackburn, Sidgwick, além da exemplificação da ética prática do utilitarismo.
Para quem tem interesse na área, ou deseja conhecer o utilitarismo, é um excelente livro para iniciar os estudos ou ter conhecimento de um aspecto geral do utilitarismo, seus desafios e sua aplicação prática nos mais variados temas e controvérsias atuais.

[David Msomba · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is how an introduction should be written, short, accessible and straight to the point.

[Lena · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting introduction to utilitarianism, the philosophy that has reducing the suffering of living beings as its core principle.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been utilitarian-curious for a long time but this wonderful little book has confirmed for me that maximising happiness is the right way to go.

The book itself is wonderfully written. Six short chapters in clear, persuasive, prose cover everything you need to know about utilitarianism. I've read longer books but they had less to say. I wish I could write so well.

On utilitarianism itself, the authors artfully deflect the potshots taken by those who prefer other ethical systems. My only lingering doubt is that utilitarianism asks more of me than I could ever give. Pete Singer tried to make me feel better about my failings but even his incredible skill was inadequate to the challenge.

I wish more philosophers could write so well too.

[James Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good introductory text on Utilitarianism. It covers the key figures, the key arguments for and the key applications and does not shy away from the challenges posed to the theory. I have bought it to use with A-Level Philosophy and will put passages to use there, but it would serve well too for undergraduates to open up the theory prior to undertaking the in depth reading signposted in the wider reading pages.

[Zach Souther · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was all cool until I thought about minorities being oppressed!

[David Walters · Rating 4 out of 5]

Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction is a part of a series of short introductory works, designed to provide basic overviews of their topics, published by Oxford University Press. One of the book's authors, Peter Singer, is a very well-known philosopher; the other, Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, is a less well-known philosopher.

Although I do not have a high opinion of Singer's work in general, and certainly do not agree with the more contentious claims and that he and Lazari-Radek make, Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction is nevertheless a good book. It provides a well-written, interesting, and engaging discussion of utilitarianism, which may be roughly defined as an ethical view that aims at maximizing utility, or well-being. Singer and Lazari-Radek succeed in explaining utilitarianism and its history to readers new to the subject, briefly summarizing the views of such famous philosophers as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.

One thing that Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction notably does not do, however, is to make utilitarianism itself seem like a credible or attractive ethical theory; those interested in a convincing defense of utilitarianism against its critics will have to look somewhere else. Singer and Lazari-Radek point out aspects of utilitarianism that make critics consider it reprehensible, such as the fact that it can be used to attempt to justify actions that most people would find not only unacceptable but morally abhorrent.

Indeed, Singer and Lazari-Radek go beyond that. They discuss the possibility that, upon careful examination of its consequences, utilitarianism might prove be at least partially "self-effacing", meaning that it would direct its adherents to follow ethical theories other than utilitarianism. The discussion of that issue is truly ingenious. It is both the most interesting part of Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction, and also, even though Singer and Lazari-Radek do not see it that way, one of the most persuasive reasons for rejecting utilitarianism itself that I have ever seen.

[Nikki Mcgee · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a big fan of the “Very Short Introduction” series and they form an important part of my own subject knowledge development as an RE teacher . I will admit however to finding this book harder to read than many of the others in the series.

I was using this to prepare for a Year 9 unit on moral ethics and I think this is pitched more to an A level teacher, particularly because it focuses on the thinkers that appear on A level specs such as Bentham, Mill and Sedgwick.

The detail was a little heavy for me but I did appreciate the use of links from books and plays and there is a great range of ethical dilemmas that I could use in the classroom. I also appreciated the diverse range of early thinkers who share their own version of hedonism.

I particularly enjoyed the section on utilitarianism in the modern world with current examples that I could use with my own students.

If you are have a good starting knowledge on utilitarianism this is a useful book but I think it would be a challenging read if you had little or no prior knowledge.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good. Learned quite a bunch. My credence in Utilitarianism has increased quite a lot. It seems like Consequentialism could be justified and grounded on purely logical grounds, to do with the supervenience of the normative or ethical on the descriptive, and an extension of that Supervenience principle to something like continuity or impartiality or proportionality.

I tend to have a richer, thicker understanding of wellbeing or the good or the good life than self-described Utilitarians tends to have, one focussed on flourishing rather than on welfare or absence of suffering.

It seems to me that the shift from the typical human life to the flourishing life could be far greater in terms of difference in wellbeing or flourishing than the shift from the life of suffering to the typical human life.

But the authors' argument for the higher weight of suffering over happiness in the last chapter (namely that it's implausible that it is good to experience one year of absolute suffering in order to experience one year of absolute happiness, but that this would be less and less implausible were it more and more years of happiness—thus showing an asymmetric trade-off or difference in weight between the two) seems somewhat plausible, though I suspect that might just be due to ignorance or incomplete knowledge of what absolute happiness or flourishing is truly like.

I also find abhorrent (or, less emotionally, find their views implausible) that they think that the experience machine objection doesn't work because of certain replies against intuition (1, should reread that section; 2, the authors make many, many critiques of intuition throughout!—which I empathise with on one hand yet think it queer that they're shooting the ground they stand on on the other) and they seem to express the average view in population ethics to have equally as counter-intuitive implications as the total view (which has the repugnant conclusion!!). Seems to me they didn't do justice to the average view and that no matter what critiques you give of intuition or, I don't know, status quo bias, the fundamental idea behind the experience machine objection (that perceiving and living in Reality is a better life than living in the experience machine) still stands. So I don't think hedonism is plausible as the authors seem to do. I think I tend towards desire satisfaction and perfectionist theories of the good and of Utilitarianism more than hedonism. But I am finding Hewitt Rawlette and perhaps Spinoza's hedonisms quite attractive—though not if the experience machine or Plato's cave demolish them.

I also found their replies to the demandingness objection and on distinguishing between right/wrong and praise/blame or exoteric right/wrong to be quite good and sound. Whether right/wrong is metaphysically grounded on maximising wellbeing is obviously a different matter from whether something should be praised/blamed or whether it should be told to the public as being right/wrong. They also made a point twice (reread, Mark) on how the contingent/non-essential affairs on present-day humans on Earth shouldn't play too much of a factor to the necessary affairs to do with ethics and morality. The first time it's worded is especially convincing. Reread that part.

Seems to me that any plausible moral theory ought to give the utilitarian conclusion that in a scenario where there is an exhaustive and exclusive choice between either killing everyone or X then we should always go for X. Some theories have ridiculously low bars for X. Suppose, say, X were the violation of someone's bodily rights by cutting of one person's strand of hair or his arm. Any theory which says X is wrong even when the only alternative is the death of everyone encounters a Reductio, I think. One can up that X, to, say, murder or rape or torture of some proper subset of everyone and it seems like there'd still be a reductio. So it seems like aggregating people and their wellbeings and thus a certain flavour of Utilitarianism is required for any moral theory to not face that reductio and thus have some share in plausibility. Aggregation and impartiality are two great hallmarks of Utilitarianism, it seems.

I still think a form of "general contractualism" or Utilitarianism might be the true moral theory. It holds that an action is wrong insofar as it minimises wellbeing or insofar as it is prohibited by the set of principles which minimise the WEIGHT of involved people's REASONS for it. (likewise, right...maximises...required/permitted) A reason would be a vector (recall math) where each element measures a different morally relevant factor, such as life, welfare, pleasure, justice, etc. There would then be a complex way to weigh up reasons against one another (to account for how, say, increasing the pleasures of billions for the death or torture of one is not moral while torturing billions to save the life of one is also not moral while torturing one to save the lives of billions is moral—complex math is required to make sense of this Calculus of Reasons). Not sure yet how well this meshes with my Spinozistic Utilitarianism. Seems to mesh when we take a rich conception of wellbeing.

[Boris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must-read introduction to utilitarianism. Even if you know of the theory, this is an excellent overview with great insights.

[Molsa Roja(s) · Rating 5 out of 5]

És força interessant. L’utilitarisme com a nova moral, com a voluntat d’establir el regne de Déu a la Terra, és producte tant d’una reacció a l’horror de la concepció de Hobbes de l’home com de la voluntat d’alguns clergues, al segle XVIII, de contrarrestar el despotisme monàrquic: la felicitat esdevé la meta. Una felicitat que amb el desenvolupament de Hume, qui determina el bé i el mal com allò considerat útil o contraproduent —i alhora allò útil com allò plaent— en un moment sociohistòric donat, queda unida amb l’utilitat. En un primer moment, doncs, es desenvolupa l’utilitarisme hedonista: felicitat = plaer, de manera que en el càlcul de l’utilitat d’una acció només es tindrà en compte si una acció fa una diferència positiva en el benestar o no; en aquest punt de precarietat teòrica, tota acció és justificable a partir de la diferència positiva en termes de benestar. Aquí trobarem a Bentham, sobretot. John Stuart Mill, d’altra banda, crearà d’alguna manera una nova dimensió en el càlcul utilitari: la llibertat com a dimensió essencial de la humanitat. I així, en el càlcul no només s’inclourà el diferencial de benestar sinó també la repercussió sobre la llibertat dels individus afectats per una acció. És el pluralisme conseqüencialista. I durant la resta del segle XIX i XX, el somni utilitari romandrà viu: el d’una moral positiva, basada en la possibilitat ideal d’un càlcul exacte dels increments i pèrdues del benestar de la població amb cada decisió. Hi ha, fins i tot, una justificació del panòptic.

“Granted that any practice causes more pain to animals than it gives pleasure to man; is that practice moral or immoral? And if, exactly in proportion as human beings raise their heads out of the slough of selfishness, they do not with one voice answer ‘immoral’, let the morality of the principle of utility be for ever condemned.”

[Jonah · Rating 5 out of 5]

The definitive introduction to utilitarian theories.

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer give a comprehensive and well compressed introduction into all major facets of utilitarian thought. They consider many proponents of the utilitarian framework and explain the differences in their view in sufficient detail. Not only do they introduce these positions, they also explain why they came about and what problems they either answer or fail to respond to. After engaging with it deeply in the short amount of pages used to introduce utilitarianism, the two shine a light one all major objections to the theory, taking them very seriously and giving the best possible utilitarian responses, without appearing overly confident that they have found the final answer to all questions. They then proceed to list the major influences of utilitarian thought in today’s society, giving brief accounts of how it connects to animal rights movements, end of life decisions, effective altruism, population ethics and questions of maximizing national wellbeing. Some controversial topics Singer has spoken on, including abortion ethics as well as questions concerning disabled persons, are not included, which may be for the better as the book is meant to serve as an introduction to the utilitarian theory after all. It lays an optimal ground to engage in discussions about utilitarianism or ethical discussions, using a utilitarian theory. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the topic and seeks to read a secondary text to either accompany or replace reading classic utilitarian literature.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes. We have begun by attending to the condition of slaves; we shall finish by softening that of all the animals which assist our labors or supply our wants.

— Jeremy Bentham (An early utilitarian), Principles of Penal Law


Reading this book is like getting hit with a brick, but in a good way in the sense that it's very impactful. It covers a lot of tough questions/problems and goes over the answers different thinkers have come up with. One such problem is the problem of measuring happiness and the different ways to do it.

I Had to spend some time writing and thinking about these things to organize all my thoughts, draw some tentative conclusions, and think about what to explore next to help further understand the problems and solutions mentioned.

Reading, thinking about, and discussing these questions with others is quite insightful.

[Emin Orhan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Utilitarianism strongly conflicts with countless fundamental and widely held moral intuitions. I picked up this book mainly to find out how utilitarians deal with these conflicts. It turns out they try to do this with a combination of "your intuitions are actually wrong" and bringing up convoluted second-order, third-order effects of actions to try to sanitize some of utilitarianism's frankly insane implications (it seems fitting that people who have delusions about being able to play seven-dimensional chess seem to be over-represented among utilitarians). Neither of these strategies is particularly convincing. This book is also nowhere near exhaustive enough in covering some of the most well-known problems with utilitarianism: for instance, it doesn't discuss utility monsters, happiness pumps, the problem of sadism, or the role of desert (as in deserving) in moral judgments, etc.

[Alexandru Stanciu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent walk-through of utilitarianism, the most rational yet most controversial ethical theory today. Although utilitarianism is often seen in contrast with deontology (e.g. Kantian ethics), I think it should be framed exactly as a duty. Kant himself affirmed that well-doing, when possible, is a duty, especially because we are not naturally inclined to it, so it can only arise from our good will. But what is well-doing if not attending to the well-being of others? One objection to utilitarianism is that, for one, it is too demanding, but I think that, for all of us, it is not demanding enough.

[Danilo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Singer y de Lazari-Radek dan un repaso al utilitarismo: justificaciones, tipos, discusiones, objeciones y puesta en práctica. Ambos autores se inclinan por el utilitarismo hedonista y lo hacen resaltar por sobre los demás a lo largo del libro.

Una implicación práctica potente, aunque no exclusiva de él, es el altruismo efectivo: la donación de dinero a las caridades más efectivas ♥️ Véanse los proyectos @LifeYouCanSave, @GiveWell y @givingwhatwecan.

Por ahora, aunque con una objeción que aún me raya, acepto que el utilitarismo me sedujo 😍: es sencillo y apela a una intuición muy clara y profunda, el bienestar para el mayor número. Me emociona actuar por su criterio 🤩 4,5 ⭐8

[Charlie Lee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good introduction to utilitarianism, in a wide variety of forms. Lazari-Radek and Singer manage to capture breadth and a surprising amount of depth, where relevant. The further reading notes allow the reader to expand significantly on the ideas, variations, thought experiments, etc. touched on briefly but always succinctly. I now have a stronger sense of how my own ethics are informed by hedonistic utilitarianism, as well as how these correlate or contradict those of other popular ethical systems.

[James O'Neill · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good book.

A very accessible guide to the main tenets of utilitarianism as it has been conceived over the years since its inception. Covers the main thinkers and their various ways of viewing utilitarianism. I'm using the book as a starting place for further reading in J.S. Mill as part of my philosophy course. Definitely found this book a useful introduction to the main ideas, thinkers and the pros/cons of utilitarianist thinking. Written by one of the foremost utilitarian philosophers (P. Singer), the information is top notch.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

These guides are really very good. They should not be confuded with 'made simple' guides. They are 120 approx pages that are what they say they are. A serious introduction to academic study. Get through this and you are ready to launch straight into Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick or even Peter Soinger himself.

Highly recommended as introduction or as a revision guide. Or, if you just want to know about Utilitarianism (or other subjects in the series) this will give you all you need and more.

[Aron Malmborg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Those familiar with utilitarianism will, as expected, find little that they haven't already read. It nevertheless serves as a great introduction that I would recommend to anyone with a nascent interest in ethics.

[Paul Corrado · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great overview!!!

Thanks for the great book and over view of the main ideas. Peter is a rock star in my eyes

[Andrew Kitzmiller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Relevant to those interested in meditation and mindfulness. Reads a bit dry and academic.

[Norbert · Rating 5 out of 5]

basic stuff

[Gerald · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great primer on Utilitarianism. These “Very Short Introduction” books are fantastic.

[Thomas]

Students! This is the text you were looking for. A perfect overview which also also shows some of the contemporary contributions to the framework.

[Alejandra Sevilla · Rating 4 out of 5]

When you finish the Book you felt like is Still something missing

[armin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good definitions, chronological, up-to-date examples and holistic. It also provides a good path for where to go from here! Really good!

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pues supongo q soy act utilitarian si que pues5o en escrito todo tiene mucho sentido aunque no entiendo muy bien pq el experience machine se considera un buen rebuttal.

[Nadvornix · Rating 5 out of 5]

Delivers exactly what it promises.