IITILITAILIANISM, the name of the peculiar theory of ethics, or of the ground of moral obligation, that adopts, as the criterion of right, the happiness of mankind. The word "utility" was employed, in this acceptation, by Jeremy Bentham; the form "utilitarianism" was first used by John Stuart Mill.
The doctrine of utility is opposed to all those theories that refer us to some internal sense, feeling, or sentiment, for the test of right and wrong; a test usually described by such phrases as a moral sense, and innate moral distinctions. See ETUICS. Whence utility is sometimes termed the external or objective standard of morality. It is also opposed to the view that founds moral distinctions on the mere arbitrary will of God.
The utilitarian theory has been maintained both in ancient and in modern times, although with considerable variation, not merely in the mode of stating it, but in impor tant peculiarities. Thus, in ancient times, it was held by Epicurus, but in a purely self-regarding form; each person's end was his own happiness exclusively, the happi ness of others being instrumental and subordinate. The modern phase of the theory may be said to begin with Hume. He employed, as the leading term of his system, not utility, but benevolence; whereby he gave especial prominence to the disinterested side of moral actions. He strenuously maintained, what must be regarded as the essential feature of the utilitarian doctrine, that no conduct is to be deemed worthy of moral approbation unless, in some way or other, it promotes human happiness; and that actions ought to be visited with disapprobation, exactly according as they have the opposite tendency.
Jeremy Bentham is, more than any other person, identified with the theory of util ity, which was, in his hands, not merely the foundation of ethics, but also the basis and justification of political and legal reforms. Having in view the state necessity of sacri ficing smaller interests to greater, or, at. all events, of not sacrificing greater interests to smaller, lie described the ethical end as " the greatest happiness of the greatest number." He illustrated the doctrine by setting it in opposition to asceticism, which lie interpreted to mean, that pleasure is forfeited, and pain incurred, without yielding a compensating amount of good, either to the agent or to other persons.
Paley advocated a form of utility. He made the will of the Deity, enforced by future rewards and punishments, the impelling motive to duty; but in determining what that will was, in particular cases, he included a reference to the beneficial ten dency of actions.
James Mill maintained substantially the views of Bentham. Sir James Mackintosh, while differing in some points from Bentham and from Mill, in the main adhered to utility as the ultimate standard of Light. John Austin, in his Province of Jurisprudence Determined, has contributed a lucid exposition and a powerful defense of the i principle. John Stuart Mill has devoted a separate work to the subject. Samuel Bailey, in his Letters on the Haman _Mind, vol. iii., has discussed the ethical problem fully, and pro nounced upon the utilitarian side. Herbert Spencer ranks among the upholders of the theory; and likewise Bain, in his edition of Paley (Chambers's series), and in The Emo tzons and the Will.
Before stating the arguments for and against the principle of utility as the basis of morals, it is proper to inquire what sort of proof an ethical system is susceptible of. Ethics is a practical science (see SCIENCES), and, as such. involves an end; having, the peculiarity of being, the final or comprehensive end of all human conduct. See TELE OLOGY. Now, in the speculative or theoretical sciences, 'ultimate principles cannot be proved; it is the nature of proof to rest one doctrine on some other doctrine, so that we must come at last to what is taken Without proof; we cannot prove our present sensa tions; nor can we demonstrate that what has been will be; we must take these things for granted. And so it is with ultimate ends in the practical sciences: we cannot prove that each person should seek his own happiness; we must assume it as an ultimate fact, and trace the consequences. The final end of all conduct cannot be reasoned; it must be gathered from the actual conduct of men; we must find by observation what ends men actually pursue, and, if we can, generalize them into one comprehensive statement. The function of argument in the case is to show where inconsistency has crept in, or to make professions accord. with practice. Thus it is that the supporters of utility aver that men, even although refusing the theory, still proceed upon it in their conduct; and that the doctrine cannot be impugned consistently with the admitted motives of human action. Human beings, as a rule, have no other end in life but happiness, either for themselves or for others; and morality belies human nature if it does not accord with this universal object of pursuit.