Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Contemporary Evolution and Reform of Utilitarianism

Part of the book series: Interests Politics Series ((IPS))

  • 52 Accesses

Abstract

Utilitarianism is an important and influential school of political thoughts, which for the first time systematically links morality and the maximization of human happiness, explaining the origin and essence of morality from the perspective of human needs and the actual interest relationship between people and taking the greatest happiness of man as judgment criterions of moral principles. But, in today's discourse system, utilitarianism is considered an outdated theory. Many researchers put forward that utilitarianism is no longer applicable to the discourse system of contemporary political philosophy, in which the primary virtue of the social system is to achieve social fairness and justice. This book systematically examines the contemporary evolutionary trajectory of utilitarianism and elucidates its development and contributions. The serious consideration and reference of utilitarianism are imperative, given its undeniable advantages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hart (1979).

  2. 2.

    Eggleston and Miller (2014), p. 1.

  3. 3.

    Kymlicka (2002), p. 10.

  4. 4.

    Ibid.

  5. 5.

    Bentham (1990), p. 3.

  6. 6.

    Ewing (1964), p. 40.

  7. 7.

    Rawls (1999), p. 23.

  8. 8.

    Sartorius (1969), p. 79.

  9. 9.

    Scarre (2002), p. 2.

  10. 10.

    Dworkin (2011), p. 414.

  11. 11.

    The classical utilitarianism in this book refers to the utilitarian political philosophy theories that emerged in the late eighteenth century, and the representative figures are Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, etc.

  12. 12.

    Smart and Williams (1973), p. 137.

  13. 13.

    Smith (1993), p. 130.

  14. 14.

    The Collected Works of Marx and Engels (Volume 1), Beijing: People's Publishing House, 2009, p. 106.

  15. 15.

    Mill (2009), p. 34.

  16. 16.

    Rosen (2003), p. 3.

  17. 17.

    Rawls (1999), p. 3.

  18. 18.

    Brock (1973), pp. 241–245.

  19. 19.

    Bentham (1907), p. 64.

  20. 20.

    Mill (2009), p. 7.

  21. 21.

    Bentham (1907), p. 17.

  22. 22.

    Mill (2009), p. 14.

  23. 23.

    Mill (2009), p. 9.

  24. 24.

    Morgan (2007), p. 34.

  25. 25.

    The so-called electrode experiment is an experiment in which some electrodes will be inserted into the brain of an organism in order to obtain certain stimulus. See Good (1962), pp. 199–200.

  26. 26.

    Ryle (1949), pp. 107–108.

  27. 27.

    Griffin (1986), pp. 7–8.

  28. 28.

    Sidgwick (1962), p. 42.

  29. 29.

    Morgan (2007), p. 23.

  30. 30.

    Mill (2009), p. 10.

  31. 31.

    Mill (2009), pp. 16–17.

  32. 32.

    Brock (1973), p. 243.

  33. 33.

    Narveson (1967), pp. 79–82.

  34. 34.

    Bentham (1907), p. 330.

  35. 35.

    The idea that animals’ pain and pleasure also have moral value is the core difference that distinguishes Bentham from other contemporary political philosophers who held views against animal cruelty. For example, Kant also disapproved of cruelty to animals, but Kant's objection stemmed from his objection to the vulgarity of human nature.

  36. 36.

    Singer (2011), p. 50.

  37. 37.

    Bentham (1907), p. 39.

  38. 38.

    Moore (2004), p. 194.

  39. 39.

    Haslett (1990).

  40. 40.

    Brandt (1992), p. 160.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., p. 161.

  42. 42.

    Sprigge (1991), p. 39.

  43. 43.

    Smart (1978), p. 249.

  44. 44.

    Shaw (1999), p. 63.

  45. 45.

    T. L. S. Sprigge, “The Greatest Happiness Principle”, p. 38.

  46. 46.

    Sumner (2003), p. 96.

  47. 47.

    Harsanyi (1977), pp. 644–647.

  48. 48.

    Scanlon (1975).

  49. 49.

    Bognar (2010).

  50. 50.

    Dworkin (2002), p. 32.

  51. 51.

    Hart (1979), p. 87.

  52. 52.

    Kymlicka (2002), p. 20.

  53. 53.

    Dworkin (1989), p. 39.

  54. 54.

    Hooker (1993), p. 133.

  55. 55.

    Lyons (1978), pp. 115–160.

  56. 56.

    Scheffler (1982), pp. 2–3.

  57. 57.

    Hardin (1988), p. 17.

  58. 58.

    Hooker (1996), p. 539.

  59. 59.

    Bentham (1907), p. 18.

  60. 60.

    Morgan (2007), p. 115.

  61. 61.

    Bentham states his famous secondary principle in a discussion of civil law. “In every country, and for every race, at every time—of the all-comprehensive and only defensible end—the greatest happiness of the greatest number—of the four most comprehensive particular and subordinate ends, viz. subsistence, abundance, security and equality”. Schofield and Harris (1998), p. 291.

  62. 62.

    Rosen (2003), p. 225.

  63. 63.

    Mill (1969), p. 173.

  64. 64.

    Mill (2009), p. 31.

  65. 65.

    Brandt (1979), pp. 164–167.

  66. 66.

    Mill (2009), p. 67.

  67. 67.

    Slote and Pettit (1984).

  68. 68.

    Kymlicka (2002), p. 10.

  69. 69.

    Narveson (2004), p. 157.

  70. 70.

    Kymlicka (2002), p. 12.

  71. 71.

    Shaw (1999), p. 97.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p. 98.

  73. 73.

    Frohlich et al. (1987).

  74. 74.

    Shaw (1999), p. 99.

  75. 75.

    Goodin (1995), pp. 4–8.

References

  • Bentham J (1907) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham J (1990) A fragment on government. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bognar G (2010) Authentic happiness. Utilitas 22(3):272–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt RB (1979) A theory of the good and the right. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock DW (1973) Recent Work in Utilitarianism. Am Philos Q 10(4):241–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1989) In: Daniels N (ed) The original position

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (2011) Justice for hedgehogs. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R, Virtue S (2002) The theory and practice of equality. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing AC (1964) Ethics. English Universities Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich N, Oppenheimer JA, Eavey CL (1987) Laboratory results on Rawls’s distributive justice. Br J Polit Sci 17(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good IJ (ed) (1962) A problem for the hedonist

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin RE (1995) Utilitarianism as a public philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin J (1986) Well-being: its meaning, measurement, and moral importance. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin R (1988) Morality within the limits of reason. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1979) Between utility and rights. Columbia Law Rev 79:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi JC (1977) Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Soc Res 44(4):623–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslett DW (1990) What is utility? Econ Philos 6(1):65–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker B (ed) (1993) Rationality, rules and utility: new essays on the moral philosophy of Richard B. Brandt. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker B (1996) Ross-style pluralism versus rule-consequentialism. Mind 105(420):531–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eggleston B, Miller DE (eds) (2014) The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka W (2002) Contemporary political philosophy: an introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons D (1978) Forms and limits of utilitarianism. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Law I (1999) Rule-consequentialism’s dilemma. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 2(3):263–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1969) Whewell on moral philosophy. In: Robson JM (ed) Essays on ethics, religion and society. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill J (2009) Utilitarianism. The Floating Press, Auckland

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore GE (2004) Principia Ethica. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan T (2007) Understanding utilitarianism. Cromwell Press, Trowbridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Narveson J (1967) Morality and utility. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Narveson J (2004) Rights and utilitarianism. Can J Philos 5:137–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richard B (1992) Brandt, morality, utilitarianism, and rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen F (2003) Classical utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle G (1949) The concept of mind. Hutchinson House, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartorius R (1969) Utilitarianism and obligation. J Philos 66(3):67–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon TM (1975) Preference and urgency. J Philos 72(19):655–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarre G (2002) Utilitarianism. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler S (1982) The rejection of consequentialism. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofield P, Harris J (eds) (1998) Legislator of the world: writings on codification, law, and education (the collected works of Jeremy Bentham). Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidgwick H (1962) Methods of ethics. Macmillan and Company Limited, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer P (2011) Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Slote M, Pettit P (1984) Satisficing consequentialism. Proc Aristot Soc 58:139–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart JJC (1978) Hedonistic and ideal utilitarianism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 3(1):240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart JJ, Williams B (1973) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (1993) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Hackett Publishing Company, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprigge TLS (1991) The greatest happiness principle. Utilitas 3(1):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumner LW (2003) Welfare, happiness, and ethics. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • William H (1999) Shaw, contemporary ethics: taking account of utilitarianism. Blackwell Publishers, Malden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era; Institute of National Governance Studies, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Shuyang Liu

Authors
  1. Shuyang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuyang Liu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Peking University Press

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Liu, S. (2023). Introduction. In: The Contemporary Evolution and Reform of Utilitarianism. Interests Politics Series . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7363-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation