(Click here to continue on the main path)

I want to make a couple of points in defense of utilitarianism. 

In general, it seems to me that we are logically bound, when we make ethical judgments, to be impartial between individuals. We cannot say that our good is worth more than someone else's good (other things being equal). We cannot say that the good of white people is more important than the good of black people (other things being equal). But if this is true, then we cannot consider only our own good when we make decisions, for that would be to ignore something equally important from the moral point of view. We are bound to consider the good of all people. If it is good to maximize our own welfare or satisfactions, then it is good to maximize the welfare and satisfactions of all. I think this is a strong argument for some form of the principle of utility.

Now let me say something about the critics. First of all, a lot of critics say that utilitarianism cannot pay attention to the distribution of happiness or welfare. They say we can only pay attention to the total amount of whatever we are trying to maximize.

But those critics need to consider the possibility that the distribution of happiness or satisfaction or welfare is one of the things that a utilitarian can consider -- at least at times -- because a more equal distribution of goods does in fact maximize happiness.

Second, a lot of critics say that the principle of utility could justify slavery or making a few people miserable in order that others are made happy. But I would argue that while this might be possible in principle, it is very unlikely in practice. As the philosopher David Lyons has pointed out, to make this criticism of utilitarianism stick, we need to find real historical cases in which slavery created more human welfare than any other possible alternative. How many cases are there like that?

Would utilitarianism justify slavery in the American south in the early 19th century? I doubt it. Would it justify what Stalin did in the 1930s in the name of security and economic development? Probably not.

The fact is that there may be very few cases in which utilitarianism could actually be used to justify slavery.