Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism assesses actions or rules through consequences for wellbeing, counting affected interests impartially. Versions differ about welfare and aggregation; the theory is not equivalent to majority rule.

Utilitarianism evaluates actions or rules through their consequences for wellbeing, with each affected person's interests counted impartially. Classical versions emphasize happiness and suffering, while other versions use different accounts of welfare. The theory is not simply majority rule: a small benefit to many people does not automatically outweigh a very large harm to a few without a substantive comparison.

A practical analysis asks who benefits, who is harmed, how much, for how long, and compared with what alternative. Measurement and interpersonal comparison remain difficult, and uncertainty can change the recommendation. Rule-based versions can defend rights and institutions through their welfare consequences, while other ethical views protect them independently. State which reasoning is being used rather than assuming a spreadsheet resolves the moral question.

When to use it

When consequences for multiple people's wellbeing need systematic comparison under limited resources.

How it can help

Compare benefits and harms by magnitude, duration, uncertainty, and alternatives. Make any independent rights or fairness commitments explicit.