SURVIVal-BASED
UTILITARIANISM
'sustainably and efficiently maximise happiness for the greatest number of sentient beings. (fluffy or otherwise.)'
Utilitarianism is an ethical code, first coined by British social reformer Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, developed further by his protégé John Stuart Mill. Despite sounding old, it’s centuries more recent than the basic ethical frameworks offered by deontology, which is what underpins most of the World’s legal and ethical systems.
Utilitarianism is actually quite simple: doing things that maximise happiness/ minimise suffering are good, while causing unnecessary suffering is bad. The conclusion of this, a state of ‘maximised happiness’, is a state of peace (provided the whole community practices it). This makes it a consequentialist ethical system, as it considers the tangible results of actions, rather than creating and following rules on an arbitrary basis, without checking to see if they actually work or not. Bafflingly, utilitarianism stands as a relatively unknown system, although it’s literally the only feasible one on the planet that prioritises observable consequences, over bureaucratic box-ticking and arbitrary rules.
The FC 2.0. is an interactive ethical decision model we’ve developed for people (and organisations) who are done talking about positive change, and want to see tangible results from their efforts. There's a video tutorial around it at the bottom of this page, and a free download link on our files page.
To support the Absolute Justice Revolution, and help turn ‘maximising happiness’ from a dream to reality, please help us grow and support the movement now.
To say that an incorporation of utilitarian ethics into the legal system is long overdue (albeit, in a rule-consequentialist format) would be something of an understatement. It would focus all laws on the welfare and safety of the collective, rather than any elite minority. It would enable swift revisions of laws that aren’t working through a streamlined process of constitutional necessity. It would evaluate a person’s value to society (and reward them) according to the good things they do, and only sanction them for deliberately causing unnecessary suffering, which would apply to animal abuse too (fundamentally overriding pointless acquisitive prosecutions, such as vulnerable adults abusing drugs, or low-level theft in times of hardship). Importantly, it also necessarily signals a much tougher stance against violent crime, unfettered immigration, and a complete re-evaluation of the societal power dynamic, to only put people in leadership roles based on merit- not religion, sexuality or skin colour.
We have drafted an entire new bill for a utilitarian constitution in the UK, along with several other complementary bills, to help make the transition to a better life and future as swift and painless as possible. For a full understanding of utilitarian ethics and the vision of Absolute Justice Revolution, please read Absolute Justice- A Plan to Save the World.
---
Felicific Calculus 2.0.
Bentham’s often credited with the ‘hedonic calculus’; a system for ‘calculating’ the most moral thing to do in a given situation, under utilitarian specifications. It was a good idea, but he lacked the technology and information access at the time to turn it into something that could be widely implemented. ‘Hedonic’ is in fact a misnomer, added by some armchair philosopher at some point in the 20th century. Bentham never used this word to describe his idea, as it implies a relationship with the decidedly less noble code of ‘hedonism’ (which is basically seeking short-term pleasures in life, through instant gratification techniques like eating chocolate or doing drugs). Bentham’s felicific calculus (with felicific meaning ‘happiness-causing’) was about collective happiness, long-term fulfilment, and finding a logical, dynamic route to peace, in his jurisdiction and beyond…
The impetus for creating the calculus was quite simply this: long-term ethical decision-making in the real world is extremely complicated and time-consuming, particularly when balanced against things like legal, financial and social obligations. However, not only does a consequentialist system like utilitarianism make navigating these quandaries far more objective (‘maximising happiness’ is the desired outcome in all instances, not juggling arbitrary rules and agendas), but it would allow us to algorithmicise the lion’s share of the process and skip to the elements that actually require the human touch.
Efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in effective decision-making.
While there’s no ‘one size fits all’ formula for doing the right thing, some stages in the process should be taken as given in every instance, without needing a fresh debate every single time. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a professional, social, familial or even individual context, some things are always supposed to happen before making a decision that stands to affect others. For example, we all know that significant decisions should always involve a stakeholder analysis (with the innocent and vulnerable very much a priority). They should generally involve as much objectivity as possible. They always require that context, relevant timescales, short and long-term risks are laid out and duly considered. They necessitate an evaluation of options, contingencies, relevant laws, policies, threat assessments, and- most importantly- anticipated consequences. The starting considerations go on, and on, and on- before even getting to the meat of defining and choosing feasible options. Neglecting one rung of the labyrinthine decision-making ladder could render the whole exercise futile, or possibly worse. Why, then, has no one put the universal stages in a template yet- so we can save time scratching our heads, writing comparison tables, and skip straight to the bits you can’t automate?
Enter the Felicific Calculus 2.0 (specifically, the Survival-Based Utilitarian Decision Model, or ‘SUDM’).
Absolute Justice has developed a tool, that’s applications go far beyond individual decision-making. The SUDM is an interactive blueprint for an IT system that could be shared by all institutions in a utilitarian society (the FC 2.0), ensuring all of them adhere to ethical standards, and put the safety and security of their citizens first. Within the FC 2.0. is the SUDM- a ground-breaking universal decision model. The SUDM would essentially ensure consistently ethical decision-making across-the-board (particularly crucial in arenas like policing, economics, justice and governance), along with increased decision-maker accountability (through its semi-automated decision statement generation) and generally more happiness and justice in society- at a fraction of the headache and time cost that making the really big choices in life often comes with. The potential uses of the SUDM aren’t limited to professional settings; it can be applied to any situation and dilemma in life, standing to benefit each one, provided the requisite time, necessity and resources exist.
Do I personally make the final decision?
Of course you do. The SUDM doesn’t make decisions for you, it advises you according to the best system of ethics humanity currently has to offer: survival-based utilitarianism. Or, to be a little more technical: the SUDM catalyses all relevant data-gathering processes, takes steps to remove bias, offer impartial perspectives and objectify your dilemma for you, suggests further research avenues then returns a list of solid, ethical options (most of which made by you, following specific prompts and thought exercises). It’s up to you to evaluate them, or reject them all entirely. With the help of AI, it may do its best to explain why it thinks you should opt for certain course(s) of action over others; but ultimately, it’s something you personally are trying to decide, therefore the choice of action, rightfully, lies with you, always.
Here's a tutorial we made to help explain both its benefits and applications, across practically all walks of life:
For help in making better, more ethical and lasting decisions using the SUDM, you will need:
-
A computer that runs Microsoft Excel 2016 or later, and Microsoft Word.
-
Ideally, an AI chatbot (ChatGPT recommended).
Other than that, you’re good to go- simply click here to download your free FC 2.0. in all its glory.
Please note that the FC 2.0. is very much in its beta stages presently; it’s essentially a demo Excel workbook giving an outline of what the finished application could look like. The SUDM process within it is, however, ready to go as an interactive tool for effective ethical decision-making- simply go to the ‘navigator’ and click the ‘SUDM’ tab.
---
Common arguments against utilitarianism debunked
At some point, a school of anti-utilitarianism philosophers launched into a smear campaign against it- the products of which are now highly popularised. Their efforts have gained widespread traction in colleges and universities, and can be epitomised by a handful of thought exercises, aimed at disproving the doctrine’s viability- or at least, throwing it into question. Let’s explore a handful of them…
We don't put out crappy, half-finished videos, and we're pouring all our energy into the launch right now. But rest assured, awesome tutorials for our proposed utilitarian tech revolution are in the works, so stay tuned! We'll aim to have them uploaded by the end of April. If you'd like updates straight to your email, please join our mailing list at the bottom of the page.
1. The Rat Argument (‘Repugnant Conclusion’).
This is the argument that a greater total population of modestly happy ‘lesser beings’, like rats, would be better under utilitarianism than a smaller population of ‘higher beings’, like humans, experiencing euphoria- because the ‘total happiness’ would be greater in the former scenario. As much as I resent the banality of this argument, so many people defer to it as a reason not to subscribe to the doctrine. Therefore, it does need addressing.
Simply put, without a clear 'sustainability' aspect in the utilitarian maxim, this is the sort of dross some will infer from 'maximising happiness for the greatest number'. A planet dominated by modestly-happy rats would not be able to sustain that state, regardless of whether their total happiness was ‘greater’ than that of a human population. Rats are not capable of complex communication, government or disaster co-ordination. One single global crisis- resource depletion, a pandemic or meteor strike for example- would destroy them all.
This illustrates why it's necessary to clarify that we want a 'sustainable' maximisation of happiness, to those out there in the modern day who think utilitarianism means rodent world domination.
2. Demandingness.
The theory is criticised for being overly demanding, as it seems to require individuals to always act in the way that maximises overall utility, potentially sacrificing personal well-being and relationships. Our resolution to this is simple: grow up, stop being a snowflake and start caring about our childrens’ futures.
3. Measurement Problem.
“Measuring and comparing utility across different individuals is inherently difficult, making it challenging to apply utilitarian principles in practice.” In other words, it’s difficult, so we should give up. Gotcha.
And who could forget...
4. ‘The greater good’.
The now infamous notion of a ‘greater good’, through its association with doublespeak, dictator-style leadership and fictional supervillains, was a big reputational loss for utilitarianism. The doctrine does indeed promote the greater good. It most certainly does not advocate for doing so through committing genocide, slave-trading or hurting disabled people. But apparently because of the utterly deplorable actions of various deceptive, immoral leaders throughout history (of whom, I’m not sure even a single one has ever actually declared an allegiance to utilitarianism), the immediate link some people make with the doctrine is with supervillains like Thanos out of the avengers. It’s not with Jeremy Bentham, one of the first people in authority to ever advocate for the abolishment of slavery, champion women’s rights and proper animal welfare. Nor is it with Peter Singer, who used his platforms to call for an end to barbaric practices like the Asian dog meat festival and inhumane slaughterhouse practices. Least of all is it concerned with what utilitarianism actually means: ‘a rational strategy to World peace’. Instead, it’s associated with some caricature of hooded antagonists sat around a dark tower in the dead of night, cackling up to the pale moonlight about their next dastardly plot to commit grave atrocities against humanity. Why, I’m honestly not sure.
The below diagram summarises how the contention between the ‘greater good’ and non-consequentialism generally goes…
*Some examples across various scales:
Small Scale:
-
Self-Defense: You are attacked by an armed robber. You disarm them by breaking their arm.
-
Greater good: Breaking their arm causes them harm, but it prevents them from further harming you.
-
-
Medical Necessity: A surgeon must remove a cancerous tumour, which will inevitably cause some damage to surrounding healthy tissue.
-
Greater good: Removing the tumour is necessary to save the patient's life, even if it means harming some healthy cells.
-
Medium Scale:
-
Military Action: A military unit must bomb a Nazi stronghold, knowing that there may be some casualties.
-
Greater good: The target is believed to be a key command center or weapons depot, and destroying it will prevent further attacks from Nazis that could cause far greater casualties and suffering.
-
-
Law Enforcement: Police officers may have to use force, such as lethal force, to apprehend a dangerous criminal who poses an immediate threat to the lives of others.
-
Greater good: Apprehending the criminal, even if it results in their death, prevents them from causing further harm to innocent people.
-
Large Scale:
-
Warfare: A nation may go to war to defend itself against an ultranationalist, racist aggressor, knowing that there will be significant casualties on both sides.
-
Greater good: The war is seen as necessary to prevent the aggressor from conquering the nation and causing even greater suffering.
-
-
Environmental Disaster: A government may have to order the controlled demolition of a dam to prevent an imminent catastrophic flood that would threaten the lives of thousands of people downstream.
-
Greater good: While the demolition will cause some damage and displacement, it prevents a far greater loss of life and property.
-
That’s utilitarianism, ‘the greater good’, summarised against its main criticisms. Literally the only difference between the utilitarian and the non-consequentialist is one’s responsible for unnecessary suffering, one isn’t. (Sidenote: You do realise that our legal systems are non-consequentialist, right?)
I’ve personally reached the point in scouring the unending guff on this controversy, that I’ve concluded most anti-utilitarians are just ‘coping’. They lack the courage to say what needs to be said, to challenge the status quo, to do what’s right. They search desperately for exits and meaning in virtue-signalling and armchair philosophy. For legitimate-sounding reasons to explain away why them doing absolutely nothing to help minimise suffering was the right thing to do. They lash out at anyone who’s braver than them, more moral than them, better than them, because it vindicates them from their own failings and cowardice.
You're either directly causing harm, you're complicit in it, or you're doing something to stop it. And I'm not talking about prayers, or well wishes. I'm talking direct action. That action isn't always easy and it isn't always well received. That doesn't make it immoral. People seem to think 'the greater good' means **murdering disabled people, committing genocide and harvesting people’s organs. It doesn't. I actually think that presumption says more about them, than it does about utilitarianism. The doctrine, at its most controversial, simply means a willingness to fight back against dangerous people who are causing unnecessary suffering. It doesn’t mean ruthless killing for the mere sake of killing, oppression, ‘ethnic cleansing’, or insane conquest.
The ‘greater good’, in reality, is just being brave enough to improve things; regardless of the hardships involved (and very much after an appropriate risk assessment, and rigorous weigh-up of the likely consequences). That might sometimes involve making difficult choices, that not everyone will like. But for the innocent little boys and girls out there who are getting raped and abused daily because of the paedophiles’ plethora of rights and our under-funded justice systems, the vulnerable people who die of cold in Winter because we’ve spent all our public money housing terrorists, for my own family who are in perpetual fear, scared to venture onto the dangerous and scarcely-policed streets they inhabit, at the mercy of a system that prioritises what’s easy over what’s right? For my own children? I’d certainly fight for a ‘the greater good’, thank you very much. I always will. And I’m proud of that.
Join us in fighting for it, too…
**I glimpsed an ‘educational’ video on the internet recently regarding utilitarianism, which claimed the doctrine would inevitably lead to things like killing disabled people to harvest their organs because they have lower ‘utility’ than others (?). Not that I should even have to address this, but to no reasonable and sound mind, ever, would any kind of ethnic/ racist/ ableist/ ageist/ gender-ist/ species-ist/ anything-ist killing be remotely compatible with utilitarianism. The only thing that matters about anyone or anything under utilitarianism, is its capacity to cause happiness. If a sentient being- no matter their ability, race, or other physical traits- is causing someone happiness, they are worth something. If they put a smile on someone’s face, they are worth something. And if they themselves are struggling to smile, a utilitarian would help them to- not throw them away. These things should be obvious to a reasonable and ethical person… so they certainly would be to a utilitarian.
---
All in all, many just can't wrap their heads around what maximising happiness over the long term, for the greatest number, actually means. It doesn't mean wandering the streets hugging everyone that we pass. It doesn’t mean neglecting vulnerable people. And it definitely doesn't mean a rodent revolution. It's simply deliberate, calculated, forward-thinking actions that cumulatively, sustainably, and tangibly increase happiness, while decreasing suffering, on the largest scale possible in the given context. It's the development and widespread distribution of treatments, vaccines, and painkillers, to minimise the pain of chronic illness. It's a national health service made free to the general public. It's the decision to risk your life running into a burning building as a firefighter, because you doing so might save five more. The sanctioning- and potentially, removal- of dangerous people from society, when the alternative is unnecessary suffering for the innocent masses.
It’s a rational strategy for achieving peace, and it might just be our only hope.
---
More on Bentham.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a British philosopher and social reformer. He believed, as I do, that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to overall happiness- mainly because if everyone did that, we’d eventually by logical necessity end up in a state of peace (as a minimum).
But his ideas extended beyond theoretical philosophy; he was an advocate for social reform and practical applications of his theories. For instance, he was an early proponent of animal rights, arguing that the capacity to suffer (sentience) should be the basis for how we treat animals, and he campaigned for legal reforms, including the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the establishment of a fairer legal system. He laid groundwork for the World’s first ever police force, and co-founded University College, London. His most significant written work, "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation," published in 1789, laid the foundation for utilitarian thought. In it, he asserted that the rightness or wrongness of actions could be judged based on their consequences, advocating for policies that would maximise happiness as the most desired consequence. He was the first major scholar to do this. These ideas were revolutionary, promoting social reforms, including the abolition of slavery and the improvement of legal systems, which were radical concepts during his time.
Overall, Bentham laid the groundwork for a philosophy that considers the consequences of actions, embracing a vision of ethical reasoning that seeks to enhance the welfare of all over the long-term. If there’s ever been a better perspective on morality, I’m yet to hear it. That being said, there’s just a couple of tweaks I would make for its use in the 21st century; leading me to propose a slight advancement on Bentham’s philosophy called survival-based utilitarianism. It slightly extends the fundamental utilitarian maxim to this: “the best action is that which sustainably and efficiently maximises happiness for the greatest number of sentient beings.” The significance of this, an address of common arguments against utilitarian ethics, and the new maxim’s potential impact on not only utilitarian thought but potentially our entire planet are laid bare in my book: Absolute Justice – A Plan to Save the World.
Want AJ Revolution updates fresh off the press?
Then, why not ...