Week 11 · Chapter

Chapter 11 — Ethics II: Utilitarianism

Introduction to Philosophy Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 6 (explain and apply the major ethical theories — utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue ethics, and social contract theory — and the challenges of relativism and egoism, to moral cases), with Objective 2 (identify arguments, put them in standard form, judge whether they are valid, sound, or inductively strong, and test claims with counterexamples and thought experiments) carried forward · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slide deck, the tutorial, the quiz, and the Philosophy Workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week asks whether an act is right because of the good it does. One family of answers, consequentialism (the view that only an act's results decide whether it is right), says to look at what an act brings about. Its best-known member, utilitarianism (the view that the right act produces the most happiness for everyone, counted equally), says to add up the happiness and suffering of everyone the act touches. You meet its two founders, test it with three hard objections, and wade into a famous thought experiment about a child in a pond. Your goal is to state the theory as its best defenders would and to weigh the objections fairly, not to pick a winner.

Why you already care about this

A hospital ethics committee meets around a long table. The hospital has a scarce drug, and more patients need it than it can treat. One member says, "Let's do whatever helps the most people the most." Another member frowns. "What about the patient who has waited longest?" Both sound reasonable. Only one of them is talking the way a utilitarian talks.

You make smaller versions of this choice all the time. You split a pizza so that everyone gets some. You skip a party because a friend needs help that night. You wonder whether a white lie would spare someone's feelings. Each time, part of you is asking what will make things go best for everyone involved.

That question has a long history. In 1789 Jeremy Bentham published An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, which opens by naming pain and pleasure as the two masters of human life. In 1863 John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism appeared as a book. In 1972 Peter Singer asked what you would owe a child drowning in a shallow pond. This chapter walks through all three.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

define consequentialism and utilitarianism, and state utilitarianism in its strongest form;
quote Bentham's opening sentence and Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle exactly as the course pins them;
explain why utilitarianism counts everyone's happiness, not only the agent's;
say where Mill parts from Bentham, using higher and lower pleasures;
put Dataset B's argument 3 in standard form and key it for validity only;
apply act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism to a costly promise;
state the justice, rights, and demandingness objections, each with a reply;
reconstruct the drowning child in standard form and judge it valid.

Carry this line with you: the best total versus a fair share: keep both in view.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 2, Arguments and Thought Experiments, gave you standard form, validity, and the valid forms, including hypothetical syllogism and modus ponens. Weeks 3 to 7 tested views on reality, knowledge, the mind, and the self with thought experiments. Week 9, Philosophy of Religion, weighed arguments about God. Week 10, Ethics I: Relativism, God, and Self-Interest, asked whether morality is relative, whether it rests on God's commands, and whether we always act from self-interest.
This week: consequentialism and utilitarianism; Bentham on pain and pleasure; Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle and his higher and lower pleasures; act and rule utilitarianism; the justice, rights, and demandingness objections; and Singer's drowning child.
How they connect: Week 10 cleared the ground by asking whether morality has any footing at all. This week meets the first of the 4 ethical theories that try to say what makes an act right.
Where we're going next: Week 12, Ethics III: Kant, Virtue, and the Trolley Problem, sets two more theories beside this one and tests them all on one hard case.

Two tools from earlier weeks do the heavy lifting. From Week 2, you need standard form: premises numbered P1 and P2, the conclusion last, marked C and introduced by "So". You need valid (the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true) and invalid (the conclusion could be false even if the premises are true). You need two valid forms. Hypothetical syllogism: if P then Q; if Q then R; so if P then R. Modus ponens: if P then Q; P; so Q. From Week 10, you need the difference between ethical egoism, which says each person ought to act from self-interest, and a view that counts everyone.

1. Name the family: judge an act by its results

Think about a friend who asks whether to tell a coworker about a mistake in a shared report. You might ask, "What will happen if you tell? What will happen if you don't?" You are looking ahead to results. You are not asking about the friend's motives or about a rule written somewhere.

That way of thinking has a name.

Consequentialism — the family of ethical views holding that whether an act is right depends only on its consequences, on what the act brings about.
Utilitarianism — the consequentialist theory that the right act is the one that produces the greatest overall happiness, with each person's happiness counted equally.

Dataset D, the four ethical theories, gives utilitarianism its row. The other 3 theories come in the next two weeks.

Dataset D, utilitarianism's row: its central question, key sources, and what it puts first
Theory	Its central question	Key sources	Puts first
Utilitarianism	What act produces the greatest overall happiness?	Bentham (1789); Mill (1861 and 1863)	consequences

Here is the theory in its strongest form. Happiness and suffering matter to everyone who can feel them. No one's happiness matters more than anyone else's because of who they are. So a good act is one that makes the world go as well as it can for everyone it affects. The theory also explains rules we already accept. Lying, theft, and cruelty are wrong, on this view, because they usually cause misery.

In one plain sentence: utilitarianism judges an act by how much happiness it brings to everyone it affects, and that gives one clear reason behind many familiar rules.

Misconception check — "consequences" does not mean "the ends justify any means". Students often think a consequentialist will do anything at all to get a good result. It is tempting because the slogan is so familiar. The cure is to count every result, the means included. Lying, harming, and breaking trust are consequences too. A careful utilitarian adds them to the total before deciding anything.

2. Meet Bentham: pain and pleasure

Picture touching a hot pan. You pull your hand back before you even think. Now picture the first warm day after a long winter. You slow down and turn your face to the sun. Pain pushes you away; pleasure draws you in.

Jeremy Bentham built a theory on that push and pull. His An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation was printed in 1780 and first published in 1789. Chapter I opens with this sentence, in Bentham's own English (the English original, so no translator is named):

"Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure."

For Bentham, pleasure and pain are what make an outcome go better or worse for someone. A good act adds pleasure or removes pain. Bentham treats pleasures as differing from one another in amount: more pleasure is better than less.

Worked example — the book's dates. Bentham's book has two dates, and both are pinned.

Printed: 1780.
First published: 1789.
The gap: 1789 − 1780 = 9 years.

In words: the book sat printed for 9 years before it was published, and 1789 is the year the course keys.

Misconception check — "pleasure" does not mean only parties and treats. Students often think Bentham's pleasure means fun and nothing else. It is tempting because the word sounds light. The cure is to read the sentence again: pain and pleasure are sovereign masters. They cover relief from worry, comfort in illness, and the satisfaction of a job done, as well as fun. A utilitarian counts all of it.

3. Count everyone equally

Imagine a group of friends deciding where to eat. One friend picks the place they like best and ignores everyone else. Another friend asks each person what they want, weighs every answer the same, and picks the place that suits the group best. The first friend is thinking about one person. The second is thinking about everyone.

A utilitarian thinks like the second friend.

Impartiality — counting each person's happiness and suffering equally, so that no one's counts for more because of who they are, the agent's own included.

Worked example — Dataset J, statement 1. Dataset J, the theory-matching set (illustrative), pairs short statements with the theories they express. Its premises were written for teaching, and the course does not endorse them.

The statement: "Count each person's happiness equally and choose the act with the best total."
What it asks you to do: add up everyone's happiness, with no one's counting double, and pick the act with the highest total.
Which theory says that: utilitarianism. Key: utilitarianism.

Now return to the hospital committee. A utilitarian there counts each patient's well-being equally. The drug goes where it will do the most good overall, and a patient's wealth, fame, or friendship with a committee member adds nothing to their claim.

Misconception check — utilitarianism does not count only your own happiness. Students often think "maximize happiness" means "do what makes you happiest". It is tempting because many everyday choices are about our own happiness. The cure is impartiality. You are one person in the count, and you count exactly once. A view that counted only the agent's own good would be ethical egoism, from Week 10, not utilitarianism.

4. Meet Mill: the Greatest Happiness Principle

Think about two evenings. On one, you finally understand a hard idea that has puzzled you for weeks. On the other, you eat a favorite snack in front of a show. Both are pleasant. But are they the same kind of pleasant, differing only in how much?

John Stuart Mill thought they were not. His Utilitarianism appeared as magazine articles in 1861 and as a book in 1863. In Chapter II he states the Greatest Happiness Principle, in his own English:

"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness"

Greatest Happiness Principle — John Stuart Mill's statement of utilitarianism in Utilitarianism, Chapter II, which holds, in paraphrase, that an act is more right the more it tends to bring about happiness, and wrong to the degree that it tends to bring about unhappiness.

Notice "in proportion". Rightness comes in degrees: the more an act tends to promote happiness, the more right it is.

Mill then adds a point Bentham did not make.

Higher and lower pleasures — Mill's distinction between kinds of pleasure that differ in quality as well as in amount, so that some kinds of pleasure count as higher than others; it is a point on which Mill parts from Bentham.

In paraphrase, Mill holds that pleasures differ in quality as well as in amount. The two evenings above are an illustration written for this course, not Mill's own example. On Mill's view, the pleasure of understanding the hard idea could be higher in kind than the pleasure of the snack, and not only larger.

Worked example — Mill's dates on a timeline with Bentham's. Put the two thinkers' dates in order.

Mill's articles: 1861. Mill's book: 1863. The gap: 1863 − 1861 = 2 years.
Bentham's publication: 1789. The gap to Mill's articles: 1861 − 1789 = 72 years.

In words: Mill wrote 72 years after Bentham published, and his work came out in two steps, 2 years apart. The course names Mill's dates but never keys them.

Misconception check — Mill does not agree with Bentham on every point. Students often think "the utilitarians" all said the same thing. It is tempting because Mill and Bentham share the theory's core: happiness for everyone, counted equally. The cure is the higher and lower pleasures. Bentham treats pleasures as differing in amount. Mill holds that they also differ in quality. That is a real disagreement inside one theory.

5. Test an argument for utilitarianism

Here is an argument from Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). Its premises were written for teaching, and the course does not endorse them.

Worked example — Dataset B, argument 3, in standard form. Lay the argument out line by line, then name its form.

P1: If an act maximizes happiness, it is right.

P2: If it is right, we ought to do it.

C: So if an act maximizes happiness, we ought to do it.

Name the form. Let P be "an act maximizes happiness", Q be "it is right", and R be "we ought to do it". The pattern is if P then Q; if Q then R; so if P then R. That is hypothetical syllogism, from Week 2. Key it: valid. If both premises were true, the conclusion could not be false.

Now the harder question. Is it sound? A critic replies that P1 is false: an act could maximize happiness and still be unjust. A utilitarian replies that P1 states the theory itself, and that the critic's cases are rare or are better handled by rules. That disagreement is an open question, so the course keys this argument for validity only.

In one plain sentence: argument 3 is valid by hypothetical syllogism, and whether it is sound turns on P1, the very claim utilitarians and their critics dispute.

Misconception check — a valid argument for a theory has not proved the theory. Students often think that once argument 3 is shown valid, utilitarianism has won. It is tempting because "valid" sounds like a seal of approval. The cure is Week 2's two questions. Valid only means the conclusion would follow if the premises were true. Here, the critic denies P1, so the argument settles nothing until that premise is settled.

6. Split the theory: act and rule utilitarianism

Picture this. Weeks ago, you promised to help a friend move apartments on a certain day. Then your manager offers you a paid shift for the same day. Your friend has other helpers lined up, but not many. What should you do?

Utilitarians split into two camps on cases like this.

Act utilitarianism — the form of utilitarianism that judges each act by its own consequences, asking which act available here and now produces the most happiness for everyone affected.
Rule utilitarianism — the form of utilitarianism that judges acts by whether they follow rules whose general acceptance would produce the best consequences.

Worked example — the costly promise, two ways. Run both forms of the theory on the same promise.

The act utilitarian asks: which act, keeping the promise or taking the shift, produces more happiness for everyone affected, the friend included? The money matters, the friend's sore back matters, and the friend's disappointment matters. Whichever act does better overall is the right one this time.
Dataset J, statement 2 (illustrative): "A broken promise is wrong if breaking it causes more misery than keeping it." Key: utilitarianism. It judges the broken promise by the misery it causes.
The rule utilitarian asks a different question: which rule, if generally accepted, produces the best consequences? A rule of keeping promises lets people plan and trust one another. So the rule utilitarian keeps this promise even if breaking it once would produce a little more happiness.

In one plain sentence: act utilitarianism weighs this one promise by its results, while rule utilitarianism keeps it because a rule of keeping promises does the most good when people generally follow it.

Here is a caveat worth keeping. Both camps are utilitarian. They agree that happiness for everyone, counted equally, is what matters. They disagree about whether to apply that test to each act or to the rules acts follow.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two options:

(a) Describe a promise from your own life that act utilitarianism might tell you to break, and write two sentences on what a rule utilitarian would say back.
(b) Describe a rule you follow even when breaking it once would do a little good, and write two sentences on whether a rule utilitarian could defend it.

Misconception check — rule utilitarianism is not a different theory from utilitarianism. Students often think a rule utilitarian has given up on consequences and become a rule-follower for its own sake. It is tempting because the word "rule" sounds like a duty. The cure is to ask why the rule is chosen. The rule utilitarian picks rules by their consequences. Results still decide everything; they decide it one level up.

7. Press the theory: justice, rights, and demandingness

Every strong theory faces strong objections. Utilitarianism faces three famous ones. Each is stated here in its best form, and each gets a reply from the utilitarian side.

The justice objection. Go back to the hospital committee. Suppose the allocation of the scarce drug that produces the greatest total passes over the patient who has waited longest, or the one who is worst off. The total is at its best, but the share seems unfair.

Justice objection — the objection to utilitarianism that an outcome with the greatest total happiness can still share benefits and burdens unfairly, so a sum can hide an unfair share.

Reply, from the utilitarian side: fair rules for scarce goods build the trust a hospital needs. Patients who believe the system is fair seek care sooner and cooperate more. So a rule utilitarian supports fair rules on utilitarian grounds.

The rights objection. Picture an office where a rumor is upsetting the whole team. One manager could settle it by secretly reading a coworker's private messages. The total happiness might go up. But the coworker's right to privacy has been overridden.

Rights objection — the objection to utilitarianism that an act could raise total happiness by overriding a person's rights, which seems wrong even when the total goes up.

Reply, from the utilitarian side: rules that protect rights have great utility. People who fear having their rights overridden live worse lives, full of worry and distrust. So the theory, applied with care, protects rights.

The demandingness objection. Utilitarianism says the right act is the one that produces the most happiness. Almost any spare hour could be spent helping someone, and almost any spare dollar could go to someone in greater need.

Demandingness objection — the objection to utilitarianism that, if every act must produce the most happiness, nearly every spare hour and dollar a person has is owed to others, which seems to ask too much.

Reply, from the utilitarian side: a theory of what is best can be demanding. The theory may still separate the best act from the acts that deserve blame, so falling short of the best is not always wrong in the way cruelty is.

Worked example — the justice objection, step by step, on the hospital committee. Walk the test, the objection, and the reply in order.

The utilitarian test: which allocation produces the greatest overall well-being, with each patient counted equally?
The objection: that allocation might pass over the patient who waited longest or is worst off, so the total hides an unfair share.
The reply: a rule of fair allocation builds trust and cooperation, which raise well-being across the whole hospital over time.
What is left open: whether fairness matters only because of its results, or in its own right.

Here is an honesty note. All three objections and all three replies are still argued over, and the course keys no verdict on whether the replies succeed.

Misconception check — an objection with a reply is not a defeat. Students often think that once a theory has a famous objection, it has been refuted. It is tempting because the objections are vivid. The cure is to read the replies. Each one is a serious answer from the theory's side, and that is what an open question looks like.

8. Wade into the pond: the drowning child

Now the week's thought experiment, the Week 11 case on the course's thought-experiment roster.

Peter Singer, in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1972), asks you to imagine walking past a shallow pond. A child is drowning in it. You could wade in and pull the child out. The cost is that your clothes would be ruined. Almost everyone says you must wade in.

The drowning child — Peter Singer's thought experiment of 1972, in which you pass a shallow pond where a child is drowning and could wade in at the cost of ruining your clothes, to ask whether, if you can save a life at small cost, you must.

The roster gives the case a question: If you can save a life at small cost, must you? It tests the duty to aid strangers. Singer states a principle behind the answer.

Singer's principle — the principle from Peter Singer's 1972 paper that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it; Singer says it does not depend on utilitarianism.

That last point matters. A utilitarian accepts the principle, but so might many people who reject utilitarianism. You do not have to add up anyone's happiness to feel the pull of the pond.

Worked example — the pond case in standard form. This is the course's reconstruction (illustrative), written to teach the step.

P1: If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, you ought to do it.

P2: It is in your power to prevent the child's drowning without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance.

C: So you ought to prevent the child's drowning.

Now judge it. P2 affirms the antecedent of P1, the "if" part. The pattern is if P then Q; P; so Q, which is modus ponens. So the argument is valid: if both premises are true, C cannot be false.

Now the strongest objection, from a critic. A stranger far away is not in front of you, and many others could help, so the duty to help that stranger is weaker than the duty at the pond. Reply, from Singer's side: distance and the number of others who could help do not change how bad the suffering is. If the principle holds at the pond, it seems to hold for the stranger too.

That is where the pond meets the demandingness objection. If the principle is true, many small comforts may count as less important than preventing something bad for someone else.

In one plain sentence: the drowning child suggests that if you can prevent something bad at small cost, you ought to, and critics answer that distance and shared responsibility may weaken that duty for strangers.

Misconception check — the pond case is not only about utilitarianism. Students often think the drowning child is a utilitarian argument and stands or falls with the theory. It is tempting because the case appears in a week on utilitarianism. The cure is Singer's own note: his principle does not depend on utilitarianism. Someone who rejects adding up happiness can still accept that you must save the child.

9. Weigh the views side by side

You now have the theory, its founders, its two forms, its three objections, and the pond. The fair way to compare them is the course's way: each view in its strongest form, its strongest objection, and a reply from its own side.

Bentham and Mill, and act and rule utilitarianism, compared on what each claims and where each parts from the other
View	What it claims	Where it parts from its partner
Bentham	Pain and pleasure are the measure of good and bad outcomes.	Pleasures differ in amount.
Mill	Rightness comes in degrees, by how far an act tends to bring about happiness.	Pleasures differ in quality as well as in amount.
Act utilitarianism	Judge each act by its own consequences.	Breaks a rule whenever breaking it does more good this time.
Rule utilitarianism	Judge acts by rules whose general acceptance does the most good.	Keeps a good rule even when one breach would do a little more good.

Worked example — the timeline and the tally. Line up the week's dated works, then count Dataset J.

Bentham's book: printed 1780, published 1789 − 1780 = 9 years later.
Mill's articles: 1861 − 1789 = 72 years after that. Mill's book: 1863 − 1861 = 2 years after the articles.
Singer's paper: 1972 − 1863 = 109 years after Mill's book.
Dataset J: 8 statements, 2 for each of Dataset D's 4 theories, so 8 ÷ 4 = 2.
This week keys 2 of them, statements 1 and 2, both to utilitarianism. So 8 − 2 = 6 statements remain for the other 3 theories, and 3 × 2 = 6 checks the count.

In words: the theory's main sources span from 1780 to 1972, and 6 of Dataset J's statements wait for the theories still to come.

Where do the views disagree, in one plain sentence? They agree that happiness for everyone, counted equally, is what matters, and they disagree about whether pleasures differ in kind and whether to test each act or each rule, while the justice, rights, and demandingness objections ask whether happiness is all that matters.

A limitation to keep in view: this week states only one of the 4 ethical theories, and the course keys no verdict on whether it is the right one. Your job is to state it so well that its own defenders would sign it.

Misconception check — one theory per week is not a ranking. Students often think the theory taught first must be the course's favorite, or the one taught to be knocked down. It is tempting because order can feel like a judgment. The cure is the course's rule: every theory gets its strongest form, its strongest objections, and its replies. The order follows how the theories build on one another, not which one is right.

Key terms

Consequentialism — The family of ethical views holding that whether an act is right depends only on its consequences, on what the act brings about. (first used: 1. Name the family: judge an act by its results)
Utilitarianism — The consequentialist theory that the right act is the one that produces the greatest overall happiness, with each person's happiness counted equally. (first used: 1. Name the family: judge an act by its results)
Impartiality — Counting each person's happiness and suffering equally, so that no one's counts for more because of who they are, the agent's own included. (first used: 3. Count everyone equally)
Greatest Happiness Principle — John Stuart Mill's statement of utilitarianism in Utilitarianism, Chapter II, which holds, in paraphrase, that an act is more right the more it tends to bring about happiness, and wrong to the degree that it tends to bring about unhappiness. (first used: 4. Meet Mill: the Greatest Happiness Principle)
Higher and lower pleasures — Mill's distinction between kinds of pleasure that differ in quality as well as in amount, so that some kinds of pleasure count as higher than others; it is a point on which Mill parts from Bentham. (first used: 4. Meet Mill: the Greatest Happiness Principle)
Act utilitarianism — The form of utilitarianism that judges each act by its own consequences, asking which act available here and now produces the most happiness for everyone affected. (first used: 6. Split the theory: act and rule utilitarianism)
Rule utilitarianism — The form of utilitarianism that judges acts by whether they follow rules whose general acceptance would produce the best consequences. (first used: 6. Split the theory: act and rule utilitarianism)
Justice objection — The objection to utilitarianism that an outcome with the greatest total happiness can still share benefits and burdens unfairly, so a sum can hide an unfair share. (first used: 7. Press the theory: justice, rights, and demandingness)
Rights objection — The objection to utilitarianism that an act could raise total happiness by overriding a person's rights, which seems wrong even when the total goes up. (first used: 7. Press the theory: justice, rights, and demandingness)
Demandingness objection — The objection to utilitarianism that, if every act must produce the most happiness, nearly every spare hour and dollar a person has is owed to others, which seems to ask too much. (first used: 7. Press the theory: justice, rights, and demandingness)
The drowning child — Peter Singer's thought experiment of 1972, in which you pass a shallow pond where a child is drowning and could wade in at the cost of ruining your clothes, to ask whether, if you can save a life at small cost, you must. (first used: 8. Wade into the pond: the drowning child)
Singer's principle — The principle from Peter Singer's 1972 paper that if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it; Singer says it does not depend on utilitarianism. (first used: 8. Wade into the pond: the drowning child)

Summary

Consequentialism judges an act only by its consequences.
Utilitarianism: the right act produces the greatest overall happiness, with each person counted equally.
Bentham's Principles (printed 1780, published 1789) opens by naming pain and pleasure as two sovereign masters.
Utilitarianism counts everyone, and the agent counts once; counting only yourself is ethical egoism.
Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle ties rightness to the tendency to promote happiness.
Mill parts from Bentham: pleasures differ in quality as well as in amount.
Dataset B's argument 3 is valid by hypothetical syllogism and is never keyed for soundness.
Act utilitarianism tests each act; rule utilitarianism tests the rules acts follow.
The justice, rights, and demandingness objections each press the theory, and each has a reply.
The drowning child (Singer, 1972) asks whether you must save a life at small cost; its argument is valid by modus ponens.
No ethical theory is keyed as correct.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

Sort each claim under the view it expresses: (a) "Do whatever turns out best for you, whatever it does to anyone else." (b) "Tell the truth, because a world where people generally tell the truth goes better for everyone." (c) "This time, the white lie would spare more hurt than it causes, so tell it."
A student writes: "If a park cleanup makes the neighborhood happier, the club should hold it. If the club should hold it, members should sign up. So if a park cleanup makes the neighborhood happier, members should sign up." Put the argument in standard form, name its form, and say whether it is valid.
A classmate says, "Mill was only repeating Bentham in nicer words." Explain what is wrong with that sentence, and rewrite it so it states the relationship fairly.
A volunteer at a food bank says, "Utilitarianism is selfish, because it tells you to chase happiness." Explain the mistake in two or three sentences.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

(a) Ethical egoism, not utilitarianism: it counts only the agent's own good. (b) Rule utilitarianism: it picks a rule, truth-telling, by the good its general acceptance does. (c) Act utilitarianism: it judges this one act by its own results.
P1: If a park cleanup makes the neighborhood happier, the club should hold it. P2: If the club should hold it, members should sign up. C: So if a park cleanup makes the neighborhood happier, members should sign up. Let P be "a park cleanup makes the neighborhood happier", Q be "the club should hold it", and R be "members should sign up". The pattern is if P then Q; if Q then R; so if P then R, which is hypothetical syllogism. That form is valid. Whether the premises are true is a separate question.
Mill shares Bentham's core, happiness for everyone counted equally, but he parts from Bentham on pleasure. Bentham treats pleasures as differing in amount; Mill holds that they also differ in quality, with higher and lower pleasures. A fair version: "Mill kept Bentham's core idea but argued that pleasures differ in quality as well as in amount."
Utilitarianism tells you to produce the most happiness for everyone affected, counted equally, and you count only once. That is the opposite of selfish: it can require giving up your own comfort when others gain more. The view that tells you to chase only your own good is ethical egoism.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, the quiz, the discussion, and the assignment. Next week, Kant's test of universal law and Aristotle's virtue ethics take up the duties and the character that utilitarianism is pressed on.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com