Encyclopedia of Global Justice

2011 Edition
| Editors: Deen K. Chatterjee


  • Matthew Mosdell
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_53

Utilitarianism is the view that an action is right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. As aphilosophical position, it is to be distinguished from consequentialist views more broadly, which hold that the moral status of an action is solely determined by consequences. The difference, then,is that utilitarianism is committed to aparticular conception of right-making consequences that other consequentialist positions may not accept. Be that as it may, the moniker “utilitarianism” is often used rather loosely to demarcate any consequentialist position. This fact speaks to the view’s deep influence in moral debates since its articulate defense by John Stuart Mill in the second half of the nineteenth century. Now, though there are many writers in contemporary philosophy enamored of consequentialist views and who consider themselves, in one guise or another, to be utilitarians, it is the ancestral position that we will focus on here.


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


  1. Bentham J(1961) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Doubleday Press, Garden City (originally published in 1789)Google Scholar
  2. Hare RM (1981)Moral thinking. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lyons D(1965) Forms and limits of utilitarianism. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Mill JS (1861)Utilitarianism. Fraser’s Magazine, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Sen A(1979) Utilitarianism and welfarism. JPhilos 76:463–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sidgwick H(1907) The methods of ethics, 7thedn. Macmillan, London (first edition published 1874)Google Scholar
  7. Singer M(1977) Actual consequence utilitarianism. Mind 86:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Williams B(1973) Acritique of utilitarianism. In: Smart JJC, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp77–150Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Mosdell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA