Britannica Sources used in this answer

Why do critics argue that utilitarianism may allow ends to justify harmful means?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Jeremy Bentham: auto-icon — Utilitarianism English philosopher and economist Jeremy Bentham's preserved skeleton in his own clothes and surmounted by a wax head, at University College London.

Critics argue that utilitarianism may allow ends to justify harmful means because the theory is a form of consequentialism, which evaluates the morality of an action solely based on its outcomes rather than the nature of the act itself.12

Because utilitarianism separates the achieved ends from the actions used to produce them, it imposes no inherent limits on the methods employed to reach a desired result. Consequently, if an action—such as breaking a promise or executing an innocent person—is calculated to produce the best overall balance of happiness or minimize suffering, the theory may imply that such an act is morally permissible or even required.13

Opponents often point out that these implications conflict with common moral intuitions. In response, some philosophers have defended rule utilitarianism, which judges actions based on their adherence to useful general rules rather than the consequences of each individual act, thereby attempting to avoid the "shocking" implications of traditional act-based utilitarianism.435