This article is part of the Easy Philosophy series. Explore the ethics of Utilitarianism through the police chief dilemma.

Level 1: Beginner

Vocabulary

• Innocent (adjective): Did nothing wrong.

• Crowd (noun): A large group of people.

• Strict (adjective): Describing a rule that you must follow exactly.

• Results (noun): What happens after you do something.

• Happiness (noun): The feeling of being happy or glad.

Text

You are the boss of the police in a small town. You have a man in your police station. He is innocent.

Outside, there is an angry crowd. They want the man. If you give the man to the crowd, he will not live.

You do not want to give them the man. But if you say no, the crowd will burn the town. Many people will get hurt.

What do you do? Do you save the one man, or do you save the town?

If you choose to save the town, maybe you are a ‘utilitarian’.

In the past, people followed strict rules. For example: ‘Stealing is always wrong.’

But utilitarians think differently. They think about the results. They want the most happiness and the least pain for the most people.

Think of the story of Robin Hood. He stole money from a few rich people to buy food for a lot of poor people. A utilitarian might (maybe will) say stealing is not bad if it helps more people than it hurts.

But is it good to give an innocent man to an angry crowd? Maybe a utilitarian will say yes because it saves the town, or no because people will not trust the police anymore in the future.

This means even more people can be hurt in the future.

It is difficult to know what all the results of a choice will be.

Your turn

Here are some questions to increase your understanding and help you remember any new vocabulary. Try answering them with a friend or tutor, or write the answers down. Try to use any new vocabulary in your answers.

• What will you do? Save the man or save the town?
  
• Do you think Robin Hood is a good man? Why?
  
• Is it okay to do a bad thing if it helps a lot of people?

Did you find this level of English comfortable? Then congratulations! Now you can try the next level of difficulty below.

Level 2: Intermediate

Vocabulary

• Utilitarian (noun/adjective): Someone who believes the right action is the one that creates the most happiness for the biggest number of people.

• Chief (noun): The leader or most important person in a group (like the police).

• Sacrifice (verb): To give up something very valuable (like a life) to get something else that is more important.

• Weigh [something] against [something] (phrasal verb): To carefully compare two things so you can make a difficult decision.

• Based on (phrasal verb): Using an idea, fact, or situation as the starting point for something else.

Text

You have a choice.

You are the chief of police in a small town. Outside your window is an angry crowd of people. They are shouting for you to give them the innocent traveller you have in your police station cells. You know that if you give them the traveller, the traveller will not survive.

You know it is wrong to sacrifice an innocent person just because some people are angry. But you know that if you don’t, then the angry crowd will burn the town. This will probably injure many other people or worse.

What do you do in this situation? Do you protect the innocent traveller, or do you try to save the town by sacrificing the one person?

If you are weighing the loss of one life against the loss of many lives, you are thinking like a utilitarian.

For a long time, morality (the question of what is right and wrong) was based on strict rules. For example, stealing and lying were always wrong, regardless of the reason.

Philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill had a different idea. They believed morality should be based on consequences (the results of an action).

They said that the right action is the one that gives the most happiness and the least pain for the biggest number of people.

Think about Robin Hood, the famous English hero who stole from the rich to give to the poor. A utilitarian would say his stealing was good because it helped hungry people and made more people happy than sad.

This philosophy is called utilitarianism.

Let’s go back to the police station. You feel nervous when you look at the angry crowd outside. But a utilitarian would say you should give the traveller to them. You should sacrifice one life to save the whole town.

But how can such a bad act be good? This is a big problem with utilitarianism. It can make us accept terrible acts if the happiness outweighs (is more than) the pain.

But it is not always that simple. What happens if you give the traveller to the angry crowd? In the future, people will stop trusting the police to protect them. A society without trust in the law will experience a lot more pain if people do not want to call the police for help. Because of this, maybe a utilitarian would protect the traveller and let the town burn instead!

This shows another problem with utilitarianism. It is almost impossible to guess all the future results of our choices.

In the end, utilitarianism asks a very difficult question: is an action good just because it has a good result, or are there some things that are always wrong?

Your turn

Here are some questions to increase your understanding and help you remember any new vocabulary. Try answering them with a friend or tutor, or write the answers down. Try to use any new vocabulary in your answers.

• If you were a utilitarian, what would you tell the police chief to do? Why?
  
• Do you agree with Robin Hood’s actions? Is it okay to steal if it helps hungry people?
  
• Can you think of any actions that are always wrong, no matter what?

Did you find this level of English comfortable? Then congratulations! Now you can try the next level of difficulty below.

Level 3: Advanced

Vocabulary

• Appease (verb): To calm someone down or satisfy them by giving them what they want, often something you do not really want to give.

• Scapegoat (noun): A person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done.

• Condone (verb): To accept, allow, or approve of behaviour that is usually considered morally wrong.

• Impassively (adverb): Doing something without showing any emotion or reaction.

• Utility (noun): In philosophy, this refers to the overall happiness, benefit, or usefulness that an action creates.

• Trickle (noun/verb): A small, slow flow of liquid (like sweat, water, or blood).

Text

You are faced with a choice.

You stand behind your desk, the chief of police in a small town. Outside your window is an angry mob, shouting for you to hand over the innocent traveller you have in your cells. You shiver; you know what will happen to the traveller if you hand them over.

It is wrong to sacrifice an innocent just to appease a mob, to turn the unfortunate traveller into a scapegoat. That’s obvious. It is wrong and you won’t do it. But as you look into the angry faces outside, you realise something: if you don’t hand the prisoner over, the angry mob will certainly destroy the town, likely injuring many others, or worse.

What do you do in this situation? How do you decide the traveller’s and the town’s fate?

Many of you will probably ask: ‘What are the chances the mob will actually injure others if they destroy the town? How much destruction or risk is one innocent life worth?’

If you find yourself weighing the definite loss of one innocent person against the probable loss of many lives, you are already engaged in utilitarian calculations that have deep roots in Western philosophy.

For much of history, morality, the question of what is right and wrong, was defined by strict, unbreakable rules. For example, stealing was always wrong, no matter what the reason for doing so was; lying was always a sin against God(s), even with good intentions.

However, philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill popularised a different approach. They argued that morality should not be based on rigid rules, but on consequences – the results of an action. Essentially, the morally right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness (‘utility’ in their words) and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of people.

This is known as the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle’.

After all, can stealing be so wrong if it only harms those who can afford it, but helps those who can’t? Surely, the theft of bread by a hungry mother trying to feed her children can’t be so wrong.

Robin Hood, that famous English folk hero and bandit who stole from the rich and gave to the poor, would no doubt have been a utilitarian.

These views came to be known as utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is a type of utilitarianism and is the idea that we should do this calculation for every single morally significant action we take, weighing the potential happiness against the potential pain.

Let’s return to the police station, where you are still standing stiffly, eyes on the mob outside, and a trickle of sweat running down your face as you decide the traveller’s fate.

You think about the destruction of the town, all the damage that could be caused, and the high chance of the loss of more innocent lives. You contrast this to the loss of a single innocent life, so easily given up.

For a strict act utilitarian, the calculation seems clear. One life in exchange for many. One life to avoid the suffering caused by the destruction of the town and the breakdown of law and order. Perhaps the strict act utilitarian would go down to the cells and drag the unfortunate traveller up to the mob.

You may ask: how can such a cruel act be good, be moral?

This is indeed pointed out as a major flaw in utilitarianism, that it sometimes leads us to condone what we feel are horrific injustices if the numbers add up, often going against our own moral intuitions.

But are we being too harsh on utilitarians? After all, shouldn’t we also consider what it would be like to live in a society where the police could not be trusted to protect an innocent person from an angry mob? The future suffering caused by the lack of trust in the police may be so much greater than the destruction of one town, and wouldn’t giving the traveller up be a step towards such a society?

If so, then that should also be included in our calculations, and perhaps you ought to stand there impassively as the town burns around you.

This uncertainty highlights another flaw in trying to use act utilitarianism as a moral code to live by. Human actions are often unpredictable, and humans are often unable to weigh up all the possible outcomes correctly, especially in moments of high pressure when such a moral code would be needed.

Ultimately, act utilitarianism forces us to ask an uncomfortable question: is an action truly good just because it has a good result, or are some actions fundamentally wrong, regardless of the consequences?

Your turn

Here are some questions to increase your understanding and help you remember any new vocabulary. Try answering them with a friend or tutor, or write the answers down. Try to use any new vocabulary in your answers.

• If you were the police chief, would you hand over the traveller to save the town? Why or why not?
  
• Do you agree with the utilitarian view of Robin Hood? Is stealing acceptable if it truly helps people who are suffering?
  
• Which is worse for a society: the physical destruction of one town, or the complete loss of public trust in the police?
  
• Can you think of ways to improve utilitarianism?
  
• What are some actions that are always wrong, no matter what? Why are they wrong?

Did you find this level of English too easy? Then congratulations! You can try engaging with native-level content or check out some of my other articles.

About the author
Joe Tuckwell is an English teacher and the creator of English with Ideas.