Difference between revisions of "Timeline of utilitarianism"

From Timelines
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎See also)
 
Line 401: Line 401:
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 +
 +
* [[Timeline of effective altruism]]
 +
* [[Timeline of animal welfare and rights]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==

Latest revision as of 14:29, 4 November 2023

This is a timeline of utilitarianism, a moral theory that judges the morality of actions based on their ability to promote happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism was developed by philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th centuries. The theory holds that actions are morally right if they lead to the greatest good or utility for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that it evaluates the morality of actions based on their outcomes. It prioritizes the interests of the majority over the interests of the minority, and thus can justify actions that violate individual rights or interests if they promote the greater good. However, some utilitarians argue that individual rights and interests are still important, as they can contribute to overall happiness.

Sample questions

The following are some interesting questions that can be answered by reading this timeline:

  • What are the several variations and interpretations within the broader framework of utilitarianism?
    • Sort the full timeline by "Approach".
    • You will see a number of variations, but most often act utilitarianism, which considers only the results or consequences of the single act[1], and rule utilitarianism, which considers the consequences that result of following a rule of conduct.[1]
  • What types of utility are covered in this timeline?
    • Sort the full timeline by "Type of utility".
    • You will see a variety of types, but mostly hedonistic utility, which focuses on the overall experienced pleasure and pain, and preference utility, which assesses the relative benefit based on the relative value of the options available to an individual.[2]
  • What are some metaethical perspectives illustrating different ways in which utilitarian ethics can be grounded and understood?
    • Sort the full timeline by "Meta-ethics".
    • You will mostly see naturalistic metaethical approach cases, which seek to ground utilitarian ethics in natural, observable phenomena without relying on supernatural entities or metaphysical concepts.
  • What is the range of individuals or sentient beings whose well-being is taken into account when evaluating the moral worth of an action or decision?
    • Sort the full timeline by "Scope".
    • You will mostly see human-centric scope events, which focus primarily or exclusively on human well-being. You will also see sentient beings scope events, which include not only humans but also animals and potentially other conscious entities capable of experiencing pleasure or suffering.
  • Who are some important figures in the development of utilitarianism?
    • Sort the full timeline by "Event type" and look for the group of rows with value "Notable birth".
    • You will read the names of prominent figures, such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and R.M. Hare.
  • What are some notable or sample publications on the topic?
    • Sort the full timeline by "Event type" and look for the group of rows with value "Literature".
    • You will see publications from the main utilitarian thinkers as well as modern, more contemporaneous books.
  • What types or variations of utilitarianism and other related concepts have emerged over time?
    • Sort the full timeline by "Event type" and look for the group of rows with value "Concept development".
    • You will mostly see a variety of versions of utilitarianism, such as rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism.
  • What are some statements criticising utilitarianism?
    • Sort the full timeline by "Event type" and look for the group of rows with value "Criticism".
    • You will mostly see criticism by important figures and scholars towards utilitarianism.
  • Other events are described under the following types: "Early thinking", and "organization".

Big picture

Time period Development summary More details
17th to mid-18th century Precursors and Early Utilitarianism Age of Enlightenment in Europe. Reason and empirical evidence challenge religious moral philosophies. Enlightenment ideals pave the way for utilitarianism by emphasizing reason and empirical observation in moral reasoning. This period is characterized by the works of philosophers such as Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, and Jeremy Bentham's father James Bentham, who lays the groundwork for the development of utilitarian thought. During this period, these philosophers develop the basic ideas of utilitarianism, including the concept of the greatest happiness principle and the idea that the morality of an action should be judged by its consequences. Also, theological utilitarianism, a strain of moral philosophy, develops in England and Scotland. Thinkers like William Paley, John Gay, John Brown, and Joseph Priestley contribute significantly to this movement. Religion plays a central role in their utilitarian theories.[3]
Late 18th to mid-19th century Classical Utilitarianism This period is marked by the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who are considered the most influential philosophers of the utilitarian tradition. Bentham develops a comprehensive theory of utilitarianism that includes the principle of utility, the measurement of pleasure and pain, and the idea of maximizing happiness for the greatest number of people. Mill builds on Bentham's ideas and develops a more nuanced understanding of pleasure and pain, distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures and arguing that the aim of utilitarianism should be to maximize happiness and reduce suffering. Also, there's a shift towards secular utilitarianism. While theological utilitarians address existing moral practices and morality, secular utilitarianism, commonly traced back to Bentham, becomes reform-oriented. It places emphasis on social reform, challenging societal norms and advocating for a utilitarian approach to legislation and ethics.[3]
Late 19th to mid-20th century Neo-utilitarianism Utilitarianism is already fully articulated.[4] This period is characterized by the work of philosophers such as Henry Sidgwick, G.E. Moore, and R.M. Hare, who seek to refine and develop the ideas of classical utilitarianism. These philosophers address criticisms of utilitarianism, develop more sophisticated theories of ethics, and contribute to the development of the broader philosophical movement of analytic philosophy.
Mid-20th century to present Contemporary Utilitarianism This period is marked by the work of philosophers such as Peter Singer, Derek Parfit, and R. M. Hare, who continue to refine and develop the ideas of utilitarianism in response to new challenges and criticisms. In the 1970s, utilitarian ethics is revived by Singer and Parfit.[5] Contemporary utilitarianism has expanded beyond its original focus on maximizing happiness to include concerns such as animal welfare, environmental ethics, and global justice.
21st century Effective Altruism Movement Effective altruism emerges as a movement in the early 21st century, focusing on applying utilitarian principles to maximize the impact of charitable actions and promote effective giving. The movement emphasizes evidence-based decision-making, cause prioritization, and addressing the most pressing global problems. Today, utilitarianism remains a prominent ethical theory, with ongoing debates, critiques, and adaptations in various fields, including bioethics and environmental ethics.[4]

Full timeline

Inclusion criteria

We include:

  • Pioneering and influencial figures in the history of utilitarianism.
  • Some historical antecedents dating back to ancient times.
  • Important publications for their historical contributions and some notable, more contemporary books.
  • Some notable or illustrative criticism cases.
  • Introductions to new types of utilitarianism.

We do not include:

  • Most bibliography on the topic.
  • Conferences.

Timeline

Year Event type Approach Type of utility Meta-ethics Scope Details
551–479 BCE Early thinking Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric Confucianism emerges in Ancient China. Confucius promotes social order, hierarchical relationships, and moral virtues as the foundation of a harmonious society. This era marks the rise of Confucian moral philosophy, whose emphasis on social harmony can be seen as a precursor to utilitarian concerns for societal well-being.
470–390 BCE Early thinking Rule utilitarianism Preference Theological Human-centric Mohism challenges Confucianism. Chinese philosopher Mozi advocates universal love and humanitarian values, questioning social inequality. The founder of the school of Mohism, he describes heaven as primary moral authority.[6] According to Mozi, universal love is really the way of the sage-kings. It is what gives peace to the rulers and sustenance to the people.[7] Today, Mozi is classified as a utilitarian.[6] Mohism's emphasis on benefiting all aligns with utilitarian focus on the greatest good for the greatest number.
341 BCE Notable birth Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus is born.[8] Epicurus would believe that the outcomes of our actions have significance and that the well-being of others is important. He would advocate pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain as the primary objectives in a wise person's life, long before Bentham. According to Geoffrey Scarre, John Stuart Mill would view utilitarianism and Epicureanism as fundamentally similar philosophies.[9] His perspective can be seen as an early version of utilitarianism, and his ethical teachings would have an impact on the development of utilitarianism in England during the nineteenth century.[10]
1672 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric English philosopher Richard Cumberland publishes De legibus naturae (On natural laws), which propounds utilitarianism and opposes the egoistic ethics of Thomas Hobbes. Cumberland believes that actively seeking the well-being of the collective ultimately benefits each individual and leads to personal happiness. Conversely, he argues that actions contrary to this principle result in misery for individuals, including oneself. He also emphasizes that benevolence serves as the motivation for social behavior, and his social theory centers around the concept of universal benevolence.[11]
1725 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson publishes An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, which comprises two treatises that explore aesthetic and moral abilities.[12] He is the first to speak of the greatest happiness of the greatest number; more importantly, he is considered the earliest writer to enunciate a philosophy that can without qualification be termed "utilitarian".[13]:53}} Hutcheson first introduces a key utilitarian phrase:
When choosing the most moral action, the amount of virtue in a particular action is proportionate to the number of people such brings happiness to.[14][15]
1728 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic English philosopher Susanna Newcome publishes An Enquiry into the Evidence of the Christian Religion, which contains an early formulation of utilitarian thought. Newcome offers a utilitarian account of the nature of ethics and our moral duties by synthesizing contemporary developments in natural theology and moral psychology.[16][17]
1730 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric English philosopher John Gay publishes essay entitled Preliminary Dissertation Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality, in which he states that universal happiness is the aim of moral action.[18] A disciple of John Locke, Gay is considered by some as the founder of utilitarian morality.[19]
1731 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic John Gay publishes In Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality. Some would claim that he developed the first systematic theory of utilitarian ethics.[20][21]
1739 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric David Hume publishes his Treatise of Human Nature, in which he discusses the concept of love for humanity. He argues that there is no inherent passion solely for the love of mankind as a general concept. However, he suggests that although we may not have a natural inclination to love humanity in the abstract, we are capable of experiencing altruistic concern for strangers when we come into contact with them. Hume is often identified as an early utilitarian philosopher, but he is also regarded as politically conservative.[13]
1743 Notable birth Rule utilitarianism Theological Sentient beings[22] William Paley is born. He would become a clergyman, Christian apologist, philosopher, and utilitarian. Described as a theological utilitarian[23], according to J. B. Schneewind (1977) "utilitarianism first became widely known in England through the work of William Paley."[24]
1748 Notable birth Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Sentient beings[25] Jeremy Bentham is born in London.[4] He would become an influential British philosopher, jurist, and social reformer of the 18th and 19th centuries. Often regarded as the founder of classical utilitarianism,[26] Bentham's ethical philosophy, often referred to as "hedonistic utilitarianism," argues that the principle of utility should guide individual and societal decision-making.[27] According to Bentham, the right course of action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.[28]
1749 Literature Rule utilitarianism Naturalistic Sentient beings David Hartley publishes his Observations on Man, his Frame, his Duty, and his Expectations. While perhaps not definitely preparing the way for the utilitarian doctrine in so far as it would be destined to make possible the formation of autonomous moral sciences, Hartley wishes to found a 'psychology', a theory of human and animal intelligence, a branch of 'natural philosophy', a science which, when once the 'general laws' which govern ' phenomena ' have been discovered by means of ' analysis', will be of a deductive or ' synthetic' character.[19]
1751 Literature Preference Naturalistic Human-centric David Hume publishes An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, in which he views sympathy as the fact of human nature lying at the basis of all social life and personal happiness.[29]
1755 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric Francis Hutcheson’s book A System of Moral Philosophy is posthumously published. It repeats, in essence, the utilitarian content of his previous work Inquiry, but is notable for its more subtle treatment of the nature of the good life, wherein it anticipates not so much Bentham as J.S.Mill. According to Hutcheson, a crucial aspect of living well is leading a virtuous life. This involves maintaining a sense of equanimity and a broad, all-encompassing love for universal happiness, and being able to prioritize this over more narrow, self-interested concerns. In Hutcheson's view, the ability to control one's narrower emotions in the face of opposing interests and to sacrifice personal interests for the greater good represents the highest level of human virtue.[30][13]:55
1764 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria writes On Crimes and Punishments, an influential treatise on the criminal law advocating "the greatest happiness divided among the greatest number".[31][13]:23 Beccaria argues that punishment should be public, prompt, necessary, minimal under the circumstances, proportionate to the crimes, and established by law to avoid being an act of violence. He believes punishment serves to deter the offender from repeating the crime and discourage others from committing it. Severity of punishment should be based on the harm caused by the offense, not the intent of the offender, and should not exceed what is necessary for deterrence. Beccaria opposes capital punishment, except in limited cases, and condemns the use of torture against individuals whose guilt has not been established. The book also discusses imprisonment and banishment as sanctions, and examines specific offenses in terms of their severity and corresponding punishments.[32]
1774 Notable statement Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric French philosopher Claude Adrien Helvétius states that "wise laws would be able without doubt to bring about the miracle of a universal happiness".[33] Helvétius, like François-Jean de Chastellux, exemplifies utilitarianism in pre-revolutionary France. Both are deeply committed to the improvement of the condition of the poor and believe that governments have a duty to foster the general good. For these writers, as for others of their compatriots, utilitarianism is primarily a political philosophy and less a theory of personal morality.[13]:50
1774 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric François-Jean de Chastellux writes: "It is an indisputable point, (or at least, there is room to think it, in this philosophical age, an acknowledged truth)" in his essay De la félicité publique, "that the first object of all governments, should be to render the people happy".[34][13]:50
1776 Literature Rule utilitarianism Naturalistic Human-centric Jeremy Bentham publishes his Fragment on Government, which first attempts to apply the principle of utility in a systematic and methodical manner to the theory of government.[19]:11[35]
1776 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith publishes The Wealth of Nations, which tries to solve the economic problem by taking his stand on the principle of utility.[19] Utilitarian economists would argue that Smith's concept of the Invisible Hand of the Market is a natural phenomenon resulting from entirely voluntary exchanges, while they would view government intervention as artificial and coercive.[36] First introduced in The Wealth of Nations, the concept of the invisible hand refers to the unseen market force that facilitates the equilibrium between supply and demand in a free market.[37]
1781 Concept development Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the neologism ‘utilitarian’ occurs for the first time in a letter of Jeremy Bentham of this year, where a certain clergyman is described as ‘a very worthy creature…a naturalist, a chemist, a physician’—and ‘a utilitarian’.[13]:4
1785 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric English philosopher William Paley publishes The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy,[38] which applies the principle of utility to the problems of morals and of theology. Paley defines happiness as a sum of pleasures, which differ only in their duration and intensity, or, more exactly, as the excess of a sum of pleasures over a sum of pains. He thinks that moral actions differ from immoral actions by their tendency, and that the criterium of law is utility.[19] Some identify Paley as a co-developer with Bentham of the principles of utilitarianism.[39]
1787 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference, economic Naturalistic Human-centric During a visit to Russia, Jeremy Bentham writes Defence of Usury, Shewing the Impolity of the Present Legal Restraints on the Terms of Pecuniary Bargains in a Series of Letters to a Friend. In his first attempt at political economy, Jeremy Bentham adopts the fundamental ideas of Adam Smith.[19]:88 The book would become a success, with four editions published in Bentham's lifetime. In the work, Bentham addresses objections to the regulation of usury and advocates for the rights of marginalized individuals. He emphasizes the importance of personal judgment and the pursuit of happiness, laying the foundation for modern utility theory. Bentham's writing style, although complex, allows him to humorously criticize legislators and judges. While Bentham corresponds with Adam Smith, their intellectual disagreements would persist. This book is written in a period when scientific discoveries are unfolding but lack concrete certainty.[40]
1789 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Jeremy Bentham publishes An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation[41], which defines the principle of utility as “that property in any object whereby it tends to produce pleasure, good or happiness, or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered.”[42] Bentham writes "The principle of utility…approves or disapproves of every action according to the tendency it appears to have to increase or lessen—i.e. to promote or oppose—the happiness of the person or group whose interest is in question."[43]
1793 Concept development Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic German philosopher Immanuel Kant defines "Enlightenment" (Aufklärung) as the "exit by man from his own selfimposed minority", when he begins to rely on his own understanding and rejects the guidance of others.[44] According to Scarre (1996), utilitarian moral thought would be "enlightened" in this Kantian sense: utilitarians would refuse to be guided by authority, and insisted on working out their own positions from first principles.[13]:50
1793 Notable statement Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric English philosopher and political thinker William Godwin declares that "Few things have contributed more to undermine the energy and virtue of the human species, than the supposition that we have a right, as it has been phrased, to do what we will with our own". He also claims that "Every man has a certain sphere of discretion, which he has a right to expect should not be infringed by his neighbours". Godwin feels a deep respect for individual liberty of thought and action which would never quite succeed in squaring with his maximising views. According to Geoffrey Scarre, Godwin would become a less consistent utilitarian than he aspired to be.[13]:70-71
1794 Early thinking Act utilitarianism Eudaimonic Naturalistic People in the future In France, despite living during a time of great violence, and with the guillotine casting its shadow over him, philosopher and mathematician Nicolas de Condorcet envisions a future era where hunger would be eliminated, every illness would have a cure, people's lifespan would have no limit, slavery would be eradicated, women would enjoy equal status with men, war would be eradicated, and education and the arts would thrive.[13]:49
1806 Notable birth Naturalistic Sentient beings[45] John Stuart Mill is born.[46] He would become a prominent philosopher, political economist, and social reformer of the 19th century. Today, he is best known for his influential works on utilitarianism, liberalism, and individual liberty.
1811 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Jeremy Bentham publishes Punishments and Rewards, in which he writes "To what shall the character of utility be ascribed, if not to that which is a source of pleasure?".[47]
1815 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Jeremy Bentham publishes A Table of the Springs of Action, which seeks to identify and classify the different motives or "springs of action" that drive human behavior. Like Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780), it explores the diverse range of reasons that drive human behavior and seeks to illustrate how these reasons can ultimately be traced back to the influence of two primary forces: pleasure and pain.[13]:73 A Table of the Springs of Action contains an elaborate taxonomy of motives, supplying among other things fifty-four synonyms of the word ‘pleasure’ and sixtyseven of ‘pain’.[48][13]:76
1819 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric James Mill publishes Essay on Government, written for the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The piece presents the utilitarian perspective in a straightforward manner. It argues that the goal of government is to maximize the overall happiness of society by minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure. An individual's level of happiness is determined by the magnitude of their pleasures and the intensity of their pains.[13]:85
1824 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic James Mill publishes his two-volume work Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, in which he demonstrates his ability to conduct a detailed examination of mental processes and tendencies. Despite adhering to an associationist theory of the mind, he even endeavors to justify the presence of authentically altruistic emotions.[13]:87
1825 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Jeremy Bentham publishes The Rationale of Reward[49], in which he argues that society should design its laws and systems of punishments and rewards to ensure that serving society is pleasant while acting against its interests is painful. Bentham's writings explore the tension between what is and what should be, recognizing the disparity between people's words, actions, and moral obligations. His theories are supported by observation and applied to various domains such as government, jurisprudence, criminology, and the arts.[50]
1829 Literature Preference Naturalistic Human-centric British historian Thomas Babington Macaulay publishes paper Mill on government in the conservative Edinburgh Review. Its critiques anticipate many of the objections that J.S. Mill would later make about Benthamism in his works throughout the following ten years.[13]:86
1834 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Jeremy Bentham publishes Deontology, in which he acknowledges the existence of a human inclination towards philanthropy and selflessness.[13]:77
1838 (May 31) Notable birth Naturalistic Sentient beings[51] Henry Sidgwick is born.[52] He would be considered one of the most influential figures in the utilitarian tradition.
1838 Criticism Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic John Stuart Mill softens his critique of Bentham and acknowledges that he has contributed to ethical thought by proposing a straightforward and clear standard for assessing the moral worth of actions in terms of their ability to generate pleasure or pain. Although this criterion was insufficient, it was an improvement over the imprecise and untestable appeals to moral intuition that dominated the work of most moral philosophers. Nevertheless, there is still a significant omission in Bentham's work: he failed to recognize that human beings are capable of striving for spiritual perfection as an end in itself and of aspiring to align their own character with their own standards of excellence without external incentives or disincentives beyond their own conscience, a shortcoming that Mill identified in his 1838 writing.[13]:88
1843 Literature Rule utilitarianism Eudaimonic Naturalistic Human-centric John Stuart Mill expresses his opinion about the significance of character in human life in his book A System of Logic. He believes that a person's character should be the ultimate goal in life because possessing ideal nobleness of character or coming close to it would contribute more towards making human life happy than anything else. This happiness can be achieved in two ways, firstly by experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain, and secondly by giving life a higher purpose that is significant and meaningful to human beings with highly developed abilities.[13]:90
1848 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Sentient beings John Stuart Mill publishes Principles of Political Economy, which would become a highly influential textbook in the field of economics and political economy during the mid-nineteenth century.[53] The book delves into both descriptive and normative aspects of these subjects, making it a comprehensive and significant work. On the descriptive side, Mill examines various economic issues, including the benefits that different nations derive from a system of trade based on comparative advantage. According to Mill, countries with more elastic demands for goods from other nations tend to benefit more from such a trade system. He explores the dynamics and outcomes of international trade, shedding light on the factors that contribute to economic advantages for different nations. In addition to descriptive analysis, Mill's book also addresses normative issues in political economy. He critiques proposed economic systems like communism and socialism, offering insights into their shortcomings and arguing for alternative approaches. Mill engages with the ideal systems of political economy, exploring their feasibility and implications for societal well-being.[54] In one notable statement, Mill draws attention to the ethical considerations surrounding the treatment of vulnerable beings. He argues that the reasons for legal intervention in favor of children, such as protecting their rights and well-being, apply with equal force to animals. He refers to animals as "unfortunate slaves and victims of the most brutal part of mankind," emphasizing the need for society to recognize their suffering and advocate for their protection through legal means.[55]
1851 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric (women) British philosopher Harriet Taylor Mill publishes The Enfranchisement of Women, in which she argues for equality in all rights, political, civil, and social, with male citizens of the community. Taylor Mill promotes a companionate model of marriage based on mutual attraction and opposes contemporary forms of marriage, which she likens to slavery based on the threat of physical force (domestic violence). Married to John Stuart Mill, both would form a close intellectual partnership, with her making significant contributions to his thought, which he would systematize into a utilitarian framework.[56] Harriet Taylor Mill writes:
We deny the right of any portion of the species to decide for another portion what is and what is not their 'proper sphere'. The proper sphere for all human beings is the largest and highest which they are able to attain to.[47]
1859 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic John Stuart Mill publishes Dissertations and Discussions. Mill writes "That the morality of actions depends on the consequences which they tend to produce, is the doctrine of rational persons of all schools; that the good or evil of those consequences is measured solely by pleasure or pain, is all of the doctrine of the school of utility, which is peculiar to it."[47]
1859 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric John Stuart Mill publishes On Liberty.[57] Mill writes: A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others, is the rule; to make him answerable for not preventing evil is, comparatively speaking, the exception. Yet there are many cases clear enough and grave enough to justify that exception.[47]
1861 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric John Stuart Mill starts publishing articles in Frazer's Magazine, founded on his essays on utility and justice from previous years. Mill's writing begins with an explicit statement of pure Benthamism, stating that actions are considered right if they increase happiness, and wrong if they produce unhappiness. Happiness, in this context, refers to pleasure and the absence of pain, while unhappiness refers to pain and the absence of pleasure.[58][13]:91
1863 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic John Stuart Mill publishes Utilitarianism, which first appeared as a series of three articles published in Fraser's Magazine in 1861.[59][60] Mill acknowledges in a footnote that, though Jeremy Bentham believed "himself to be the first person who brought the word 'utilitarian' into use, he did not invent it. Rather, he adopted it from a passing expression" in John Galt's 1821 novel Annals of the Parish.[61] Mill emphasizes in making clear that he included in “utility” the pleasures of the imagination and the gratification of the higher emotions; and to make a place in his system for settled rules of conduct.[62] He also writes:
The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.[47]
1868 Notable statement Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric John Stuart Mill gives a speech in favour of the use of capital punishment for aggravated murder, dismissing arguments against it. He argues that it is not incompatible with respect for human life and believes it to be a superior deterrent compared to life imprisonment with hard labor. According to Mill, capital punishment's effectiveness lies in its perceived severity rather than actual cruelty. He considers death itself a minor evil and views it as the least severe punishment that would effectively deter murder. However, Mill's stance on death and capital punishment would be regarded as unconvincing and, if widely accepted, it could undermine the gravity of certain types of murder.[63] In the speech, Mill states:
It is not human life only, not human life as such, that ought to be sacred to us, but human feelings. The human capacity of suffering is what we should cause to be respected, not the mere capacity of existing.[47][64]
1869 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric (women) John Stuart Mill publishes The Subjection of Women, in which he writes: "What, in unenlightened societies, colour, race, religion, or in the case of a conquered country, nationality, are to some men, sex is to all women; a peremptory exclusion from almost all honourable occupations, but either such as cannot be fulfilled by others, or such as those others do not think worthy of their acceptance."[65][47]
1871 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric English naturalist Charles Darwin publishes The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Influenced by utilitarianism, Darwin would hold the belief that social beings with advanced intellectual abilities and a conscience would eventually recognize the greatest-happiness principle as a measure of what is morally right and wrong.[66] In his aforementioned book, Darwin writes:
As all men desire their own happiness, praise or blame is bestowed on actions and motives, according as they lead to this end; and as happiness is an essential part of the general good, the greatest-happiness principle indirectly serves as a nearly safe standard of right and wrong.[47]
1873 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic John Stuart Mill publishes his Autobiography, in which he writes:
The "principle of utility" understood as Bentham understood it, and applied in the manner in which he applied it...fell exactly into its place as the keystone which held together the detached and fragmentary component parts of my knowledge and beliefs. It gave unity to my conceptions of things. I now had opinions; a creed, a doctrine, a philosophy...the inculcation and diffusion of which could be made the principal outward purpose of a life. And I had a grand conception laid before me of changes to be effected in the condition of mankind through that doctrine.[47]
1874 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Sentient beings English utilitarian philosopher Henry Sidgwick publishes The Methods of Ethics, which some consider to be the most lucid and comprehensible presentation of the classical utilitarian doctrine. The book synthesizes and analyzes various forms of utilitarianism. Sidgwick explores different approaches to moral decision-making, including egoism, intuitionism, and utilitarianism. He acknowledges the challenges and controversies surrounding utilitarianism and highlights the need for further refinement and examination of the theory.[4] Happiness, according to Sidgwick, is determined by the overall balance of pleasure versus pain or the balance of agreeable versus disagreeable consciousness.[13]:106[67] Sidgwick writes:
The good of any one person is no more important from the point of view...of the universe than the good of any other; unless there are special grounds for believing that more good is likely to occur in the one case than in the other.[47]
1879 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric John Stuart Mill publishes Chapters On Socialism, in which he argues that while people are no longer enslaved or legally dependent at this time, a significant majority remains economically chained due to poverty. They are bound to a specific place, occupation, and are compelled to conform to the will of their employers. This condition, resulting from the accident of birth, deprives them of the same enjoyments and intellectual and moral advantages that others inherit without effort or deserving. Mill asserts that this inequality and deprivation experienced by the poor are significant problems, comparable to the historical challenges that humanity has fought against.[47][68]
1879 Literature Rule utilitarianism Negative Naturalistic Sentient beings John Stuart Mill publishes The Establishment of Ethical First Principles, in which he puts forth the principle that the avoidance of pain is paramount. He initially asserts that all pain experienced by human or rational beings should be avoided. However, upon further reflection, Mill expands this principle to encompass a broader scope, stating that all pain, regardless of the rationality of the beings involved, should be avoided. He argues against establishing a fundamental ethical distinction between the pains suffered by different species of sentient beings solely based on their level of rationality. In Mill's view, the capacity to experience pain should be the guiding factor in determining ethical considerations rather than the specific rational capabilities of the beings involved.[47][69]
1900 Literature Rule utilitarianism Sentient beings English author Leslie Stephen publishes The English Utilitarians.[70] The book is a comprehensive study of utilitarianism. Leslie Stephen's exploration of utilitarianism was influenced by his earlier work, the two-volume "History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century" published in 1876. This initial study led him to delve deeper into the subject and examine the ideas and principles behind utilitarianism. The English Utilitarians consists of three volumes. Volume 1 specifically focuses on providing the social and political context surrounding the emergence of utilitarianism and offers an examination of its prominent theorist, Jeremy Bentham. Overall, this book is a significant work that delves into the history, ideas, and key figures of utilitarianism, shedding light on its social and philosophical implications in the context of English thought.[71]
1902 Literature Sentient beings Ernest Albee publishes A History of English Utilitarianism.[72]
1903 Literature Rule utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric In his book Principia Ethica, G.E.Moore strongly criticizes the hedonistic utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill for reducing everything that matters to pleasure, which he believes misrepresents human nature. However, Moore's own moral theory is consequentialist, and it differs from earlier versions of utilitarianism mainly in its broader understanding of value. Moore argues that the good is not only pleasure or any other exclusively human state or quality, but also includes the existence of particular objective features of the universe, such as the beauty of its constituents.[13]:114
1906 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric American engineer and philosopher James MacKaye publishes The Economy of Happiness. MacKaye writes:
Quantities of pain or pleasure may be regarded as magnitudes having the same definiteness as tons of pig iron, barrels of sugar, bushels of wheat, yards of cotton, or pounds of wool; and as political economy seeks to ascertain the conditions under which these commodities may be produced with the greatest efficiency–so the economy of happiness seeks to ascertain the conditions under which happiness, regarded as a commodity, may be produced with the greatest efficiency.[47]
1907 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic English philosopher Hastings Rashdall publishes The Theory of Good and Evil,[73] which explores moral philosophy through the lens of utilitarianism. Rashdall rejects the hedonistic view that pleasure is the sole rational motive and ultimate good. Instead, he emphasizes the consequences of actions, particularly their impact on promoting universal well-being. He criticizes deontological ethics for neglecting consequences and argues against ethical intuitionism, advocating for a consideration of both pleasure and virtues in determining the ultimate good. Rashdall acknowledges the importance of motives, aims, and consequences in assessing moral value but maintains that moral judgments can be revised based on unanticipated outcomes. He challenges attempts to reconcile rationalistic ethics with hedonism and critiques Kant's categorical imperative for lacking practical guidance. Overall, Rashdall's utilitarian perspective emphasizes the promotion of universal well-being and the consideration of both reason and emotions in moral judgments.[74]
1912 Literature Naturalistic G. E. Moore publishes Ethics.[75] While tending to be overshadowed by his famous earlier work Principia Ethica, it is considered unique in its detailed discussions of utilitarianism, free will, and the objectivity of moral judgements.[76]
1919 (March 21) Notable birth Preference Naturalistic Richard Mervyn Hare is born. He would make significant contributions to moral philosophy and would be best known for his work on ethical theory, particularly his development of preference utilitarianism.[77][78]
1936 Literature Naturalistic R. F. Harrod publishes paper entitled Utilitarianism revised, which some consider to be an important attempt to restore a fairer view of utilitarianism.[13]:122
1949 Notable statement Serbian political philosopher John Plamenatz claims that "utilitarianism is destroyed".[13]:2
1949 Notable statement Rule utilitarianism Intuitive According to Prichard, the rightness of actions is knowable through an intuitive faculty, and consequentialist reasoning is both unnecessary for moral decision-making and apt to yield conclusions running contrary to the grain of ordinary moral thought.[13]:122
1953 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic British philosopher J. O. Urmson publishes an influential article arguing that Mill justified rules on utilitarian principles.[79] Urmson is, perhaps, the first to argue in any sustained way that Mill was a rule utilitarian.[80]
1958 Concept development Negative utilitarianism Naturalistic Human-centric The term "negative utilitarianism" is introduced by R. Ninian Smart in his reply to Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Smart also presents the most famous argument against negative utilitarianism:[81] that negative utilitarianism would entail that a ruler who is able to instantly and painlessly destroy the human race would have a duty to do so. Furthermore, every human being would have a moral responsibility to commit suicide, thereby preventing future suffering.[82]
1958 Concept development Naturalistic The term consequentialism is coined by G. E. M. Anscombe in her essay Modern Moral Philosophy,[83] to describe what she sees as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by John Stuart Mill and Sidgwick.[84] Consequentialism, a moral theory, aligns closely with utilitarianism in many aspects. However, a key distinction lies in the fact that consequentialism does not prescribe a specific desired outcome, whereas utilitarianism defines the good as the desired outcome. Consequentialism focuses on the consequences of actions, without specifying a particular goal, in contrast to utilitarianism's emphasis on maximizing overall good or happiness.[85]
1958 Criticism Negative utilitarianism Naturalistic R. N. Smart discusses negative utilitarianism (NU), which suggests focusing on minimizing avoidable suffering for all, as opposed to maximizing happiness. Smart presents examples where NU leads to counterintuitive conclusions. For instance, NU implies that painless mass destruction or controlled murder could be morally justifiable if they reduce overall suffering. Smart argues that NU fails to address complex ethical scenarios, such as the value of life, positive experiences, and societal stability. He criticizes NU for leading to absurd and morally questionable judgments, contrasting it with the broader and more nuanced approach of positive utilitarianism ("Maximise happiness"). Smart's critique questions the practicality and ethical soundness of NU as a guiding principle in moral philosophy.[86]
1959 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric American philosopher Richard Brandt publishes his Ethical Theory defines rule-utilitarianism.[13]:123 A prominent proponent of utilitarianism, Brandt would develop an ideal rule utilitarianism, stating that an act is right if it aligns with the ideal moral code of a society. In his ethical theory, he embraces a pluralistic view of intrinsic values, including pleasure, knowledge, virtue, and equality of welfare.[87]
1963 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic British moral philosopher R. M. Hare publishes Freedom and Reason, in which he proceeds systematically to demonstrate how an individual can maintain both freedom and rationality when engaging in moral reasoning.[88] According to Hare, the first rule of moral reasoning involves the concept of commitment or prescription. When facing a specific situation and trying to determine what one ought to do, the goal is to find an action to which one can commit oneself. This means making a moral judgment about the action as being the right or morally appropriate course of action. The second rule of moral reasoning, which Hare calls universalizability, pertains to the acceptance of a principle of action that can be applied universally or prescribed for others in similar circumstances. In other words, when evaluating an action's moral worth, it should be possible to generalize or universalize the underlying principle behind that action. If a principle cannot be universalized, it cannot be considered a genuine moral obligation or an "ought." Hare argues that these two rules of moral reasoning—commitment and universalizability—are central to engaging in rational moral discourse while preserving personal freedom. The rules ensure that moral judgments are consistent, coherent, and applicable to others in similar situations. By adhering to these rules, individuals can maintain their freedom to choose while engaging in a rational and morally grounded decision-making process.[47]
1963 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Richard Brandt publishes Towards a credible form of utilitarianism, in which he defends a version of rule utilitarianism.[13]:213 Rule-utilitarianism determines the rightness of an action by assessing the consequences of following a specific rule. Early proponents include John Austin and John Stuart Mill. Challenges of this approach arise when people are unlikely to follow the rule and when the best rules become complex with exceptions. Some argue that rule-utilitarianism is essentially the same as act-utilitarianism. While currently less popular, there are attempts to revive and rehabilitate rule-utilitarianism.[89]
1965 Literature Rule utilitarianism Naturalistic American philosophers David Lyons and Louis Lyons publish Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism.[90] The authors contend that if the rule were defined precisely enough to consider all its causally significant outcomes, rule-utilitarianism would essentially become act-utilitarianism. To maintain rule-utilitarianism as a distinct concept, limitations must be imposed on how specific the rule can be, ensuring that certain consequences are not accounted for.[91]
1966 Notable statement Negative utilitarianism Welfare Naturalistic Human-centric Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper states:
Instead of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one should demand, more modestly, the least amount of avoidable suffering for all.[92][13]:17
A negative utilitarian, Popper argues that human misery is the most urgent problem in rational public policy. He highlights the lack of moral symmetry between suffering and happiness, stating that suffering directly calls for assistance, whereas there is no equivalent call to increase the happiness of those already doing well. Popper also criticizes the utilitarian idea of maximizing pleasure, stating that pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, especially when it involves one person's pain being offset by another person's pleasure.[93]
1969 Literature Preference Naturalistic Sir Isaiah Berlin publishes essay John Stuart Mill on the ends of life, which is considered one of the most influential of several works having rightly given center stage to Mill’s ideas on the ethical centrality of self-development.[13]:95
1971 Criticism Naturalistic Human-centric American philosopher John Rawls publishes his antiutilitarian book A Theory of Justice, which rejects utilitarianism as an acceptable foundation for principles of justice.[94] The objection that "utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons" comes to prominence with the publication of this book.[95] Rawls writes:
During much of modern moral philosophy the predominant systematic theory has been some form of utilitarianism…Those who criticized them [i.e. the great utilitarians such as Hume, Smith and Mill] often did so on a much narrower front. They pointed out the obscurities of the principle of utility and noted the apparent incongruities between many of its implications and our moral sentiments. But they failed, I believe, to construct a workable and systematic moral conception to oppose it. The outcome is that we often seem forced to choose between utilitarianism and intuitionism. Most likely we finally settle upon a variant of the utility principle circumscribed and restricted in certain ad hoc ways by intuitionistic constraints. Such a view is not irrational; and there is no assurance that we can do better. But this is no reason not to try.[96]

Rawls calls the ‘primary goods’—‘things that every rational man is presumed to want’—such as health, vigour, intelligence, imagination, political freedoms and social opportunities, adequate income and a basis for self-respect.[13]:p16

1972 Criticism Naturalistic English philosopher Stuart Hampshire expresses his regret that utilitarianism is no longer the bold, innovative, and even subversive doctrine that it has once been.[97]
1972 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer publishes Famine, Affluence, and Morality, in which he presents his view that we have the same moral obligations to those far away as we do to those close to us. This text would rapidly become one of the most widely discussed essays in applied ethics.[98] Singer writes:
If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.[47]
1973 Concept development Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic In Principles, R. M. Hare accepts that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism but claims that this is a result of allowing the rules to be "as specific and un-general as we please."[99] He argues that one of the main reasons for introducing rule utilitarianism was to do justice to the general rules that people need for moral education and character development and he proposes that "a difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism can be introduced by limiting the specificity of the rules, i.e., by increasing their generality."[99]
1973 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference British-Australian philosopher J. J. C. Smart and B. Williams publish Utilitarianism For and Against, a book consisting in two essays on utilitarianism, written by J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams. Smart advocates for a modern and sophisticated version of classical utilitarianism, arguing that the rightness and wrongness of actions are determined solely by their consequences for human happiness. Williams, in contrast, offers a sustained critique of utilitarian assumptions, arguments, and ideals, finding the theory of action implied by utilitarianism inadequate and arguing that it fails to engage with real problems of moral and political philosophy.[100] Smart writes:
The sentiment to which [the utilitarian] appeals is generalized benevolence, that is, the disposition to seek happiness, or...good consequences, for all mankind, or perhaps for all sentient beings.[47]
1973 Notable statement Preference Naturalistic German-American historian Peter Gay calls utilitarianism the dominant philosophy of the mature Enlightenment.[101][13]:49
1973 Concept development Informational In his work titled Instrumental Utilities and Information Seeking, Charles K. Atkin provides a detailed elaboration of informational utility, which refers to the concept developed in the context of information seeking through mass media use. Informational utility predicts which information items an individual will pay attention to and which ones will be ignored. Atkin's elaboration further refines the understanding of informational utility in the context of information seeking through mass media use.[102][103]
1974 Concept development Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Robert Nozick introduces the concept of utility monster, as a thought experiment to critique utilitarianism. The utility monster is a hypothetical being that derives significantly more utility or pleasure from consuming resources compared to others. For example, while an ordinary person might gain one unit of pleasure from eating a cookie, a utility monster could gain 100 units. According to utilitarianism, the distribution of resources should prioritize the utility monster due to the immense pleasure it experiences. However, this would result in the mistreatment and potential annihilation of everyone else, undermining the egalitarian aspect of utilitarianism. The concept highlights the limitations of aggregating utility and raises questions about fairness and resource allocation. The utility monster concept would have social implications in debates about population. Derek Parfit's mere addition paradox suggests that adding more individuals, even if it decreases average happiness, can still contribute to overall happiness. This challenges the "repugnant conclusion" that a large group with barely worth living lives might be preferred over a small group with excellent lives. The concept also relates to the potential emergence of superintelligent machines or digital minds in the future, which could achieve happiness more efficiently than humans. Considering the well-being of such entities in utility calculations raises ethical questions.[104][105][106]
1975 Literature Act utilitarianism Negative Naturalistic Non-human animals Peter Singer publishes Animal Liberation, which would inspire a global movement to transform attitudes towards nonhuman animals and eliminate cruelty inflicted upon them. Singer exposes the realities of "factory farms" and product testing procedures, offering alternatives and dismantling justifications for such practices.[107] Singer writes:
Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favoring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case.[47]
1976 Concept development Motive utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Motive utilitarianism is first proposed by Robert Merrihew Adams.[108] It refers to a normative theory about right motivation, much as act utilitarianism is a normative theory about right action.[109] In his work, Adams argues that promoting utility is better achieved when people act from praiseworthy motives like love, friendliness, spontaneity, and a taste for beauty, rather than solely relying on consequentialist reasoning. He suggests that individuals guided by these laudable motives may sometimes make decisions contrary to act-utilitarian judgments. However, overall, acting from these motives generates more utility than following act-utilitarian reasoning. Adams terms this perspective "motive-utilitarianism."[13]:196-197
1976 Literature Preference British philosopher Richard Mervyn Hare publishes his article Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism, in which he explores the relationship between ethical theory and utilitarianism.[110]
1977 Literature Rule utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Sentient beings[51] J.B.Schneewind publishes Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy[13]:106, a comprehensive study of the philosophical work of Henry Sidgwick, a prominent British philosopher and ethicist of the late 19th century. Sidgwick adhered to John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism in philosophy, and incorporated Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative ethical principle. He utilized the ideas of both philosophers in his primary work, The Methods of Ethics.[52]
1978 Criticism Naturalistic Human-centric Stuart Hampshire criticizes the mindset associated with utilitarianism, arguing that it has given rise to a novel type of distant cruelty in political affairs. This cruelty is characterized by a lack of emotional engagement and a destructive self-assuredness that undermines the well-being of society. Hampshire states
The utilitarian habit of mind has brought with it a new abstract cruelty in politics, a dull, destructive political righteousness.[13]:70
1977 Concept development Preference Naturalistic The concept of preference utilitarianism is first proposed by John Harsanyi in Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour,[111][112] however the concept is more commonly associated with R. M. Hare,[113] Peter Singer,[114] and Richard Brandt.[115]
1979 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Sentient beings Peter Singer publishes Practical Ethics, in which he highlights the importance of considering the suffering of sentient beings when making moral judgments. He argues that if a being is capable of experiencing suffering, it is morally unjustifiable to ignore or dismiss that suffering. The principle of equality requires that suffering, regardless of the nature of the being, should be given equal consideration when compared to the suffering of any other being. Singer writes:
If a being suffers there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering—insofar as rough comparisons can be made—of any other being.[47]
1980 Literature Human-centric Elizabeth Telfer publishes Happiness: An Examination of a Hedonistic and a Eudaemonistic Concept of Happiness and of the Relations Between Them, with a Consideration of how Far and in what Sense Either Kind of Happiness May be Said to be the Goal of Human Life.[116] The author remarks that being happy involves, among other things, being pleased with one’s life.[13]:140
1981 Literature Preference Naturalistic Richard Mervyn Hare publishes Moral Thinking[117] which attempts to provide, out of the logical and linguistic theses of his earlier books, a full-scale but readily intelligible account of moral argument.[118] Hare outlines the theory of preference utilitarianism[119], which in his view, synthesizes intuitionism and utilitarianism. Hare maintains that there are two levels of moral thinking: intuitive and critical. Intuitive moral thinking is not enough because moral conflicts may arise, so we must resort to critical moral thinking, which involves considering people's preferences. Hare's brand of utilitarianism arises as a response to the criticisms of traditional utilitarian theories by Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, G.E. Moore, and other utilitarians.[120]
1981 Literature Preference Naturalistic All beings with the capacity to feel pleasure or pain Peter Singer publishes The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress[121], in which he writes:
The only justifiable stopping place for the expansion of altruism is the point at which all whose welfare can be affected by our actions are included within the circle of altruism. This means that all beings with the capacity to feel pleasure or pain should be included; we can improve their welfare by increasing their pleasures and diminishing their pains.[47]
1981 Criticism Preference Naturalistic The anti-utilitarian Movement in the Social Sciences (Mouvement Anti-Utilitariste dans les Sciences Sociales) is founded as a French intellectual movement.[122] It is formed as a response to the dominance of utilitarianism in the social sciences and neoliberalism in society. The movement's main publication, the Revue du MAUSS, is a biannual journal focused on studying the concept of gift-giving. The journal brings together anthropologists, sociologists, economists, and political philosophers from the left to explore alternative approaches to science and society that go beyond self-interest and egoism.[123]
1982 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric R. M. Hare publishes Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism, in which he discusses the principle of utility and its implications for moral decision-making. Hare proposes a perspective on how to determine the morally right course of action based on the principle of utility. According to Hare, the principle of utility requires individuals to consider the interests of every person affected by their actions. To determine what the principle of utility demands, Hare suggests employing a thought experiment. He encourages individuals to imagine themselves in the exact situation of each person influenced by their actions and asks them to consider what they would wish to be done for them in that precise circumstance.[47]
1982 Criticism Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric According to American moral and political philosopher Samuel Scheffler, classic utilitarianism demands too much, because it requires us to do acts that are or should be moral options (neither obligatory nor forbidden). For instance, considering a situation where an individual has a pair of old but usable shoes and desires a new $100 pair. If the individual were to give the $100 to a charity that could use the money to save a life, it would be the best option to maximize overall utility. However, if the individual is obligated to do what maximizes utility, then buying the shoes would be morally wrong. Yet, purchasing the shoes doesn't appear to be morally wrong; it may simply be a case where giving the money to charity is a morally commendable act that goes beyond what is expected.[124][125]
1984 Literature/concept developent Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Human-centric British philosopher Derek Parfit publishes Reasons and Persons, which would be considered a classic work in ethics and personal identity.[126] Parfit introduces the concept of the mere addition paradox, also known as the repugnant conclusion. This paradox highlights the conflicting assertions about the relative value of populations. Parfit argues that a population with low positive welfare can be considered better than a perfectly equal population with high positive welfare. The paradox arises when comparing populations of different sizes and levels of happiness. Critics would offer different perspectives, challenging the assumption of transitivity and questioning the intuition that a larger population with lower average happiness can be worse than a smaller population with higher average happiness. Parfit argues that the true repugnance lies in the eventual outcome of continuous iterations, leading to a massive population with minimal average happiness. Additionally, the term "mere addition paradox" would be used to describe paradoxical reasoning in statistical measures, where the addition of a few individuals drastically affects average indicators without changing the overall situation for the original population.[127][128][129][130]
1984 Literature Preference Fred Berger publishes the book Happiness, Justice and Freedom: The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. It is considered one of the most influential works that have correctly highlighted John Stuart Mill's views on the significant importance of self-development in ethics.[13]:95
1986 Notable statement Act utilitarianism Naturalistic British philosopher James Griffin suggests that "a fairly small amount of misery will turn out to make life worse to a greater degree than a fairly large amount of happiness makes it better".[131]If this is so , the finite energies we possess for promoting the public weal may be better directed at righting wrongs than at multiplying goods.[13]:17-18
1989 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic U.S. philosopher Shelly Kagan publishes The Limits of Morality, in which he discusses the belief held by most people that there are limits to the sacrifices that morality can demand. While it may be good to promote overall good, it is not always morally required. Certain acts are also considered morally off-limits, even if necessary for promoting the overall good. The author argues that these views cannot be adequately defended and offers a sustained attack on two basic features of ordinary common sense morality.[132] According to Kagan, classic utilitarianism reduces all morally relevant factors to consequences.[133][124]
1990 Literature Preference Naturalistic Sentient beings American philosopher Alastair Norcross publishes article entitled Consequentialism and the Future.[134] Norcross writes:
Morality really is very demanding, in precisely the way utilitarianism says it is. But doesn't this fly in the face of common sense? Well, perhaps it does, but so what? Until relatively recently, moral "common sense" viewed women as having an inferior moral status to men, and some races as having an inferior status to others. These judgments were not restricted to the philosophically unsophisticated. Such illustrious philosophers as Aristotle and Hume accepted positions of this nature. Many utilitarians (myself included) believe that the interests of sentient non-human animals should be given equal consideration in moral decisions with the interests of humans. This claim certainly conflicts with the "common sense" of many (probably most) humans, and many (perhaps most) philosophers. It should not, on that account alone, be rejected.[47]
1990 Notable statement Negative Naturalistic Human-centric British idealist philosopher Timothy Sprigge publishes article titled The greatest happiness principle. Sprigge argues that an extreme and illogical outcome would arise if one followed the line of reasoning that suggests the optimal course of action would be to eliminate all forms of life experiencing any form of distress.[135][13]:17
1990 Criticism Preference Naturalistic British economist, journalist, and author Samuel Brittan describes utilitarianism as ‘a member of the family of moral doctrines which judge actions neither by their motives nor their intrinsic qualities, but by their consequences’. This gives the misleading impression that utilitarians take no account of motives in the appraisal of actions. Brittan's statement highlights the common misconception that utilitarians disregard motives when evaluating actions. While utilitarianism primarily focuses on consequences, it does not completely exclude motives from consideration. Some variations of utilitarianism, such as rule-utilitarianism, incorporate the idea that certain motives or intentions can contribute to better overall consequences.[13]:p10
1992 Literature Negative Naturalistic Human-centric (in the future) British philosopher John Broome publishes Counting the Cost of Global Warming, in which he explores the distinction between total utilitarianism and average utilitarianism, particularly regarding the topic of extinction and its implications for our understanding of global warming. According to Broome, total utilitarianism and average utilitarianism are two different ethical theories with contrasting perspectives on the concept of extinction. In the context of global warming, if humanity were to become extinct, total utilitarianism would view it as an unimaginably catastrophic event. This is because the loss would encompass all the future well-being of all the individuals who would have otherwise lived. In contrast, certain versions of average utilitarianism argue that extinction may not be a significant tragedy. It might have little impact on the average well-being of the people who actually exist.[47][136]
1992 Literature Naturalistic U.S. philosopher Richard Brandt publishes Morality, utilitarianism, and rights, a collection of essays spanning nearly 30 years of the author's work. It includes classic pieces in metaethical and normative ethical theory. Brandt's approach to justifying what is good or right focuses on moral psychology and valuing, rather than intuition or theories about moral words. This collection is aimed at both those familiar with Brandt's work and those unfamiliar, and is notable for its clear and weighty contributions to important topics in moral philosophy.[137]
1992 Literature (article) Preference Naturalistic Dirck Vorenkamp publishes an article responding to Dennis Ahem's argument on the presence of utilitarianism in Mozi's thought. Ahem distinguishes between two types of utilitarianism, with the first being "strong utilitarianism," which prioritizes utility as the final criterion for actions and values. The author engages with Ahem's analysis and presents his own interpretation of Mozi's utilitarianism.[138][139]
1993 Concept development Preference Naturalistic Irish philosopher Philip Pettit defines utilitarianism as a consequentialist (or, to use an older term, a ‘teleological’) doctrine in the sense that it maintains that the proper response to its values is to promote them.[13]:p10
1994 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Necip Fikri Alican publishes Mill's Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill's Notorious Proof, which constitutes a detailed examination and defense of John Stuart Mill's proof of the principle of utility, responding to criticisms and providing arguments in favor of utility as the first principle of morality.[140]
1995 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Sentient beings British transhumanist philosopher David Pearce publishes The Hedonistic Imperative, in which he presents a vision for the future where suffering is eradicated from all sentient life through the advancements of genetic engineering and nanotechnology. Pearce's goal is to create a world where all living beings experience an incredibly heightened state of well-being, far surpassing the peak experiences of happiness that we currently know. He predicts that future generations will be characterized by genetically pre-programmed gradients of well-being that are exponentially more intense and fulfilling. Pearce envisions a world in which suffering becomes obsolete and is replaced by a universal state of profound and sustainable happiness for all sentient beings.[141][142]
1998 Literature Act utilitarianism Hedonic Naturalistic Human-centric Swedish philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö publishes Hedonistic Utilitarianism, in which he presents a comprehensive defense of classical, hedonistic utilitarianism as a viable moral theory. Tännsjö argues that a moral theory is necessary and challenges the notion that hedonistic utilitarianism conflicts with common sense morality, especially when considering modern feminist moral criticism. The book introduces a distinctive perspective and presents controversial conclusions regarding the compatibility of hedonistic utilitarianism with moral principles.[143]
2003 Criticism Act utilitarianism Preference British philosopher and historian Frederick Rosen warns that descriptions of utilitarianism can bear "little resemblance historically to utilitarians like Bentham and J. S. Mill" and can be more "a crude version of act utilitarianism conceived in the twentieth century as a straw man to be attacked and rejected."[144]
2003 Concept development Act utilitarianism Negative Naturalistic Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom coins the term “astronomical waste” to describe the opportunity cost of delayed technological development. Bostrom argues that utilitarians should not aim to maximize the rate of technological progress “but rather that we ought to maximize its safety, i.e. the probability that colonization will eventually occur”.[145][146] Bostrom writes:
For standard utilitarians, priority number one, two, three and four should consequently be to reduce existential risk. The utilitarian imperative "Maximize expected aggregate utility!" can be simplified to the maxim "Minimize existential risk!".[47]
2006 Literature Variable-rate rule-utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic British philosopher Michael Ridge publishes an article presenting an alternative version of rule-utilitarianism called "variable-rate rule-utilitarianism," which aims to address the dilemma faced by traditional rule-utilitarianism in characterizing "general acceptance" as either 100% or something less. The author argues that this new version can evade the charges of utopianism and arbitrariness, and lack of philosophical depth that are leveled against traditional rule-utilitarianism.[147][148]
2007 Literature Preference Naturalistic U.S. professor Eric Wiland at University of Missouri-St. Louis publishes an article discussing the concept of indirect utilitarianism, which is a form of utilitarianism that rejects direct utilitarianism and argues that the optimal decision procedure may differ from the criterion of rightness for actions. The author distinguishes between six different versions of indirect utilitarianism and argues that weaker versions of IU still fall prey to the paradox of utilitarianism, while stronger versions violate a moral principle that one ought to act intentionally.[149][150]
2008 Literature Preference Naturalistic British-American philosopher Brad Hooker and British philosopher Guy Fletcher publish an article discussing the debate between fixed-rate and variable-rate rule-utilitarianism, with fixed-rate evaluating rules based on the expected net value of a particular level of social acceptance, and variable-rate evaluating rules based on their expected net value at all levels of social acceptance. Brad Hooker supports fixed-rate, while Michael Ridge argues in favor of variable-rate. The article examines the implications of each approach on doing good for others. The debate is ongoing.[151][152]
2008 Organization Act utilitarianism Naturalistic The Effective Altruism Forum is founded.[153] Is is created by a group of students and academics who are interested in applying utilitarianism to real-world problems. The forum would since grow into a global movement with thousands of members. Utilitarianism and effective altruism share similarities, but they have distinct differences. Effective altruism (EA) emphasizes finding the most effective ways to contribute to the common good without mandating constant personal sacrifice. It accommodates various moral views, prioritizes impactful actions over sacrifices, and doesn't strictly equate good with total well-being, accommodating diverse ethical theories. Unlike utilitarianism, EA doesn't prescribe specific actions but encourages individuals to seek impactful ways to help others, considering moral values and effectiveness. Despite disparities, utilitarians often support EA for applying core utilitarian principles practically and its community-driven approach, enhancing collective impact by addressing significant problems effectively.[154][155]
2009 Negative utilitarianism Naturalistic Non-human animals David Pearce explores the ethical challenges posed by predation and advocates for a cruelty-free world through reprogramming or phasing out obligate predators. Drawing on ethical considerations and advanced biotechnology, his abolitionist project aims to eliminate involuntary physical or emotional pain in sentient beings. The discussion focuses on iconic species like big cats and explores the concept of value, emphasizing the need for empathy toward non-human animals. It challenges the anthropocentric bias and advocates for compassionate conservation, suggesting that as humans gain power over nature, they should secure the well-being of all sentient beings, not just those similar in appearance to humans.[156]
2011 Literature Ideal utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Canadian philosopher Anthony Skelton publishes an article in which he examines the concept of ideal utilitarianism, which posits that the fundamental requirement of morality is to promote intrinsic goods. The author critically evaluates the arguments presented by Hastings Rashdall in support of ideal utilitarianism and compares them to those presented by G.E. Moore. The article is divided into four sections, which outline Rashdall's ethical outlook, evaluate his arguments for the theory of rightness, discuss his defense of a pluralist theory of value, and argue that Rashdall makes a lasting contribution to the defense of ideal utilitarianism.[157][158]
2012 Literature Preference Naturalistic Human-centric American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt publishes The Righteous Mind, which challenges conventional thinking about morality, politics, and religion by drawing on Haidt's 25 years of research on moral psychology. The book argues that moral judgments arise not from reason, but from gut feelings, and shows why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have different intuitions about right and wrong. Haidt argues that each side is actually right about many of its central concerns. The book aims to provide a key to understanding human cooperation and to help readers trade in anger for understanding.[159] Haidt writes:
I don't know what the best normative ethical theory is for individuals in their private lives. But when we talk about making laws and implementing public policies in Western democracies that contain some degree of ethnic and moral diversity, then I think there is no compelling alternative to utilitarianism.[47]
2013 Literature Preference Naturalistic Human-centric American experimental psychologist Joshua Greene publishes Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them, which explores the clash of values and conflicts that arise as different tribes are forced into a shared space. Drawing from neuroscience and philosophy, the book examines the causes of modern conflict and offers practical guidance for navigating moral dilemmas.[160] Greene writes:
Utilitarianism is a great idea with an awful name. It is, in my opinion, the most underrated and misunderstood idea in all of moral and political philosophy.[47]
2013 Literature (paper) Rule utilitarianism Naturalistic American philosopher Kevin Tobia publishes Rule Consequentialism and the Problem of Partial Acceptance, an article discussing the problem of partial acceptance in moral theories and explores various approaches to addressing it, including three forms of Rule Utilitarianism: Fixed Rate, Variable Rate, and Optimum Rate. The author proposes a new approach called Maximizing Expectation Rate Rule Utilitarianism, which he argues is a better solution to the issue of partial acceptance.[161]
2014 Literature Ben Eggleston and Dale E. Miller publish The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism, which provides a comprehensive examination of utilitarianism. The book traces the origins and evolution of utilitarianism, examines its formulation and various interpretations, compares it with other ethical theories, and discusses its modern relevance in contemporary debates such as global warming and military conflict. It is a resource for students and scholars of moral philosophy, political philosophy, political theory, and history of ideas.[162]
2014 Literature Act utilitarianism Negative Naturalistic Non-human animals D.M. Broom publishes Sentience and Animal Welfare. According to Broom, in recent decades, there was an increasing focus on the well-being of animals other than humans, along with the ethical questions associated with this issue.[163]
2015 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Peter Singer publishes The Most Good You Can Do, which describes and argues for the ideas of effective altruism, a philosophy and social movement similar to utilitarianism, that advocates using evidence and reason to identify the most effective ways to help others and maximize positive impact.[164] The book argues that living ethically involves doing the most good that one can do, and that charitable giving should be based on reason and evidence rather than emotions. Singer introduces readers to people who are practicing effective altruism by choosing careers that allow them to donate more and giving half their income to effective charities.[165] He writes:
Living a minimally acceptable ethical life involves using a substantial part of our spare resources to make the world a better place. Living a fully ethical life involves doing the most good we can.[47]
2015 Literature Rule utilitarianism Naturalistic British philosopher Robin Barrow publishes Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement, in which he claims that utilitarianism is the most coherent and persuasive theory available. Barrow argues succinctly and persuasively for a specific form of rule-utilitarianism.[166][167]
2016 Criticism Naturalistic In his article for The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online, Tim Chappell discusses the problems faced by utilitarianism, emphasizing both technical and foundational challenges. Technical issues include measuring pleasure, determining relevant desires, and assessing the value of knowledge. Fundamentally, utilitarianism's strict impartiality raises concerns about the social distribution of utility. Critics argue that utilitarianism can lead to morally questionable outcomes, such as sacrificing an innocent person for overall happiness. The theory's inability to account for individual perspectives and roles in situations, highlighted by philosopher Bernard Williams, reveals the limitations of utilitarianism. Practical reasoning, according to Chappell, involves considering personal involvement and the allocation of goods and bads, challenging utilitarianism's oversimplified approach.[168]
2017 Literature Act utilitarianism Preference Naturalistic Sentient beings American philosopher Bart Schultz publishes The Happiness Philosophers: The Lives and Works of the Great Utilitarians, which explores the lives and contributions of the founders of utilitarianism. The book sheds light on the radical philosophers, including William Godwin, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Harriet Taylor Mill, and Henry Sidgwick, who shaped utilitarianism and influenced various aspects of society, such as law, politics, economics, morals, education, and women's rights. The Happiness Philosophers also highlights the revival of utilitarianism in contemporary times, as it proves relevant in tackling pressing global issues.[169] Schulz writes:
Happiness, for [the great English-language utilitarian philosophers] was more of a cosmic calling, the path to world progress, and whatever was deemed 'utilitarian' had to be useful for that larger and inspiring end, the global minimization of pointless suffering and the global maximization of positive well-being or happiness.[47]
2017 Notable statement Act utilitarianism Naturalistic Torbjörn Tännsjö suggests that when we understand the implications of utilitarianism, particularly its view on blameworthy rightdoing and blameless wrongdoing, it can provide us with what he considers to be the right answers in certain moral dilemmas. Tännsjö suggests that utilitarianism recognizes the distinction between blameworthy rightdoing and blameless wrongdoing. Tännsjö states:
Once we realise that utilitarianism comes with the idea of blameworthy rightdoing (such as when you push a big man onto the tracks in order to save five lives) and blameless wrongdoing (such as when you don't push a big man onto the tracks in order to save five lives), then utilitarianism all of a sudden appears to give the right answers.[47]
2019 Cost-effectiveness analysis Act utilitarianism Naturalistic In their article, Marseille and Kahn explore the ethical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in global health resource allocation. They focus on utilitarianism, comparing it with alternative ethical principles. Utilitarianism, maximizing health benefits under a budget constraint, often clashes with equity and other values. Despite its fallibility, utilitarianism is deemed superior due to its emphasis on efficiency. The authors argue that when alternatives are considered, quantifying trade-offs, particularly lost health benefits, is crucial. Using an example from HIV prevention, they demonstrate that prioritizing rights-based decisions could lead to significantly more HIV infections per spending, emphasizing the practical importance of utilitarianism in complex resource allocation dilemmas.[170]
2020 Concept development Cumulative-effect utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism Naturalistic Jonathan Harrison discusses two versions of utilitarianism: rule utilitarianism and cumulative-effect utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism where moral rules are established, and actions are judged based on whether they conform to those rules. The moral rules are chosen based on the principle of utility, which seeks to maximize overall happiness or pleasure. Cumulative-effect utilitarianism, on the other hand, focuses on the cumulative effect of individual actions on overall happiness or pleasure. Under this form of utilitarianism, actions are judged based on their long-term impact on overall happiness, rather than their conformity to moral rules. Harrison notes that while rule utilitarianism has gained more attention in recent years, cumulative-effect utilitarianism remains a valid form of utilitarianism that has not received as much attention.[171]
2022 Criticism Naturalistic Frankie Shaw challenges John Stuart Mill's defense of utilitarianism, arguing that the philosophy is inherently "cold and calculating." The objection isn't about dismissing universal moral standards but concerns utilitarianism's reduction of moral actions to objective measurement. According to Shaw, utilitarianism evaluates actions without considering the human agents behind them, divorcing actions from moral qualities. This separation renders utilitarianism incapable of identifying true moral action, as it fails to acknowledge the significance of human intentions and virtues. The critique argues that utilitarianism, in its focus on outcomes over human character, diminishes intrinsic human value, leading to a morally hollow system.[172]

Numerical and visual data

Google Trends

The chart below shows Google Trends data for Utilitarianism (Topic), from 2004 to October 2022, when the screenshot was taken. Interest is also ranked by country and displayed on world map.[173]

Utilitarianism gt.png

Google ngram viewer

The chart below shows Google Ngram Viewer data for Utilitarianism, from 1800 to 2019.[174]

Utilitarianism ngram.PNG

Wikipedia views

The chart below shows pageviews of the English Wikipedia article Utilitarianism from July 2015 to May 2023.[175]

Utilitarianism wv.PNG

Meta information on the timeline

How the timeline was built

Base literature

  • Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction, by Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer.[97]
  • The Political Economy of Progress: John Stuart Mill and Modern Radicalism, by Joseph Persky.[39]


The initial version of the timeline was written by Sebastian.

Funding information for this timeline is available.

Feedback and comments

Feedback for the timeline can be provided at the following places:

  • FIXME

What the timeline is still missing

Timeline update strategy

See also

External links

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 "Queensborough Community College". www.qcc.cuny.edu. Retrieved 28 October 2023. 
  2. ↑ "What's Good? The Economic Debate on Choice and Utility – Michigan Journal of Economics". sites.lsa.umich.edu. 9 January 2023. Retrieved 28 October 2023. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Hautala, Vesa; Roser0000-0002-9427-105X, Dominic. "Utilitarianism and Christian Theology". St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology. Retrieved 28 October 2023. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Driver, Julia (2014). "The History of Utilitarianism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  5. ↑ Freedman, Sam. "The Politics of Effective Altruism". samf.substack.com. Retrieved 27 October 2022. 
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 "Mozi: the Man, the Consequentialist, and the Utilitarian" (PDF). core.ac.uk. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  7. ↑ "Mozi Quote". Lib Quotes. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  8. ↑ Konstan, David (2022). "Epicurus". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 25 October 2023. 
  9. ↑ Scarre, Geoffrey (November 1994). "Epicurus as a Forerunner of Utilitarianism". Utilitas. 6 (2): 219–231. doi:10.1017/S0953820800001606. 
  10. ↑ Jones 2010, p. 323.
  11. ↑ The Tetradoxy: The Principles of Justice & Patience. Astronist Institution. 14 April 2019. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-0939-4719-9. 
  12. ↑ Hutcheson, Francis (2008). "An Inquiry Into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue: In Two Treatises". Liberty Fund. Retrieved 26 May 2023. 
  13. ↑ 13.00 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 13.05 13.06 13.07 13.08 13.09 13.10 13.11 13.12 13.13 13.14 13.15 13.16 13.17 13.18 13.19 13.20 13.21 13.22 13.23 13.24 13.25 13.26 13.27 13.28 13.29 13.30 13.31 13.32 13.33 13.34 13.35 13.36 13.37 13.38 Scarre, Geoffrey (1996). Utilitarianism. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-09527-3. 
  14. ↑ Hutcheson, Francis (2002) [1725]. "The Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue". In Schneewind, J. B. Moral Philosophy from Montaigne to Kant. Cambridge University Press. p. 515. ISBN 978-0-521-00304-9. 
  15. ↑ Selby-Bigge 1897:106– 7
  16. ↑ "Susanna Newcome – Utilitarianism.net". Utilitarianism. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  17. ↑ Newcome, Susanna (17 April 2018). An Enquiry Into the Evidence of the Christian Religion. Creative Media Partners, LLC. ISBN 978-1-379-39711-3. 
  18. ↑ Lustila, Getty L. (March 2018). "John Gay and the Birth of Utilitarianism". Utilitas. 30 (1): 86–106. doi:10.1017/S0953820817000115. 
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 Halévy, Élie (1972). The growth of philosophic radicalism. Clifton, N.J.: A.M. Kelley. ISBN 0678080054. 
  20. ↑ Ashcraft, Richard (1991) John Locke: Critical Assessments (Critical assessments of leading political philosophers), Routledge, p. 691
  21. ↑ Lustila, Getty L. (March 2018). "John Gay and the Birth of Utilitarianism". Utilitas. 30 (1): 86–106. doi:10.1017/S0953820817000115. 
  22. ↑ Shapiro, Adam R. (2009). "William Paley's Lost "Intelligent Design"". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. pp. 55–77. Retrieved 28 October 2023. 
  23. ↑ "William Paley : theological utilitarianism ?". www.utilitarianism.com. Retrieved 27 May 2023. 
  24. ↑ Schneewind, J. B. (1977). Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-19-824552-0. 
  25. ↑ Anthology, ~ 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory (19 March 2022). ""Can They Suffer?": Bentham on our Obligations to Animals". 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Retrieved 21 October 2023. 
  26. ↑ "Jeremy Bentham". Utilitarianism.net. 29 January 2023. Retrieved 26 May 2023. 
  27. ↑ "hedonistic utilitarianism". www.utilitarianism.com. Retrieved 28 May 2023. 
  28. ↑ Veenhoven, Ruut (1 October 2010). "Greater Happiness for a Greater Number". Journal of Happiness Studies. 11 (5): 605–629. ISSN 1573-7780. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9204-z. 
  29. ↑ "Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals | work by Hume | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 18 September 2022. 
  30. ↑ Hutcheson 1755: vol. 1, 243
  31. ↑ Becarria 1764:61–2
  32. ↑ "On Crimes and Punishments | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved 20 May 2023. 
  33. ↑ Helvétius 1774:187
  34. ↑ Chastellux 1774: vol. 1, 50
  35. ↑ "§4. "A Fragment on Government;" Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries". III. Bentham and the Early Utilitarians. Vol. 11. The Period of the French Revolution. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature: An Encyclopedia in Eighteen Volumes. 1907–21". www.bartleby.com. Retrieved 18 September 2022. 
  36. ↑ Brady, Michael Emmett (2018). "Adam Smith Was Consistent in Both the Theory of Moral Sentiments and the Wealth of Nations on the Role of the Concept of Self Interest: Das Utilitarian Economist View Is the Problem". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3156013. 
  37. ↑ "What is the Invisible Hand of the market?". www.tutor2u.net. Retrieved 26 May 2023. 
  38. ↑ Schneewind, J. B. (1977). Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-19-824552-0. 
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Persky, Joseph (16 May 2016). The Political Economy of Progress: John Stuart Mill and Modern Radicalism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-046064-8. 
  40. ↑ "Defence of Usury". Econlib. Retrieved 20 May 2023. 
  41. ↑ "Bentham, J. (1789) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press, Oxford. - References - Scientific Research Publishing". www.scirp.org. Retrieved 18 September 2022. 
  42. ↑ "Jeremy Bentham | Biography, Utilitarianism, Philosophy, & Auto-Icon | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 18 September 2022. 
  43. ↑ "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation by Jeremy Bentham (377ES) — Atlas of Places". www.atlasofplaces.com. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  44. ↑ Kant 1793:34
  45. ↑ "Philosophy and Animals | Animal Legal & Historical Center". www.animallaw.info. Retrieved 21 October 2023. 
  46. ↑ "John Stuart Mill | Biography, Philosophy, Utilitarianism, On Liberty, & Books | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 21 September 2022. 
  47. ↑ 47.00 47.01 47.02 47.03 47.04 47.05 47.06 47.07 47.08 47.09 47.10 47.11 47.12 47.13 47.14 47.15 47.16 47.17 47.18 47.19 47.20 47.21 47.22 47.23 47.24 47.25 47.26 47.27 "Utilitarian Quotes – Utilitarianism.net". Utilitarianism. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  48. ↑ Bentham 1817:205–7
  49. ↑ Bentham, Jeremy (1825). "The Rationale of Reward". books.google.com. John and H. L. Hunt. Retrieved 14 March 2023. 
  50. ↑ "BENTHAM'S THE RATIONALE OF REWARD". jrul.libraries.rutgers.edu. Retrieved 26 May 2023. 
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 Schultz, Barton (2023). "Henry Sidgwick". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 25 October 2023. 
  52. ↑ 52.0 52.1 "Henry Sidgwick | British philosopher | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 28 March 2023. 
  53. ↑ See Mill, John Stuart (1848), Principles of Political Economy with Some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, 1 (1 ed.), London: John W. Parker, ISBN 978-0598983848, retrieved 7 December 2012 , volume 2 via Google Books
  54. ↑ Capaldi, Nicholas (2004). John Stuart Mill: A Biography. Ch. 5: Worldly Success (1846–1850): Cambridge University Press. pp. 214 to c. 234. ISBN 978-0511164194. 
  55. ↑ "State v. Nix | Animal Legal & Historical Center". www.animallaw.info. Retrieved 4 June 2023. 
  56. ↑ "Harriet Taylor Mill". Utilitarianism.net. 29 January 2023. Retrieved 11 March 2023. 
  57. ↑ "On Liberty by John Stuart Mill - Chapter 1: Introductory – Utilitarianism.net". Utilitarianism. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  58. ↑ J.S. Mill 1861:210
  59. ↑ Hinman, Lawrence (2012). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory. Wadsworth. ISBN 978-1-133-05001-8. 
  60. ↑ Mill, John Stuart (2010) [1863]. Utilitarianism - Ed. Heydt (Broadview Editions). Broadview Press. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-55111-501-6. Retrieved 2019-07-28. 
  61. ↑ Mill, John Stuart. 1861. Utilitarianism. n1.
  62. ↑ "John Stuart Mill | Biography, Philosophy, Utilitarianism, On Liberty, & Books | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 4 October 2022. 
  63. ↑ Ten, C. L. (4 May 2017). "Mill's Defense of Capital Punishment". Criminal Justice Ethics. 36 (2): 141–151. doi:10.1080/0731129X.2017.1358919. 
  64. ↑ Mill, J. S. (1868). Capital Punishment, in The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Toronto, 1988, vol. 28, p. 270
  65. ↑ "On Liberty by John Stuart Mill - Chapter 1: Introductory – Utilitarianism.net". Utilitarianism. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  66. ↑ "Evolutionary Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 26 May 2023. 
  67. ↑ "The Methods of Ethics". Goodreads. Retrieved 13 March 2023. 
  68. ↑ Mill, John Stuart. Chapters On Socialism (PDF). 
  69. ↑ Sidgwick, Henry (21 December 2000). "The Establishment of Ethical First Principles". Essays on Ethics and Method: 29–34. doi:10.1093/0198250231.003.0005. 
  70. ↑ Frobert, Ludovic (April 2015). "ELIE HALEVY AND PHILOSOPHICAL RADICALISM". Modern Intellectual History. 12 (1): 127–150. doi:10.1017/S1479244314000377. 
  71. ↑ Stephen, Leslie (1900). "The English Utilitarians". philpapers.org. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 10 June 2023. 
  72. ↑ "A History of English Utilitarianism by ALBEE Ernest: Very Good Hardcover (1902) 1st Edition | David Kenyon". www.abebooks.com. Retrieved 19 September 2022. 
  73. ↑ Ruse, Michael; Richards, Robert J. (24 August 2017). The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Ethics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-13295-5. 
  74. ↑ "Hasting Rashdall's The Theory of Good and Evil". www.angelfire.com. Retrieved 19 May 2023. 
  75. ↑ "Ethics". fair-use.org. Retrieved 18 September 2022. 
  76. ↑ "Ethics (British Moral Philosophers)". amazon. Retrieved 18 September 2022. 
  77. ↑ "Richard Mervyn Hare" (PDF). thebritishacademy.ac.uk. Retrieved 10 June 2023. 
  78. ↑ "Philosophical radical | philosophy | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 10 June 2023. 
  79. ↑ Urmson, J. O. (1953). "The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill". Philosophical Quarterly. 3 (10): 33–39. JSTOR 2216697. doi:10.2307/2216697. 
  80. ↑ Martin, Rex (24 November 2010). "Mill's Rule Utilitarianism in Context". John Stuart Mill and the Art of Life: 21–43. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381245.003.0002. 
  81. ↑ Arrhenius & Bykvist 1995, p. 31.
  82. ↑ Smart 1958, p. 542.
  83. ↑ Seidel, Christian (2018). Consequentialism: New Directions, New Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 2. ISBN 9780190270124. 
  84. ↑ Anscombe, G. E. M. (January 1958). "Modern Moral Philosophy". Philosophy. 33 (124): 1–19. doi:10.1017/S0031819100037943. 
  85. ↑ "Applying Utilitarianism: Are Insider Trading and the Bailout of GM Ethical?". www.sevenpillarsinstitute.org. Retrieved 31 October 2023. 
  86. ↑ "Negative utilitarianism : R.N. Smart's reply to Popper". www.utilitarianism.com. Retrieved 30 October 2023. 
  87. ↑ "Brandt, R. B. (1910–1997) | Encyclopedia.com". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 17 October 2022. 
  88. ↑ "Goodreads". Goodreads. Retrieved 26 May 2023. 
  89. ↑ "rule-utilitarianism". www.utilitarianism.com. Retrieved 27 May 2023. 
  90. ↑ Lyons, Louis; Lyons, David (1965). "Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism". google.com.ar. Clarendon Press. Retrieved 31 March 2023. 
  91. ↑ "Ethics - Morality, Values, Principles | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 31 October 2023. 
  92. ↑ Popper 1966: vol. 1, 284–5
  93. ↑ "Karl Popper: Political Philosophy | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy". iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 27 May 2023. 
  94. ↑ Brooke, David (2 June 2009). Q&A Jurisprudence 2009-2010. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-24201-5. 
  95. ↑ Rawls, John (2005). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-674-01772-6. 
  96. ↑ "A Theory of Justice Quotes by John Rawls". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 20 September 2022. 
  97. ↑ 97.0 97.1 Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna de; Singer, Peter (2017). Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-872879-5. 
  98. ↑ "Famine, Affluence, and Morality". goodreads. Retrieved 20 September 2022. 
  99. ↑ 99.0 99.1 Hare, R. M. (1972–1973). "The Presidential Address: Principles". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. New Series. 73: 1–18. JSTOR 4544830. doi:10.1093/aristotelian/73.1.1. 
  100. ↑ Smart, J. J. C.; Williams, Bernard (1 January 1973). "Utilitarianism: For and Against". google.com.ar. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 31 March 2023. 
  101. ↑ P.Gay 1973:459
  102. ↑ "The International Encyclopedia of Communication". 28 March 2008. doi:10.1002/9781405186407.wbieci030. 
  103. ↑ Atkin, C. K. (1973). Instrumental utilities and information seeking. In P. Clark (ed.), New models of communication research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 205–242.
  104. ↑ Kennard, Frederick (March 20, 2015). Thought Experiments: Popular Thought Experiments in Philosophy, Physics, Ethics, Computer Science & Mathematics (First ed.). AMF. p. 322. ISBN 9781329003422. 
  105. ↑ Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. p. 41. 
  106. ↑ Derek Parfit, "Overpopulation and the quality of life", in The Repugnant Conclusion, J. Ryberg and T. Tännsjö, eds., 2004.
  107. ↑ "Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement". amazon.com. Retrieved 13 March 2023. 
  108. ↑ Robert Merrihew Adams, Motive Utilitarianism, The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 73, No. 14, On Motives and Morals (12 August 1976), pp. 467–81
  109. ↑ Feldman, Fred (1993). "On the Consistency of Act- and Motive-Utilitarianism: A Reply to Robert Adams". Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition. 70 (2): 201–212. ISSN 0031-8116. 
  110. ↑ "Richard Mervyn Hare 1919–2002" (PDF). thebritishacademy.ac.uk. Retrieved 19 May 2023. 
  111. ↑ Harsanyi, John C. 1977. "Morality and the theory of rational behavior." Social Research 44 (4):623–56.
  112. ↑ Harsanyi, John C. [1977] 1982. "Morality and the theory of rational behaviour." Pp. 39–62 in Utilitarianism and Beyond, edited by A. Sen and B. Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  113. ↑ Hare, R.M. (1981). Moral thinking: its levels, method, and point. Oxford New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824660-2. 
  114. ↑ Singer, Peter (1979). Practical ethics (1st ed.). Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-29720-2. :Singer, Peter (1993). Practical ethics (2nd ed.). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43971-8. 
  115. ↑ Brandt, Richard B. (1979). A Theory of the Good and the Right. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824550-6. 
  116. ↑ Telfer, Elizabeth (1980). "Happiness: An Examination of a Hedonistic and a Eudaemonistic Concept of Happiness and of the Relations Between Them, with a Consideration of how Far and in what Sense Either Kind of Happiness May be Said to be the Goal of Human Life". books.google.com. Macmillan. Retrieved 1 April 2023. 
  117. ↑ Hare, R. M. (1981). "Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point". philpapers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 18 September 2022. 
  118. ↑ Hare, R. M.; Hare, Richard Mervyn; Hare, Hare, Richard Mervyn; Hare, Richard M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824660-2. 
  119. ↑ Hare, Richard Mervyn (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. pp. 101–105. ISBN 978-0-19-824659-6. 
  120. ↑ "Hare's preference utilitarianism: an overview and critique". revistas.marilia.unesp.br. Retrieved 29 March 2023. 
  121. ↑ "THE EXPANDING CIRCLE Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress" (PDF). stafforini.com. Retrieved 20 September 2022. 
  122. ↑ Papilloud, Christian (2006). "MAUSS: Mouvement Anti-Utilitariste dans les Sciences Sociales". Kultur. Theorien der Gegenwart: 267–281. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-90017-9_22. 
  123. ↑ Graeber, David; Vandenberghe, Frédéric (18 January 2010). "MAUSS". The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosm148. Retrieved 19 May 2023. 
  124. ↑ 124.0 124.1 Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2022). "Consequentialism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 31 March 2023. 
  125. ↑ Lyons, David (July 1985). "The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions . Samuel Scheffler". Ethics. 95 (4): 936–939. doi:10.1086/292695. 
  126. ↑ "Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons: An Introduction and Critical Inquiry". Routledge & CRC Press. Retrieved 13 March 2023. 
  127. ↑ Torbjörn, Tännsjö (November 2002). "Why We Ought to Accept the Repugnant Conclusion". Utilitas. 14 (3): 339–359. doi:10.1017/S0953820800003642. 
  128. ↑ Huemer, Michael. "In Defence of Repugnance" (PDF). 
  129. ↑ Parfit, Derek (1984). Reasons and PersonsFree registration required. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198249085. 
  130. ↑ Another Mere Addition Paradox? Some Reflections on Variable Population Poverty Measurement. UNU-WIDER. November 2010. ISBN 978-92-9230-358-7. Retrieved 31 March 2015. 
  131. ↑ Griffin 1986:84
  132. ↑ Kagan, Shelly (1989). "The Limits of Morality". books.google.com. Clarendon Press. Retrieved 31 March 2023. 
  133. ↑ Kagan 1998, 17–22
  134. ↑ "CONSEQUENTIALISM AND THE UNFORESEEABLE FUTURE" (PDF). spot.colorado.edu. Retrieved 21 September 2022. 
  135. ↑ Sprigge 1990b: 198
  136. ↑ Broome, John (1992). "Counting the Cost of Global Warming: A Report to the Economic and Social Research Council on Research by John Broome and David Ulph". philarchive.org. Retrieved 5 June 2023. 
  137. ↑ Brandt, Richard B. (26 June 1992). "Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights". google.com.ar. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 31 March 2023. 
  138. ↑ Vorenkamp, Dirck (December 1992). "ANOTHER LOOK AT UTILITARIANISM IN MO-TZU'S THOUGHT". Journal of Chinese Philosophy. 19 (4): 423–443. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6253.1992.tb00125.x. 
  139. ↑ Vorenkamp, Dirck (1992). "Another Look at Utilitarianism in Mo-Tzu's Thought". Journal of Chinese Philosophy. pp. 423–443. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6253.1992.tb00125.x. Retrieved 30 March 2023. 
  140. ↑ Alican, Necip Fikri (1994). "Mill's Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill's Notorious Proof". books.google.com.ar. Rodopi. Retrieved 29 March 2023. 
  141. ↑ "The Hedonistic Imperative". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 20 September 2022. 
  142. ↑ "The Hedonistic Imperative Quotes by David Pearce". www.goodreads.com. Retrieved 20 September 2022. 
  143. ↑ Tännsjö, Torbjörn (1 March 1998). "Hedonistic Utilitarianism". amazon.com. Edinburgh University Press. Retrieved 27 May 2023. 
  144. ↑ Rosen, Frederick. 2003. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge. p. 32.
  145. ↑ "Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development" (PDF). nickbostrom.com. Retrieved 21 September 2022. 
  146. ↑ "Glossary – Utilitarianism.net". Utilitarianism. Retrieved 21 September 2022. 
  147. ↑ Ridge, Michael (April 2006). "INTRODUCING VARIABLE-RATE RULE-UTILITARIANISM". The Philosophical Quarterly. 56 (223): 242–253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2006.00440.x. 
  148. ↑ Ridge, Michael (2006). "Introducing Variable-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism". Philosophical Quarterly. pp. 242–253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2006.00440.x. Retrieved 30 March 2023. 
  149. ↑ Wiland, Eric (March 2007). "How Indirect Can Indirect Utilitarianism Be?". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 74 (2): 275–301. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2007.00018.x. 
  150. ↑ Wiland, Eric (2007). "How Indirect Can Indirect Utilitarianism Be?". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. pp. 275–301. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2007.00018.x. Retrieved 30 March 2023. 
  151. ↑ Hooker, Brad; Fletcher, Guy (2008). "Variable Versus Fixed-Rate Rule-Utilitarianism". Philosophical Quarterly. pp. 344–352. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.518.x. Retrieved 30 March 2023. 
  152. ↑ Hooker, Brad; Fletcher, Guy (April 2008). "VARIABLE VERSUS FIXED-RATE RULE-UTILITARIANISM". The Philosophical Quarterly. 58 (231): 344–352. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.518.x. 
  153. ↑ "Miles to Go". HistPhil. 17 September 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2023. 
  154. ↑ Todd, Benjamin (7 August 2020). "Misconceptions about effective altruism". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved 31 October 2023. 
  155. ↑ "Objections to Utilitarianism and Responses". Utilitarianism.net. Retrieved 31 October 2023. 
  156. ↑ "Abolitionist .com : Reprogramming Predators : the bioethical case for high-tech Jainism and a pan-species welfare state". www.abolitionist.com. Retrieved 31 October 2023. 
  157. ↑ Skelton, Anthony (1 February 2011). "3 Ideal Utilitarianism: Rashdall and Moore". doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577446.003.0004. 
  158. ↑ Skelton, Anthony (2011). "Ideal Utilitarianism: Rashdall and Moore". Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers From Sidgwick to Ewing. Oxford University Press. pp. 45–65. Retrieved 30 March 2023. 
  159. ↑ "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Haidt, Jonathan: Good (2013) | SecondSale". www.abebooks.com. Retrieved 11 March 2023. 
  160. ↑ "Goodreads". Goodreads. Retrieved 26 May 2023. 
  161. ↑ Tobia, Kevin (2013). "Rule Consequentialism and the Problem of Partial Acceptance". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. pp. 643–652. doi:10.1007/s10677-012-9382-3. Retrieved 30 March 2023. 
  162. ↑ Eggleston, Ben; Miller, Dale E. (2014). "The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism". philpapers.org. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 30 March 2023. 
  163. ↑ "Utilitarianism and nonhuman animals". edepot.wur.nl. Retrieved 25 October 2023. 
  164. ↑ Singer, Peter. "The Most Good You Can Do". Archived from the original on 2017-02-23. Retrieved October 24, 2023. 
  165. ↑ "The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically by Singer, Peter: Acceptable (2015) | Goodwill Books". www.abebooks.com. Retrieved 11 March 2023. 
  166. ↑ "Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement". Goodreads. Retrieved 20 September 2022. 
  167. ↑ Barrow, Robin (3 June 2015). Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-40654-9. 
  168. ↑ Chappell, Tim (2016). "Utilitarianism". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L109-1. 
  169. ↑ "The Happiness Philosophers". press.princeton.edu. 9 May 2017. Retrieved 27 May 2023. 
  170. ↑ Marseille, Elliot; Kahn, James G. (3 April 2019). "Utilitarianism and the ethical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in resource allocation for global health". Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine. 14 (1): 5. ISSN 1747-5341. doi:10.1186/s13010-019-0074-7. 
  171. ↑ Harrison, Jonathan (1979). "Rule Utilitarianism and Cumulative-Effect Utilitarianism". Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume. 5: 21–45. doi:10.1080/00455091.1979.10717092. 
  172. ↑ "Utilitarianism is too Cold and Calculating". Enquiry. 19 May 2022. Retrieved 31 October 2023. 
  173. ↑ "Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 13 October 2022. 
  174. ↑ "Google Books Ngram Viewer". books.google.com. Retrieved 5 June 2023. 
  175. ↑ "Wikipedia Views: results". wikipediaviews.org. Retrieved 5 June 2023. 
Retrieved from "http://timelines.issarice.com/index.php?title=Timeline_of_utilitarianism&oldid=76813"