1>>A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members. How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and how can they be identified? The traditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i.e., of what is good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good. People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals, artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bureaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons, workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely on what is a happy, satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite important points. All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreement--enough, anyway, for the purposes of a theory of justice --about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs \"that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a person\'s mental or physical well- being.\" Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental and physical well-being. A person\'s needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection, companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba, Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995). A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to meet his or her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have. We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotle\'s ideas on this question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agent\'s beliefs and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotle\'s label for the reasoning by which .

1. 1>>A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are
such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members.
How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This
would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly
measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter
indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and
how can they be identified?
The traditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i.e., of what is
good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social
conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good.
People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals,
artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bureaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons,
workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely
on what is a happy, satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite
important points.
All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreement--enough, anyway, for the
purposes of a theory of justice --about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all
these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that
must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs
"that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a person's mental or physical well-
being."
Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental
and physical well-being. A person's needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection,
companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba,
Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995).

2. A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to meet his or
her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however
much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have.
We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotle's ideas on this
question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational
beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human
beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those
choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agent's beliefs
and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotle's label for the
reasoning by which people decide what to do) is its translation into choice. Your choices are
dictated by your beliefs and desires--provided you are rational. Such choices, the reasoning that
leads to them, and the actions that result from them are what Aristotle chiefly means by the sort
of rational activity that makes up a human life. We may fairly sum up this point of view by
saying that people are "rational end-choosers."
If Aristotle is at all on the right track, then it is clear that a basic-needs minimum is a prerequisite
to any desirable kind of life, and further that to live a desirable kind of life a person must be free
to determine his or her own ends and have the wherewithal--the means, the opportunities--to
have a realistic chance of achieving those ends. (Some of these Aristotelian points are perhaps
implicitly included in Sterba's list of basic needs, under the head of self-development.)
So what does all this do for Utilitarianism? Quite a lot. We have filled in some of item (a) above:
the theory of the human good, the general conditions essential to a happy or desirable life. The
Utilitarian may plausibly claim to be trying to promote the overall happiness of people in his
society, therefore, when he tries to improve such things as rate of employment, per capita
income, distribution of wealth and opportunity, the amount of leisure, general availability and
level of education, poverty rates, social mobility, and the like. The justification for thinking these
things relevant should be pretty plain. They are measures of the amount and the distribution of
the means and opportunities by which people can realize their various conception of a desirable
life. With these things clearly in mind the Utilitarian is in a position to argue about item (b), the

3. sorts of social arrangements that will deliver the means and opportunities for people to achieve
their conception of a desirable life.
John Stuart Mill, one of the three most important 19th century Utilitarians (the other two were
Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick), argued that freedom or liberty, both political and
economic, were indispensable requisites for happiness. Basing his view upon much the same
interpretation of human beings and human life as Aristotle, Mill argued that democracy and the
basic political liberties--freedom of speech (and the press), of assembly, of worship--were
essential to the happiness of rational end-choosers; for without them they would be prevented
from effectively pursuing their own conception of a good and satisfying life. Similarly he argued
that some degree of economic prosperity--wealth--was indispensable to having a realistic chance
of living such a life, of realizing one's ends.
So, according to Utilitarianism, the just society should be so organized in its institutions--its
government, its laws, and its economy--that as many people as possible shall have the means and
opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of
one's society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice.
2>>
Most moral issues get us pretty worked up - think of abortion and euthanasia for starters.
Because these are such emotional issues we often let our hearts do the arguing while our brains
just go with the flow.
But there's another way of tackling these issues, and that's where philosophers can come in -
they offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us to take a cooler view of moral problems.
So ethics provides us with a moral map, a framework that we can use to find our way through
difficult issues.
Using the framework of ethics, two people who are arguing a moral issue can often find that
what they disagree about is just one particular part of the issue, and that they broadly agree on
everything else.
That can take a lot of heat out of the argument, and sometimes even hint at a way for them to
resolve their problem.
But sometimes ethics doesn't provide people with the sort of help that they really want.
Ethics doesn't always show the right answer to moral problems.

4. Indeed more and more people think that for many ethical issues there isn't a single right answer
- just a set of principles that can be applied to particular cases to give those involved some clear
choices.
Some philosophers go further and say that all ethics can do is eliminate confusion and clarify the
issues. After that it's up to each individual to come to their own conclusions.
Many people want there to be a single right answer to ethical questions. They find moral
ambiguity hard to live with because they genuinely want to do the 'right' thing, and even if they
can't work out what that right thing is, they like the idea that 'somewhere' there is one right
answer.
But often there isn't one right answer - there may be several right answers, or just some least
worst answers - and the individual must choose between them.
For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to take responsibility for their own
choices and actions, rather than falling back on convenient rules and customs.
Solution
1>>A society, according to Utilitarianism, is just to the extent that its laws and institutions are
such as to promote the greatest overall or average happiness of its members.
How do we determine the aggregate, or overall, happiness of the members of a society? This
would seem to present a real problem. For happiness is not, like temperature or weight, directly
measurable by any means that we have available. So utilitarians must approach the matter
indirectly. They will have to rely on indirect measures, in other words. What would these be, and
how can they be identified?
The traditional idea at this point is to rely upon (a) a theory of the human good (i.e., of what is
good for human beings, of what is required for them to flourish) and (b) an account of the social
conditions and forms of organization essential to the realization of that good.
People, of course, do not agree on what kind of life would be the most desirable. Intellectuals,
artists, ministers, politicians, corporate bureaucrats, financiers, soldiers, athletes, salespersons,

5. workers: all these different types of people, and more besides, will certainly not agree completely
on what is a happy, satisfying, or desirable life. Very likely they will disagree on some quite
important points.
All is not lost, however. For there may yet be substantial agreement--enough, anyway, for the
purposes of a theory of justice --about the general conditions requisite to human flourishing in all
these otherwise disparate kinds of life. First of all there are at minimum certain basic needs that
must be satisfied in any desirable kind of life. Basic needs, says James Sterba, are those needs
"that must be satisfied in order not to seriously endanger a person's mental or physical well-
being."
Basic needs, if not satisfied, lead to lacks and deficiencies with respect to a standard of mental
and physical well-being. A person's needs for food, shelter, medical care, protection,
companionship, and self-development are, at least in part, needs of this sort. [Sterba,
Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1995).
A basic-needs minimum, then, is the minimum wherewithal required for a person to meet his or
her basic needs. Such needs are universal. People will be alike in having such needs, however
much they diverge in regard to the other needs, desires, or ends that they may have.
We may develop this common ground further by resorting to some of Aristotle's ideas on this
question of the nature of a happy and satisfying life. Aristotle holds that humans are rational
beings and that a human life is essentially rational activity, by which he means that human
beings live their lives by making choices on the basis of reasons and then acting on those
choices. All reasoning about what to do proceeds from premises relating to the agent's beliefs
and desires. Desire is the motive for action and the practical syllogism (Aristotle's label for the
reasoning by which people decide what to do) is its translation into choice. Your choices are
dictated by your beliefs and desires--provided you are rational. Such choices, the reasoning that
leads to them, and the actions that result from them are what Aristotle chiefly means by the sort
of rational activity that makes up a human life. We may fairly sum up this point of view by
saying that people are "rational end-choosers."

6. If Aristotle is at all on the right track, then it is clear that a basic-needs minimum is a prerequisite
to any desirable kind of life, and further that to live a desirable kind of life a person must be free
to determine his or her own ends and have the wherewithal--the means, the opportunities--to
have a realistic chance of achieving those ends. (Some of these Aristotelian points are perhaps
implicitly included in Sterba's list of basic needs, under the head of self-development.)
So what does all this do for Utilitarianism? Quite a lot. We have filled in some of item (a) above:
the theory of the human good, the general conditions essential to a happy or desirable life. The
Utilitarian may plausibly claim to be trying to promote the overall happiness of people in his
society, therefore, when he tries to improve such things as rate of employment, per capita
income, distribution of wealth and opportunity, the amount of leisure, general availability and
level of education, poverty rates, social mobility, and the like. The justification for thinking these
things relevant should be pretty plain. They are measures of the amount and the distribution of
the means and opportunities by which people can realize their various conception of a desirable
life. With these things clearly in mind the Utilitarian is in a position to argue about item (b), the
sorts of social arrangements that will deliver the means and opportunities for people to achieve
their conception of a desirable life.
John Stuart Mill, one of the three most important 19th century Utilitarians (the other two were
Jeremy Bentham and Henry Sidgwick), argued that freedom or liberty, both political and
economic, were indispensable requisites for happiness. Basing his view upon much the same
interpretation of human beings and human life as Aristotle, Mill argued that democracy and the
basic political liberties--freedom of speech (and the press), of assembly, of worship--were
essential to the happiness of rational end-choosers; for without them they would be prevented
from effectively pursuing their own conception of a good and satisfying life. Similarly he argued
that some degree of economic prosperity--wealth--was indispensable to having a realistic chance
of living such a life, of realizing one's ends.
So, according to Utilitarianism, the just society should be so organized in its institutions--its
government, its laws, and its economy--that as many people as possible shall have the means and
opportunity to achieve their chosen conception of a desirable life. To reform the institutions of
one's society toward this goal, in the utilitarian view, is to pursue greater justice.

7. 2>>
Most moral issues get us pretty worked up - think of abortion and euthanasia for starters.
Because these are such emotional issues we often let our hearts do the arguing while our brains
just go with the flow.
But there's another way of tackling these issues, and that's where philosophers can come in -
they offer us ethical rules and principles that enable us to take a cooler view of moral problems.
So ethics provides us with a moral map, a framework that we can use to find our way through
difficult issues.
Using the framework of ethics, two people who are arguing a moral issue can often find that
what they disagree about is just one particular part of the issue, and that they broadly agree on
everything else.
That can take a lot of heat out of the argument, and sometimes even hint at a way for them to
resolve their problem.
But sometimes ethics doesn't provide people with the sort of help that they really want.
Ethics doesn't always show the right answer to moral problems.
Indeed more and more people think that for many ethical issues there isn't a single right answer
- just a set of principles that can be applied to particular cases to give those involved some clear
choices.
Some philosophers go further and say that all ethics can do is eliminate confusion and clarify the
issues. After that it's up to each individual to come to their own conclusions.
Many people want there to be a single right answer to ethical questions. They find moral
ambiguity hard to live with because they genuinely want to do the 'right' thing, and even if they
can't work out what that right thing is, they like the idea that 'somewhere' there is one right
answer.
But often there isn't one right answer - there may be several right answers, or just some least
worst answers - and the individual must choose between them.
For others moral ambiguity is difficult because it forces them to take responsibility for their own
choices and actions, rather than falling back on convenient rules and customs.