Question Utilitarianism takes the "good" to be that which provides pleasure, or benefit, or reduces suffering. But how does the utilitarian decide that pleasure, benefit or lack of suffering are the yardsticks for ethics? It could be coherent that there are pleasurable things (that don't simultaneously cause suffering) which are unethical, or that there are ethically necessary actions which don't provide any pleasure for anybody, and even increase suffering. I am thinking of ethical, moral or religious systems that, for example, harshly restrict sexuality, the consumption of foods, certain forms of art, etc. So how does the utilitarian view argue that pleasure and pain are indeed, indisputably (from its own point of view, anyway), the foundations of ethics? Is this just common sense, or is there something more?

Accepted:

January 4, 2011