utilitarianism

Welfare-based moral criterion

Record how the position connects moral evaluation to welfare consequences and whether it recognises independent ultimate goods.

1. Does the position make welfare the sole ultimate good, and how does it connect that good to moral rightness? definition
2. What distinguishes this position from broader consequentialism, ethical egoism and ordinary claims of usefulness? boundary

Attributed utilitarian variant

Record the formulation's own commitments separately from an interpreter's label or reconstruction.

1. Which primary passage or explicit formulation supports classifying this position as utilitarian? provenance
2. Which qualifications make its inclusion within utilitarianism contested or dependent on a named classification convention? boundary

Welfare content and evidence

Record whether welfare consists in experience, satisfied preferences, objective goods or another account, together with acceptable evidence.

1. What constitutes welfare, and how are pleasure, suffering, preferences and non-experiential goods treated? definition
2. What observations or proxies support welfare estimates, and which aspects of welfare do those proxies omit? measurement

Standing and equal consideration

Record inclusion criteria and whether differences in weighting reflect welfare differences or privileges attached to identity.

1. What qualifies an entity for moral consideration, including nonhuman animals, future persons and uncertain cases of sentience? boundary
2. How does the position give equal consideration to equivalent interests while allowing different needs and capacities? definition

Comparison and distribution

Record the aggregation operation, its measurement assumptions and how concentrated harms compare with dispersed benefits.

1. What scale permits interpersonal comparison, and which assumptions justify adding or otherwise aggregating welfare estimates? measurement
2. Can many small benefits outweigh one person's severe harm, and does inequality matter intrinsically or through its welfare effects? definition

Variable-population comparison

Record how creating lives, changing population size and placing welfare in the future affect outcome rankings.

1. Does the position compare total welfare, average welfare or another quantity when alternatives contain different populations? definition
2. How are future welfare, the welfare level of a neutral life and any discounting assumptions represented and justified? measurement

Evaluation target and rule conditions

Record whether welfare evaluates individual acts or another target, including the acceptance or compliance conditions used to evaluate rules.

1. Are acts assessed directly, or through rules, motives or institutions selected for their welfare consequences? definition
2. For a rule-based formulation, whose acceptance or compliance is assumed, and when are exceptions permitted? action

Evidence-sensitive decision procedure

Record consequence probabilities, deliberation costs and the relationship between justified choice and eventual outcomes.

1. Does evaluation use actual outcomes or expected welfare, and what evidence supports the probabilities and consequence estimates? measurement
2. When should an agent calculate explicitly, follow an established heuristic, seek more evidence or report that no stable ranking is available? action

Protections and sacrifice

Record whether welfare grounds protections and whether the theory requires substantial sacrifices from individuals.

1. How does the position justify rights, promises and protections against harming individuals, and can welfare gains override them? boundary
2. What limits, if any, does it place on required sacrifice and on the displacement of personal projects or special obligations? definition

Recommendation robustness

Record the feasible alternatives, omitted effects and assumptions that determine whether a recommendation is warranted.

1. Which feasible alternatives, affected parties, indirect effects and opportunity costs must be included before recommending an option? action
2. Which changes in welfare estimates, probabilities or aggregation assumptions reverse the ranking, and how should that instability qualify the recommendation? measurement

Check these first

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

• The sense described is an ethical doctrine and family of theories, not a standalone academic discipline or an everyday preference for usefulness.
• The listed kinds represent intersecting distinctions about moral rules, the nature of welfare, and aggregation; they are not mutually exclusive categories.
• No sources were consulted; utilitarianism has no universally accepted numerical welfare scale, and a research pass should distinguish particular authors' formulations.

1. Which of these check these first hold for the sense of utilitarianism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Kinds and varieties

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

• Act utilitarianism
• Rule utilitarianism
• Hedonistic utilitarianism
• Preference utilitarianism
• Total utilitarianism
• Average utilitarianism

1. Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of utilitarianism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Real-world use

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

• Evaluating public policies by their consequences for overall well-being.
• Informing debates about health-resource allocation and population health.
• Supporting ethical arguments concerning animal welfare and the interests of sentient beings.
• Guiding debates about charitable giving and the comparative benefits of interventions.
• Analyzing obligations to future generations.

1. Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of utilitarianism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Failure modes and hazards

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

• Interpersonal comparisons and aggregation of well-being may lack an agreed measurement basis.
• Maximizing aggregate welfare can appear to justify violating individual rights or imposing severe burdens on minorities.
• Uncertain consequences and selective forecasting can undermine practical judgments.
• Impartial maximization can impose demanding obligations that conflict with personal projects and special relationships.
• Different aggregation rules yield disputed conclusions about population size and the welfare of future people.

1. Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of utilitarianism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

• Consequentialism - Consequentialism evaluates morality through consequences; utilitarianism specifically centers impartial aggregate well-being, whereas other consequentialist theories value additional or different outcomes.
• Deontological ethics - Deontological theories recognize duties or constraints that need not yield to maximizing aggregate well-being.
• Virtue ethics - Virtue ethics gives explanatory priority to character and virtues rather than treating their moral importance as ultimately derived from aggregate welfare.
• Ethical egoism - Ethical egoism privileges the agent's own good; utilitarianism counts the welfare of all affected individuals impartially.
• Welfarism - Welfarism makes welfare the sole basis of evaluating outcomes but does not by itself require utilitarian aggregation or maximization.
• Cost-benefit analysis - Cost-benefit analysis is an appraisal method, often using monetary valuations; its use does not establish a commitment to utilitarian ethics.

1. Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of utilitarianism this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance