PhilosophyMemes

Bentham might say that utilitarianism isn't about comparing more or less arbitrary values of utility in different actions or outcomes, but forcing ourselves to ask if there is any utility to the outcome.

Is it better to donate money to cancer research, or give the money to a beggar in the street? Entirely unclear, it's essentially impossible to calculate the relative utility of these actions until you agree on some measure of utility. That's fine, that's not really what utilitarianism is for.

Is it moral for the state to execute people for their homosexuality, as the UK did in Bentham's time? Maybe according to religious morals, or traditional morals, or duty ethics. Not according to utilitarianism. Absolutely nobody benefits from this, and the suffering is immense.

Utilitarianism, when applied correctly, forces us to critically investigate every action that causes suffering and ask: can this actually be justified?