Imagine you are sitting in a self-driving car when suddenly a child runs into the road. The car only has a second to decide: should it swerve into a wall, possibly killing you, or stay on the road and hit the child?
This might sound dramatic, but engineers and philosophers are genuinely debating how artificial intelligence should respond in situations like this. At the centre of that debate is a 200-year-old philosophy called utilitarianism.
The logic of the greater good
Utilitarianism was developed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the late 1700s. He believed that whether an action is right or wrong depends entirely on its consequences. This idea is part of consequentialism, which means actions are judged by their outcomes rather than intentions.
Bentham’s main idea was the “Greatest Happiness Principle”: an action is morally right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In theory, it sounds almost mathematical. If something creates more pleasure than pain overall, then it is the right choice. This makes utilitarianism feel logical and practical, especially when decisions affect many people at once.
Later, John Stuart Mill refined Bentham’s ideas. Mill argued that not all pleasures are equal. Intellectual and moral pleasures – like learning, creativity, or meaningful relationships — are more valuable than short-term physical enjoyment. This made utilitarianism more thoughtful, and less purely about numbers.
Why it matters in real life
Utilitarian thinking is especially useful when governments or leaders have to make large-scale decisions.
For example, if there is enough funding to either support a vaccine programme that protects millions of children, or pay for one extremely expensive experimental surgery for a single patient, a utilitarian approach would favour the vaccine programme because the overall benefit is greater.
The same logic applies to environmental policy. Banning single-use plastics may inconvenience many people in the short term, but if it protects ecosystems and future generations, the long-term benefit outweighs the temporary discomfort. In situations like these, thinking about the “greater good” feels not only reasonable, but necessary.
The downsides of utilitarianism
However, utilitarianism can also lead to conclusions that feel deeply uncomfortable.
There is a well-known thought experiment about a surgeon with five patients who will die without organ transplants. A healthy person walks in for a routine check-up. If the surgeon sacrifices the healthy person and distributes their organs, five lives could be saved – which, from a strict utilitarian perspective, might seem like the correct decision.
But most people would instinctively say this is wrong. It violates the healthy person’s rights. A right is something that should not be taken away simply because doing so benefits more people.
This reveals one of the biggest criticisms of utilitarianism: if we focus only on numbers, we risk justifying harm to individuals or minorities whenever it benefits the majority. History shows how dangerous majority reasoning can become when it ignores justice. Just because something benefits more people does not automatically make it morally right.
Act vs Rule Utilitarianism
Some philosophers try to deal with this tension by distinguishing between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism judges each individual action by whether it maximises happiness in that specific moment. Rule utilitarianism takes a broader view – it asks what general rules, if followed consistently, would create the most good over time.
Under this approach, protecting individual rights can actually be the utilitarian choice. Societies that respect rights usually create more trust and stability overall. The surgeon example becomes less convincing under rule utilitarianism, because a world where doctors are allowed to sacrifice healthy patients would destroy trust in medicine and probably cause far more harm in the long run.
The self-driving car dilemma shows why this distinction matters in practice. Engineers have to decide in advance what rule the car should follow. Should it always minimise total harm? Or should it protect its passenger? These decisions are no longer just philosophical thought experiments – they are being programmed into real systems.
My thoughts
I think utilitarianism is a powerful way of thinking, especially when dealing with global problems like climate change or public health. It forces us to think beyond ourselves and consider how our actions affect others.
At the same time, I don’t believe morality can be reduced to a simple calculation. If we treat happiness like a math equation, we risk ignoring fairness and human dignity.
Maybe the real challenge isn’t choosing between the greater good and individual rights – but figuring out how to protect both at the same time.