Theory of Utilitarianism: A Critical Analysis

The theory of utilitarianism is an ethical and legal philosophy which holds that an action, rule or law should be judged by its consequences and its ability to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Developed mainly by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism influenced modern law, legislation and public policy. However, the theory has also been criticised for its approach to rights, justice, morality and individual interests.

What Is the Theory of Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which states that an action is right if it produces the greatest overall happiness or welfare. The morality of an action is therefore determined primarily by its consequences rather than merely by intention, tradition or fixed moral rules.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

The theory occupies an important place in the study of jurisprudence because it provides a philosophical explanation of how laws and State policies may be assessed according to their social consequences.

The central idea behind the theory of utilitarianism is utility. Utility refers to the tendency of an action, law or policy to produce pleasure, happiness or benefit and to prevent pain, suffering or harm. The principle of utility in law therefore connects legal decision-making with the practical consequences produced by legal rules.

In simple terms, utilitarianism asks one basic question:

Which action will produce the greatest overall benefit for everyone affected?

Join live law courses and learn directly from legal professionals.

View Live Courses →

If one action creates more happiness and less suffering than the available alternatives, utilitarianism generally regards that action as morally preferable.

The theory is closely associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, although the broader idea that morality should be connected with human welfare existed before both thinkers.

Utilitarianism became especially important in legal philosophy and contemporary jurisprudence because it provided a rational method for examining laws. Instead of treating laws as desirable merely because they were traditional or historically accepted, utilitarian thinkers asked whether those laws actually improved human welfare.

What Is the Main Principle of Utilitarianism?

The main principle of utilitarianism is known as the Greatest Happiness Principle.

According to this principle, actions are morally right when they tend to promote happiness and morally wrong when they tend to produce the opposite of happiness.

Happiness is generally understood in classical utilitarian theory as:

• Pleasure: Actions producing pleasure or satisfaction are considered beneficial when their overall consequences increase social happiness.
• Absence of pain: Avoiding or reducing unnecessary suffering is an equally important part of the utilitarian calculation.
• Satisfaction of interests: The interests of all persons affected by a decision are relevant rather than only those of the decision-maker.
• Improvement in human welfare: Laws and policies should contribute to the general well-being of society.
• Reduction of suffering: An action producing substantial avoidable suffering becomes difficult to justify merely because it provides a limited benefit.

The theory therefore evaluates conduct by looking at its overall consequences.

A decision that benefits only one person while causing serious harm to several others may be rejected under utilitarian reasoning. On the other hand, a rule that imposes a small inconvenience on individuals but produces substantial social benefits may be justified.

Join live law courses and learn directly from legal professionals.

View Live Courses →

This welfare-oriented understanding of law can also be compared with Roscoe Pound’s theory of social engineering, which considers law an instrument for balancing competing interests and satisfying social needs with minimum conflict.

Who Developed the Theory of Utilitarianism?

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are regarded as the two most important classical utilitarian philosophers.

Bentham developed a systematic theory based on pleasure and pain, while Mill later modified and refined Bentham’s approach.

Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher, jurist and legal reformer who developed one of the earliest systematic versions of utilitarianism.

Bentham believed that human beings are largely governed by two basic forces:

• pleasure; and
• pain.

According to him, human actions, social institutions and laws should be evaluated according to whether they increase pleasure or reduce pain.

Bentham’s theory is often described as quantitative utilitarianism because he attempted to measure and compare pleasures according to identifiable factors.

His philosophy is commonly associated with the expression “greatest happiness of the greatest number.”

Bentham also criticised outdated laws, unnecessary punishments and complicated legal institutions. He believed that law should serve practical social purposes rather than continue merely because of tradition.

Explore LawBhoomi's free law library for students and lawyers.

Visit Library →

This approach was substantially different from the Historical School of Jurisprudence, which gives greater importance to the historical development, customs and consciousness of society in understanding law.

John Stuart Mill

John Stuart Mill accepted the central principle of utilitarianism but made important changes to Bentham’s theory.

Mill believed that all pleasures should not be treated as equal. Some pleasures, particularly intellectual, moral and emotional pleasures, may be superior to purely physical pleasures.

This distinction between higher pleasures and lower pleasures became one of the most important features of Mill’s version of utilitarianism.

Mill also tried to reconcile utilitarianism with:

• individual liberty;
• justice;
• moral development; and
• protection of personal freedom.

Mill’s ideas on freedom are particularly important in understanding the relationship between law and liberty. His approach recognised that social welfare must be considered alongside an appropriate sphere of individual freedom.

What Is Bentham’s Theory of Utilitarianism?

Jeremy Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism is based on the idea that pleasure is good and pain is undesirable.

An action is considered right when it produces more pleasure than pain. Similarly, a law is desirable if its overall effect increases the happiness of society.

Bentham treated the promotion of happiness as the primary objective of morality and legislation.

Principle of Utility

The principle of utility states that every action should be judged according to its tendency to increase or decrease the happiness of those affected.

This principle applies not only to individuals but also to governments and lawmakers.

A law should therefore be judged according to questions such as:

• Does the law increase social welfare? A useful law should create benefits that justify the restrictions or burdens imposed by it.
• Does it prevent unnecessary suffering? Legal intervention should not cause avoidable pain without sufficient social justification.
• Does it produce more benefit than harm? Both positive and negative consequences must be considered.
• Does it improve the position of society as a whole? Utilitarianism gives importance to aggregate social welfare rather than benefits enjoyed by only a privileged group.

Bentham’s utilitarianism was therefore closely connected with legal and legislative reform.

What Is the Felicific Calculus?

The felicific calculus, also called the hedonic calculus, is Bentham’s method for evaluating the pleasure and pain produced by an action.

Bentham identified several factors that may be considered while assessing consequences.

Intensity

Intensity refers to the strength of the pleasure or pain produced.

A highly intense pleasure may carry greater weight than a weak pleasure. Similarly, severe suffering must be given greater consideration than a minor inconvenience.

Duration

Duration refers to how long the pleasure or pain continues.

A benefit lasting several years may be considered more significant than a benefit lasting only for a short period.

Certainty

Certainty refers to the likelihood that a particular pleasure or pain will actually occur.

A highly probable benefit may receive greater importance than a benefit that is merely speculative.

Propinquity

Propinquity refers to how soon the pleasure or pain is likely to occur.

Consequences that arise immediately may sometimes have greater practical significance than consequences expected only in the distant future.

Fecundity

Fecundity refers to the possibility that one pleasure may produce further pleasures in the future.

For example, education may provide immediate intellectual benefit while also creating future employment opportunities, knowledge and economic advantages.

Purity

Purity refers to the likelihood that a pleasure will not be followed by pain or that pain will not subsequently produce opposite consequences.

Extent

Extent refers to the number of persons affected by an action.

This factor is especially important because utilitarianism considers the welfare of all affected persons rather than merely the interests of the individual making the decision.

The felicific calculus therefore reflects Bentham’s attempt to make moral and legal decision-making systematic and consequence-oriented.

What Is Mill’s Theory of Utilitarianism?

John Stuart Mill accepted the principle that morality should promote happiness, but he disagreed with the idea that all pleasures could be judged only by quantity.

Mill argued that pleasures also differ in quality.

Higher and Lower Pleasures

Mill divided pleasures broadly into higher and lower forms.

Higher pleasures generally include:

• intellectual development and acquisition of knowledge;
• education and improvement of reasoning;
• moral achievement and development of character;
• imagination and creative activities;
• cultural and artistic experiences; and
• emotional fulfilment and meaningful relationships.

Lower pleasures generally include:

• bodily comfort;
• physical satisfaction; and
• sensory enjoyment.

Mill argued that persons familiar with both kinds of pleasure may reasonably prefer higher pleasures even where they require greater effort.

This makes Mill’s theory a form of qualitative utilitarianism.

What Is the Difference Between Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianism?

Bentham and Mill agreed that happiness should be an important foundation of morality, but they differed on the nature and assessment of happiness.

Bentham Focused on Quantity

Bentham generally measured pleasures according to factors such as duration, intensity and extent.

For Bentham, the amount of pleasure produced was central to evaluating an action.

Mill Focused on Quality

Mill argued that some forms of pleasure possess greater value than others.

Intellectual and moral pleasures may therefore be superior to purely physical pleasures even when physical pleasures are more immediately satisfying.

Bentham’s Approach Was More Calculative

Bentham attempted to develop a method for calculating pleasure and pain through the felicific calculus.

Mill’s theory gave greater importance to the character and quality of the happiness being produced.

Mill Gave Greater Importance to Liberty

Mill’s broader philosophy placed substantial importance on individual liberty and personal development.

This consideration is particularly significant in jurisprudence because law frequently involves balancing collective welfare against individual freedom.

What Are the Main Features of Utilitarianism?

The theory of utilitarianism has several important characteristics.

It Is Consequence-Based

Utilitarianism primarily evaluates an action according to its consequences.

Good intentions alone are not sufficient if an action eventually produces serious harm.

This consequence-oriented character distinguishes utilitarianism from theories that determine morality according to fixed duties or inherent moral principles. The distinction is particularly relevant to the broader debate concerning law and morality.

It Promotes Overall Welfare

The theory focuses on the welfare of all affected persons rather than merely the person performing the action.

Each Person’s Happiness Matters

Classical utilitarianism generally treats each person’s welfare as morally relevant.

The happiness of one person does not automatically carry greater importance because of wealth, status or political power.

It Seeks Maximum Utility

The preferred action is normally the action that produces the highest overall level of benefit after considering available alternatives.

It Is Impartial

Utilitarian reasoning requires consideration of everyone’s interests.

This emphasis on interests also creates an interesting point of comparison with theories of legal rights, which examine the philosophical foundations on which legal rights may be recognised and protected.

What Are the Types of Utilitarianism?

Modern discussions generally distinguish between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.

Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism evaluates each individual action separately.

An action is right if, in the particular circumstances, it produces the greatest overall utility.

For example, whether breaking a promise is justified would depend on whether doing so produces better overall consequences in that specific situation.

Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism focuses on general rules rather than isolated acts.

Under this approach, a rule is desirable if general adherence to that rule produces greater overall welfare.

For example, a rule requiring promises to be honoured may create greater social trust and stability even though breaking a promise may occasionally produce an immediate benefit.

Rule utilitarianism attempts to address some problems associated with applying act utilitarianism independently to every situation.

How Did Utilitarianism Influence Law and Jurisprudence?

Utilitarianism has had a significant influence on legal philosophy.

Bentham strongly believed that law should promote social welfare and prevent unnecessary suffering. His approach forms an important part of the broader study of the definition and nature of jurisprudence.

This approach challenged legal systems based heavily on tradition, custom and inherited institutions.

Law as an Instrument of Social Welfare

Utilitarianism treats law as a tool for improving society.

Legislation should therefore be judged according to its practical consequences. This understanding has similarities with the broader study of law and society, where law is examined as both a regulator of conduct and an instrument of social change.

Utilitarian reasoning can be relevant in laws and policies concerning:

• public health;
• social welfare;
• education;
• labour protection;
• taxation;
• criminal justice; and
• economic regulation.

Reform of Criminal Law

Bentham criticised harsh and unnecessary punishments.

Under utilitarian reasoning, punishment itself causes pain and therefore requires justification. It may be justified when its imposition prevents greater harm to society.

This reasoning is closely connected with the different theories of punishment.

Punishment may serve purposes such as:

• Deterrence: Punishment may discourage the offender and other persons from committing similar offences.
• Prevention: Restricting an offender may prevent further offences and protect society.
• Protection of society: Criminal sanctions may reduce risks to public safety.
• Rehabilitation: Treatment and correction may help offenders return to society without repeating criminal behaviour.

The utilitarian basis of deterrence and prevention can be studied further through the detailed discussion on theories of punishment and their features.

The rehabilitative dimension of punishment is also reflected in the reformative theory of punishment in India.

Excessive punishment that produces no corresponding social benefit becomes difficult to justify from a utilitarian perspective.

Administration of Justice

Utilitarianism is also relevant to the administration of justice because legal institutions ultimately perform functions relating to the protection of rights, enforcement of laws, maintenance of order and resolution of disputes.

A utilitarian evaluation of a justice system therefore considers whether its institutions effectively contribute to public welfare and social stability.

Legislative Decision-Making

Utilitarianism encourages lawmakers to compare the expected social costs and benefits of legislation.

The principle of utility in interpretation of statutes similarly illustrates how considerations of beneficial consequences may influence legal interpretation.

What Are the Advantages of Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism has remained influential because of several strengths.

Focus on Human Welfare

The theory places human happiness and suffering at the centre of moral and legal decision-making.

This makes utilitarianism practical and outcome-oriented rather than purely abstract.

Rational Basis for Legal Reform

Utilitarianism provides a framework for examining whether laws actually serve useful social purposes.

Unnecessary or harmful laws can be questioned where they produce more suffering than benefit.

Equality of Interests

The theory requires the interests of all affected persons to be considered.

This principle can be compared with the broader jurisprudential concept of legal rights, under which the legal system recognises and protects particular claims, freedoms and interests.

Practical Relevance

Governments frequently need to choose between different policies affecting large populations.

Utilitarian reasoning provides one method of comparing the expected benefits and burdens of competing policies.

Flexibility

The theory does not depend entirely upon rigid moral rules.

Changing circumstances and consequences may therefore be considered while determining the appropriate course of action.

What Are the Main Criticisms of Utilitarianism?

Despite its influence, utilitarianism faces serious philosophical and legal criticisms.

Its difficulties become particularly important when utilitarian considerations conflict with justice, individual liberty or legally protected rights.

Can Happiness Really Be Measured?

One of the strongest criticisms concerns the measurement of happiness.

Pleasure and pain are subjective experiences. Different persons may experience the same event differently.

It therefore becomes difficult to answer questions such as:

• How can one person’s happiness be compared with another person’s happiness? There is no universally accepted unit through which personal experiences of pleasure and pain can be precisely measured.
• Can emotional satisfaction be measured against economic benefit? Different forms of welfare may not always be directly comparable.
• Can short-term pleasure be compared accurately with long-term suffering? Immediate consequences may be visible while distant consequences remain uncertain.

Bentham’s felicific calculus attempts to provide a framework, but precise calculation remains difficult in actual situations.

Does Utilitarianism Ignore Individual Rights?

A major criticism is that utilitarianism may allow individual rights to be sacrificed for collective welfare.

Suppose harming one person could create substantial happiness for a large number of people. A purely numerical form of utilitarianism may appear to justify such harm.

This creates tension between utility and the nature and protection of human rights.

In the Indian constitutional framework, Fundamental Rights protect important interests such as equality, freedom and personal liberty against unjustified State action.

The protection of rights therefore means that aggregate social benefit cannot automatically become a sufficient justification for every restriction on individual freedom.

Can Utilitarianism Justify Injustice?

Utilitarianism may sometimes conflict with justice.

For example, punishing an innocent person might theoretically satisfy a large section of society or prevent immediate unrest. However, such punishment would violate fundamental principles of fairness and justice.

The distinction between what is legally enforceable and what is just is examined more broadly in the discussion on the difference between law and justice.

A legal system cannot function merely by calculating public satisfaction. It must also protect:

• fairness;
• legal rights;
• procedural safeguards;
• equality; and
• due process.

This criticism demonstrates why utility cannot always operate as the sole measure of legal justice.

Is Utilitarianism Consistent With Natural Rights?

Classical utilitarianism has historically been sceptical about rights existing independently of law.

This places utilitarianism in significant contrast with the Natural Law School, which connects legal and moral principles with universal standards derived from reason, nature or morality.

Natural-rights theories generally maintain that certain rights belong to human beings because of their inherent status and cannot simply depend upon whether recognising those rights maximises collective happiness.

The conflict between utilitarianism and natural rights therefore reflects a deeper jurisprudential question: Should rights be protected because they maximise welfare, or because individuals possess them irrespective of aggregate social benefit?

How Is Utilitarianism Different From Social Contract Theory?

Utilitarian thinkers did not base the authority of the State primarily upon a hypothetical agreement among individuals.

The Social Contract Theory explains political authority through the idea that individuals agree, expressly or theoretically, to establish an organised political society.

Utilitarianism instead evaluates the State principally according to its usefulness and ability to promote social welfare.

The difference is significant. Social contract theories may ask how legitimate political authority originates, whereas utilitarianism focuses heavily on whether that authority produces beneficial consequences.

Is It Possible to Predict Every Consequence?

Utilitarianism requires decision-makers to examine consequences, but future consequences are often uncertain.

A policy that appears beneficial in the present may produce harmful effects several years later.

Similarly, apparently burdensome short-term measures may generate substantial long-term benefits.

This creates an important practical difficulty because complete information about future consequences is rarely available.

The correctness of a utilitarian decision may therefore depend partly on predictions which later prove inaccurate.

Is Utilitarianism Too Demanding?

Utilitarianism may impose very demanding moral obligations.

If every action must maximise overall welfare, individuals may theoretically be expected to sacrifice personal comfort, wealth and interests whenever doing so produces a greater benefit for others.

This may leave limited space for:

• personal choices;
• individual projects;
• family relationships;
• personal property; and
• individual freedom.

The problem becomes particularly important when considering the legal relationship between rights and duties in jurisprudence. Law ordinarily recognises both social obligations and spheres within which individual interests deserve protection.

Does Utilitarianism Ignore Special Relationships?

Classical utilitarianism treats everyone’s welfare impartially.

However, ordinary moral and legal life recognises special responsibilities towards:

• parents and children;
• spouses;
• persons under contractual obligations;
• persons under professional responsibility; and
• persons towards whom specific legal duties are owed.

The concept of duties in jurisprudence demonstrates that legal obligations may arise from particular relationships rather than from a general requirement to maximise collective welfare.

A strictly impartial utilitarian approach may therefore have difficulty explaining why these special obligations should sometimes take priority over greater benefits available elsewhere.

What Is the Problem With the Greatest Number Principle?

The expression “greatest happiness of the greatest number” may create a majoritarian problem.

If the interests of a minority are repeatedly sacrificed to benefit a majority, total happiness may apparently increase while serious injustice continues.

This concern becomes particularly important under constitutional law.

The rule of law requires governmental power to operate within legal and constitutional limitations rather than solely according to popular preference.

Similarly, the Golden Triangle of Articles 14, 19 and 21 protects equality, freedom and personal liberty within India’s constitutional framework.

Constitutional democracy therefore cannot operate solely on the assumption that whatever benefits the largest number must necessarily be legally just.

How Do Fundamental Rights Limit Pure Utilitarian Reasoning?

Fundamental Rights provide one of the strongest legal limitations on unrestricted utilitarianism.

For example, Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects life and personal liberty. State action affecting these interests must satisfy constitutional requirements rather than merely demonstrate that the action may benefit a larger population.

Similarly, Article 13 of the Constitution of India ensures that laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights may be rendered void to the extent of inconsistency.

This illustrates an important difference between pure utilitarianism and constitutionalism.

Under unrestricted utilitarian reasoning, collective benefit may potentially justify individual sacrifice. Under constitutional governance, some exercises of State power remain subject to enforceable rights and limitations even where broader public benefits are claimed.

Does Mill Solve the Problems in Bentham’s Theory?

Mill addressed several weaknesses of Bentham’s theory, but his solution also created new questions.

The distinction between higher and lower pleasures makes utilitarianism more sophisticated.

However, it raises questions such as:

• Who decides which pleasures are higher? Personal, social and cultural preferences may differ.
• What objective standard determines quality? There is no simple numerical method for deciding that one intellectual or moral experience is necessarily superior to another form of satisfaction.
• Can cultural differences affect this classification? Ideas regarding a desirable or fulfilling life may differ substantially between societies and individuals.

Mill relied partly on the preferences of persons experienced in different forms of pleasure.

Even then, disagreement may continue.

Is Rule Utilitarianism Better Than Act Utilitarianism?

Rule utilitarianism solves some difficulties associated with act utilitarianism.

General rules supporting honesty, promise-keeping, fairness and justice can produce long-term social welfare.

However, another difficulty emerges.

If breaking a rule in a particular case clearly produces greater utility, strict rule utilitarianism may require following a rule that produces a poorer result.

If exceptions are constantly permitted whenever greater utility is expected, rule utilitarianism may eventually become difficult to distinguish from act utilitarianism.

This creates an important theoretical tension between the two approaches.

How Is Utilitarianism Related to Distributive Justice?

Utilitarianism also raises an important question about how benefits and burdens should be distributed in society.

A utilitarian approach may favour a distribution that produces the greatest total welfare. However, maximising total welfare does not necessarily guarantee that benefits will be distributed equally.

The concept of distributive justice examines how resources, opportunities, rights and burdens should be fairly allocated among members of society.

This reveals another major criticism of classical utilitarianism: maximising the total amount of happiness is different from ensuring a fair distribution of happiness and resources.

How Is Utilitarianism Different From Rawls’ Theory of Justice?

John Rawls developed one of the most influential modern alternatives to utilitarian approaches to justice.

Rawls’ Theory of Justice focuses on fairness and asks what principles rational and equal persons would accept under conditions where they did not know their own social position.

A major difference lies in the treatment of individuals.

Utilitarianism may permit losses imposed on some persons where greater aggregate benefits result. Rawls’ approach gives stronger importance to fair institutions and basic liberties and resists treating disadvantages suffered by some individuals merely as costs that may be offset by advantages enjoyed by others.

The comparison demonstrates why utilitarianism remains important but does not provide the only philosophical explanation of justice.

Does Utilitarianism Have Relevance in Intellectual Property Law?

Utilitarian reasoning is also visible in theories used to justify intellectual property protection.

The theories of intellectual property rights include a utilitarian or incentive-based justification.

Under this approach, intellectual property rights are protected not merely because creators possess an inherent entitlement over their creations, but also because providing legal incentives may encourage innovation, creativity and dissemination of knowledge.

The ultimate justification is therefore social benefit.

Protection is valuable when it encourages activities that generate wider welfare, demonstrating the practical relevance of utilitarian reasoning beyond traditional moral philosophy.

What Is the Relevance of Utilitarianism Today?

Utilitarian reasoning remains relevant in modern law and public policy.

Governments frequently compare the benefits and burdens of decisions relating to:

• Public health: Policies may require balancing individual inconvenience against protection of the wider population.
• Environmental protection: Regulation frequently requires comparison of economic costs with long-term ecological and social benefits.
• Taxation: Tax policies distribute financial burdens to fund services considered beneficial to society.
• Infrastructure: Large public projects frequently require examination of social costs, economic benefits and effects on affected communities.
• Welfare schemes: Governments must decide how limited public resources can generate the greatest social benefit.
• Criminal justice: Punishment policies consider deterrence, rehabilitation, prevention and protection of society.
• Economic regulation: Regulatory measures often involve balancing private commercial freedom against wider public interests.
• Allocation of public resources: Limited funds require governments to prioritise competing needs.

However, modern legal systems rarely rely on utility alone.

Constitutional Law places substantial importance on individual rights, equality, constitutional limitations, judicial review and the rule of law.

Therefore, utilitarianism today functions more effectively as one method of legal and policy analysis rather than as an absolute theory governing every decision.

Critical Analysis of the Theory of Utilitarianism

The theory of utilitarianism made an important contribution to moral philosophy and jurisprudence by shifting attention towards the practical consequences of laws and actions.

Bentham’s insistence that laws must serve social welfare helped challenge arbitrary rules, unnecessary punishment and institutions that could not be justified according to their social usefulness. His approach encouraged lawmakers to ask whether a legal rule actually benefits society.

Mill strengthened the theory by recognising qualitative differences in human happiness and giving greater importance to liberty and moral development.

However, the theory becomes problematic when utility is treated as the only standard of morality or legality.

Human societies value more than aggregate happiness. Justice, dignity, freedom, equality and legal rights may sometimes require decisions that do not maximise immediate social utility.

Theories dealing with law and morality, natural rights, constitutional freedoms and justice demonstrate that legal systems must consider several values simultaneously.

Utilitarianism is therefore strongest when used as a framework for evaluating consequences rather than as an unrestricted moral formula.

Its enduring value lies in the fundamental question it forces every legal system to consider: Does a law actually improve human welfare?

At the same time, its limitations demonstrate that social welfare must be balanced with individual rights, fairness, constitutional values and the rule of law in India.

Conclusion

The theory of utilitarianism holds that actions, laws and policies should promote the greatest possible happiness and minimise suffering. Jeremy Bentham developed a quantitative approach based on pleasure and pain, while John Stuart Mill refined utilitarianism by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures. The theory has significantly influenced jurisprudence, legislation, criminal justice and public policy.

However, difficulties relating to measurement of happiness, uncertainty of consequences, justice, minority interests and individual rights prevent utility from functioning as the sole basis of law and morality. Utilitarianism remains highly relevant because it requires laws to be tested against their practical impact on human welfare, but modern legal systems must balance utility with liberty, equality, dignity, fairness and constitutionally protected rights.

Note: This article was originally written by Rishabh Bhardwaj (O.P. Jindal Global University) and published on 08 June 2020. It was subsequently updated by the LawBhoomi team on 13 Aug 2026.