What makes a
choice good?
More happiness? Less harm? A fair rule? Let’s test an idea called utilitarianism.
Say it: yoo-til-ih-TAIR-ee-uh-niz-umUnderstand the idea well enough to explain it in your own words.
Then plan an A4 poster: a core definition, two thinkers, a trolley diagram and a thoughtful warning.
Start with a school decision
Your class can buy either a game used by a few students or equipment shared by many. You ask: “Which choice will improve people’s lives more overall?”
A consequence is something that happens because of a choice. “Overall” means adding up the effects on everyone involved.
“The greatest happiness for the greatest number.”
Your worksheet uses this phrase. Keep it — but explain it carefully.
Everyone’s experience counts.
It is not just a vote. How much people benefit or suffer matters too. Your best friend does not count more than a stranger.
Which reason is utilitarian?
One lever.
Two possible outcomes.
A runaway trolley is heading towards five workers. A lever can send it to a side track, where one worker is trapped.
For this imaginary test, you cannot stop the trolley, warn the workers or rescue them. The outcomes are certain. These fixed rules help us compare our reasons.
Your personal choice is not scored. Understanding a theory and agreeing with it are different things.
The footbridge twist: same numbers, different action
In another imaginary version, there is no lever. You could stop the trolley only by pushing a stranger off a bridge into its path. That person would die; five would survive.
Some people accept pulling a lever but reject pushing the stranger. One possible reason: in the bridge version, the person is deliberately used as the means of saving the others.
If only the total outcomes matter, should your answer stay the same? This tests whether consequences are the only thing you care about.
Bentham asks:
“How much?”
Jeremy Bentham
Bentham focused on the amount of pleasure and pain a choice creates. Pleasure means enjoyment; pain includes suffering and distress.
His Felicific Calculus is a way to weigh them up. The name sounds harder than the idea: it is a happiness-and-harm checklist.
Open each lens
Imagine choosing a class activity. Each question reveals something a simple vote could miss.
One celebration or reusable games?
For this made-up comparison, assume both choices cost the same, are certain to work and cause no harm. We look only at how many people benefit, how strongly and for how many days.
24 students × 3 points × 1 day
12 students × 2 points × 2 days
Try 12 students and 4 days. Can a choice helping fewer people create a bigger total benefit?
Mill asks:
“What kind?”
John Stuart Mill
Mill agreed that happiness matters. But he argued that its quality matters too — not just the amount.
Engage the mind and feelings
Understanding a story, making music, creating art or thinking deeply about fairness.
They involve thought, imagination or moral feelings.
Bring bodily enjoyment
Enjoying a tasty snack, a warm bath or a comfortable rest.
“Lower” is Mill’s label. It does not mean bad or forbidden.
Which experience shows Mill’s idea of a higher pleasure?
Who gets to judge the quality?
Mill’s answer: competent judges — people who have experienced and can appreciate both kinds of pleasure. He thought their informed preferences support the value of higher pleasures.
“Competent” means able to judge well. It does not mean the oldest person, the loudest person or someone with a special badge.
To compare the enjoyment of making music and relaxing with a snack, who best fits Mill’s test?
A question worth arguing about
Can the majority
still be wrong?
Imagine 24 students enjoy a joke that humiliates 6 classmates. Does “24 is bigger than 6” make the joke right?
The number of people stays the same. Change how badly the six are hurt.
These invented scores expose a counting mistake. They cannot prove that humiliation is acceptable.
Tyranny of the majority
A larger group uses its power to override the rights or interests of a smaller group.
A majority is the larger group. A minority is the smaller group. Rights are protections people should have, such as protection from unfair treatment.
The objection
If only the total happiness matters, could harming a few ever be allowed to benefit many?
Even a carefully calculated positive total may clash with our ideas about rights and justice.
A utilitarian reply
Count the victims’ suffering, future fear and loss of trust. Rules that protect people can create better lives for everyone over time.
This reply matters — but whether it fully answers the rights objection is still debated.
One extra step: act and rule utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism: ask which particular action has the best overall consequences.
Rule utilitarianism: ask which rules would have the best consequences if generally followed, then judge actions by those rules.
For example, a rule against humiliating classmates can protect safety and trust across the whole school.
Make the ideas
your own.
Test the concepts, then practise explaining them. These questions check your understanding, not your personal moral views.
All seven concepts checked.
You can explain a theory accurately and still disagree with it. Now put the connections into your own words.
Imagine a younger student asks, “What is utilitarianism?” Explain it without looking back first.
Finished? Compare your explanation with this checklist.
- Did I mention outcomes and everyone’s happiness or suffering?
- Did I explain quantity and quality?
- Did I give an example rather than just a label?
- Did I explain why the minority matters?
There is no automatic mark for your writing. Read it aloud, then ask a teacher or classmate what is clear and what needs work.
Pocket glossary
Tap a term when you need a reminder.
Consequentialism
Utilitarianism
Principle of Utility
Felicific Calculus
Higher / lower pleasures
Competent judges
Tyranny of the majority
Synthesis
Your ideas.
Your poster.
You are explaining utilitarianism to someone who has never studied philosophy. A clear order matters more than fancy decoration.
Choose a thread
Try “Good for whom?”, “Does more happiness mean more fairness?” or your own question. Use it to connect the sections.
Explain, then shrink
Say each idea aloud first. Then turn it into one or two short lines. Keep the meaning when you cut words.
Make links visible
Connect Bentham to “amount”, Mill to “quality”, the trolley to “outcomes” and the warning to “fairness”.
Build your notes
The four numbered areas match your assignment. Bentham and Mill need separate profiles within Section 2.
2a · Bentham
2b · Mill
1 · Core definition
3 · Trolley problem
4 · A reason to be careful
A structure guide, not a finished submission. If it becomes crowded, shorten your notes and simplify the drawing.
0 words in the four required sections.
From plan to paper
- 2 minutes: sketch four spaces in pencil. Title at the top; Bentham and Mill side by side; definition in the centre; trolley below; warning at the bottom.
- 8–10 minutes: add your own short explanations and diagram labels. Put the main idea in the largest lettering.
- 3 minutes: use a few colours consistently. For example, green for the main idea and amber for the warning. Leave empty space.
- 2 minutes: ask someone to explain your poster back to you. Fix anything they misunderstand.
These are suggested timings. The assignment values clarity, accuracy and critical thinking — not a complicated drawing.
Ready-to-make checklist
0 of 8 checked by you.
Take your thinking with you
Your notebook and plan can be downloaded as a text file or printed as planning notes. Keep a copy before changing devices.
The lesson works offline. Notes stay on this browser; nothing is sent to a teacher or an online account. Browser storage may be unavailable or cleared.
Sources and a useful research habit
This lesson follows the three supplied pages of Simon’s Social Sciences · Philosophy · Week 3: the trolley problem and utilitarianism, the founders and key terms, and the A4 synthesis poster task.
Optional original texts to explore with a teacher (internet needed):
- Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapters I and IV — utility and the seven factors.
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter II — quality of pleasures and competent judges.
Research habit: read a small part, close it, explain it in your own words, then reopen it to check the meaning. Note the author and title. Ask your teacher how they want sources recorded.
Classroom situations and all numerical scores in this lesson are invented teaching examples. Moral choices and written reflections are not automatically graded.