Most people reject utilitarianism when they first hear about it. The idea that we should maximize happiness for the greatest number sounds cold. Calculating. Inhuman.
But watch how people actually make decisions.
You’re choosing a restaurant for your family. You pick the place where everyone will be reasonably happy, not the one that makes you ecstatic but your partner miserable.
You’re deciding whether to play music. You keep it low because the neighbors are sleeping.
You’re dividing the last slice of pizza. You give it to whoever seems hungriest.
Your company offers you overtime on your kid’s birthday. You say no, because family time matters more than extra money.
In each case, you’re weighing different people’s wellbeing. You’re trying to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. You’re doing utilitarian math without calling it that.
The philosopher Peter Singer noticed this. He said most people are “intuitive utilitarians” who only object to utilitarianism when it’s described in abstract terms.
Maybe the problem isn’t the philosophy. Maybe it’s the word. “Utilitarian” sounds mechanical. But caring about everyone’s happiness? That just sounds decent.
We already live this way in small groups. The question is whether we can think this way about bigger ones.