Jeffrey Kaplan dismantles a common misconception right out of the gate: utilitarianism isn't just about doing whatever feels good in the moment. Instead, he frames it as a rigorous, almost mathematical engine for moral decision-making that demands we calculate the net happiness of the entire universe. For busy minds trying to navigate a world of conflicting interests, this piece offers a surprisingly clear map for how to weigh the heavy costs of policy against the lightness of individual pleasure.
The Architecture of Happiness
Kaplan begins by stripping away the noise to find the core instruction manual for morality. He introduces Jeremy Bentham's "principle of utility" as the guiding star, noting that "the principle of utility is quote that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question." This definition is crucial because it shifts the focus from the actor's intent to the actual outcome. Kaplan argues that we must judge actions solely on whether they increase or decrease the well-being of those affected.
The author then dissects the components of this theory, starting with hedonism. He uses a vivid, relatable chain of reasoning to explain why money, coffee, and even jet skis are merely tools, not ends. "Money is good as a means because well money is only good for spending... a jet ski is only good for riding the jet ski," he explains, before landing on the ultimate conclusion: "what's riding a jet ski good for well it's fun it's good for pleasure... pleasure is just good." This distinction is the piece's intellectual anchor. Kaplan insists that while we often chase things as means to an end, pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable.
"Hedonism is not competing with utilitarianism... utilitarianism is a theory that answers the question what should I do... hedonism is not about action at all... it's about what circumstances are good for an individual person."
This clarification is vital. Many critics dismiss utilitarianism as a license for selfishness, but Kaplan correctly identifies that hedonism defines what is good for a person, while utilitarianism defines what we should do with that knowledge. The theory requires us to look beyond our own selfish desires to the collective good.
The Math of Morality
Once the individual value of pleasure is established, Kaplan moves to the mechanism of aggregation. This is where the theory gets its teeth. He describes aggregation as the theory that "an outcome is better if the sum of what is good for each person - what is bad for each person is greater." He walks the reader through a hypothetical calculation where individual pleasure scores are added together, regardless of who holds them. "You've got your four people... you just add them up... this whole scenario according to aggregation is 11 points good."
The elegance of this approach is its radical impartiality. Kaplan notes that in this calculation, "you don't privilege some people over others you just add it all up." This suggests a moral framework where the suffering of one cannot be outweighed simply because it is convenient for the majority, unless the math of total happiness proves otherwise. However, this is also where the theory faces its steepest climb. Critics might note that simply adding up pleasure scores ignores the distribution of that pleasure; a scenario where one person suffers immensely while a million feel a tiny bit of joy might mathematically win, but feels morally hollow.
The Consequentialist Imperative
The final piece of the puzzle is consequentialism, which Kaplan defines as the requirement to "do what produces the best outcome." He contrasts this with other moral theories that might focus on duties or promises. To illustrate the stakes, he offers a stark choice: attend a promised event or stop to take drugs. "Consequentialism says that the only thing that matters in deciding which is the right thing to do is what the results of your action will be," he writes. If breaking a promise causes no harm and taking drugs brings joy without negative fallout, the theory dictates taking the drugs.
"Consequentialism just like utilitarianism is a moral theory it's just that consequentialism is a rather more vague moral theory and utilitarianism is a more specific version of consequentialism."
Kaplan's framing here is effective because it exposes the tension between rigid rules and fluid outcomes. He argues that utilitarianism is simply consequentialism with a specific definition of "best outcome" (pleasure minus pain) and a specific method of calculation (aggregation). This makes the theory actionable but also terrifyingly demanding, as it requires us to constantly predict the future impact of every choice.
Bottom Line
Jeffrey Kaplan's greatest strength is his ability to demystify a dense philosophical framework into a logical, step-by-step process for evaluating the world. The argument's biggest vulnerability, however, lies in its reliance on the quantifiability of human emotion; not all pain and pleasure can be easily summed up on a spreadsheet. Readers should watch for how this rigid calculus holds up when applied to complex, real-world crises where the "numbers" are impossible to know in advance.