I tried living by utilitarianism for a while. Not every moment. But during big choices and tiny ones, too. Groceries. Work calls. Weekend plans. You know what? It felt like a weird mix—firm rules with a soft touch.
If you want the blow-by-blow diary of that stretch, you can find it in my field notes I Tried Living by Utilitarianism—So Is It Objectivist or Relativist?.
So, what is it? Utilitarianism says: choose the action that brings the most good for the most people. More joy. Less pain. Simple to say. Hard to do. (Philosophers often illustrate this with the trolley problem, where rerouting a runaway tram to kill one person instead of five is judged the better choice because it minimizes overall harm.)
But here’s the thing: is it objectivist (one true standard) or relativist (depends on culture or taste)?
I unpack the same puzzle at length in my companion piece Is Utilitarianism Objectivist or Relativist? My Hands-On Take.
Short answer: It’s objectivist at heart, but it changes with the facts. The goal stays the same—maximize overall well-being. The path shifts based on who’s involved and what’s possible.
Sounds like a contradiction, right? It isn’t. Let me explain.
If you're curious about how other ethical frameworks handle this same tug-of-war between universal rules and cultural nuance, take a look at the discussion over at Full Context or flip through my experiment I Tried Two Moral Lenses for a Month—Objectivist and Cultural Relativist.
Quick terms without the fluff
- Objectivist: One moral standard applies to everyone. Like gravity, but for “right and wrong.” (More on the term in So What Does “Objectivist” Even Mean?)
- Relativist: What’s right depends on your culture, group, or personal view.
By that map, utilitarianism is objectivist. One standard: help the most, harm the least. It doesn’t switch just because a group thinks something else. But the details—who is helped, how much, for how long—change by case. That’s where it feels flexible.
Real-life tests I actually tried
The snack table test
At our local soccer fundraiser, I had to pick snacks. Kids beg for soda. Parents beg for water. My first thought? Get both and call it good.
Utilitarian brain said, “What helps most people, across the whole day?” We chose water, cut fruit, and a few simple granola bars. Fewer sugar crashes. Less trash. More kids kept playing longer. A few grumbles, sure. But the game ran smoother. That’s a net gain. One rule. New case. Same aim.
The donation vs dinner choice
One Friday, I wanted a fancy dinner. I also had a reminder from GiveWell about matching funds. I compared: One meal for me and my partner, or more malaria nets for families overseas.
I picked the donation and cooked pasta at home. I won’t lie—I missed dessert. But thinking about kids not getting sick? That felt heavy and good at the same time. Utilitarianism is like that—warm results with a cool head.
The phone case pick at work
I test gear for work and review it. We had two phone cases to recommend:
- Case A: More people like it, decent drop rating, cheaper.
- Case B: Niche fans love it, top drop rating, but it’s pricey and heavy.
We looked at returns, repairs, and comfort over weeks. Case A helped more people, even if Case B shined in a few extreme cases. So I backed Case A in my write-up. A few power users got mad. But overall harm dropped (fewer returns, fewer cracked screens), and more folks were happy. One standard. Different data. Clear choice.
Another real-world scenario was more adult-oriented. A colleague who does consensual sex-work asked how to advertise safely online after Backpage shut down. My utilitarian reflex kicked in: could a listing platform increase her earnings and autonomy while keeping exploitation and legal risk low? During the research I stumbled on a detailed Backpage replacement guide at FuckLocal’s backpage-alternative resource, which compares up-to-date classifieds sites, outlines safety best practices, and flags key legal considerations—practical info that helps people maximize benefit and cut harm when entering that marketplace. While digging deeper for Bay Area–specific options, I found an in-depth review of AdultLook’s local classifieds at AdultLook San Leandro, and it breaks down screening tips, average rates, and city-level safety checkpoints—actionable insights that empower providers to boost earnings while reducing risk.
The same mindset drives forward-thinking brands; for example, Patagonia’s Worn Wear initiative accepts dented profits today to cut waste and safeguard collective well-being tomorrow.
The generator plan during a storm
Last winter, a storm hit our block. We had one generator. Five homes needed help. We made a list: who needs heat most? One home had a newborn. Another had an elder on a medical device. We kept the generator running in shifts there first. Others got battery packs and hot meals.
Did it feel harsh at times? Yes. Did it help the most? Also yes. That’s the rule, even when it stings a little.
So, is it objectivist or relativist?
- The rule is objectivist: maximize total well-being.
- The call is context-based: the facts matter, and they vary.
- Feelings don’t set the rule, but they fit inside the math, since people’s joy and pain count.
Some folks say, “But you guessed! Isn’t that subjective?” Here’s the twist: we often use expected results. We act on the best info we have at the time. That’s called “subjective” decision-making by some. But the target—the true best outcome—is still there, even if we don’t know it perfectly. Like trying to kick a ball through fog. The goal stays put.
What I liked (and what bugged me)
What worked:
- Clear aim when choices felt messy.
- Useful across life—money, time, work picks, even snack tables.
- It made me think beyond my bubble.
What bugged me:
- Counting happiness is hard. You can’t hold it in your hand.
- People want fairness per person, not just totals. I do, too.
- Fast calls under stress feel rough, even when they help more folks.
For a very different week where I committed to strict moral objectivism instead, check out my candid write-up I Tried Living as a Moral Objectivist—Here's My Honest Review.
Tiny tips that helped me use it
- Ask, “Who benefits, how much, and for how long?”
- Write two quick outcomes on paper and compare. Don’t overthink.
- Add strangers to the picture. Not just your circle.
My final call
Utilitarianism is objectivist. One standard. It cares about everyone’s well-being the same way, no matter the group. But it breathes with the facts. New case, same compass. That’s why it can feel flexible without being wishy-washy.
Honestly, it seemed cold at first. Odd, since it’s about feelings. Then it clicked: it respects all feelings, not just mine. Is that heavy? Sure. But it kept me steady when life got loud.