International Journal of Philosophy

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Discounting Utility Without Complaints: Avoiding the Demandingness of Classical Utilitarianism

Classical utilitarianism is very demanding and entails some counter-intuitive implications in moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem in deontological ethics and the repugnant conclusion in population ethics. This article presents how one specific modification of utilitarianism can avoid these counter-intuitive implications. In this modified utilitarian theory, called ‘discounted’ or ‘mild’ utilitarianism, people have a right to discount the utilities of others, under the condition that people whose utility is discounted cannot validly complain against such discounting. A complaint made by a utility discounted person is not valid if either the existence of the discounting people in that option is in a specific sense necessary or the existence of the discounted person is in a sense not necessary. According to mild utilitarianism, we should choose the option that maximizes the total validly discounted or complaint-free discounted utility, i e. the sum of everyone’s utility minus the complaint-free discounts. As there are two conditions that make a complaint invalid, this right to discount can be translated into two versions: the right to bodily autonomy and the right to procreation autonomy. The former right relates to the mere means principle in deontological ethics, the latter right is useful in avoiding the repugnant conclusion problem in population ethics. The possibility of democratically imposing an upper bound on the permissible amount of discounting is discussed.

Utilitarianism, Rights, Population Ethics, Repugnant Conclusion, Trolley Problem

APA Style

Stijn Bruers. (2023). Discounting Utility Without Complaints: Avoiding the Demandingness of Classical Utilitarianism. International Journal of Philosophy, 11(3), 87-95.

ACS Style

Stijn Bruers. Discounting Utility Without Complaints: Avoiding the Demandingness of Classical Utilitarianism. Int. J. Philos. 2023, 11(3), 87-95. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.16

AMA Style

Stijn Bruers. Discounting Utility Without Complaints: Avoiding the Demandingness of Classical Utilitarianism. Int J Philos. 2023;11(3):87-95. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20231103.16

Copyright © 2023 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Arrhenius, G. (2000). Future Generations: A Challenge for Moral Theory. PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.
2. Arrhenius, G. (2003). The very repugnant conclusion. In: Segerberg, K. & Sliwinski R. (eds.), Logic, law, morality: thirteen essays in practical philosophy in honour of Lennart Åqvist, pp. 167–180. Uppsala philosophical studies 51. Uppsala: Department of Philosophy, Uppsala University.
3. Blackorby, C., Bossert W., & Donaldson, D. (2003). The axiomatic approach to population ethics. Politics Philosophy Economics, 2 (3): 342-381.
4. Belliotti, R. A. (1978). Negative duties, positive duties, and rights. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 16 (1): 581-588.
5. Broome, J. (1991). Weighing Goods. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
6. Bruers, S. (2016). Can deontological principles be unified? Reflections on the mere means principle. Philosophia, 44 (2): 407-422.
7. Bykvist, K. (2009). Is utilitarianism too demanding?. In: Utilitarianism: A Guide for the Perplexed. Continuum.
8. Hauser, M., Young, L., & Cushman, F. (2008) Reviving Rawls’ Linguistic Analogy: Operative Principles and the Causal Structure of Moral Actions. In: Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (ed.) Moral Psychology and Biology. NY: Oxford U. Press.
9. Heyd, D. (1988). Procreation and value: Can ethics deal with futurity problems? Philosophia, 18: 151-170.
10. Hills, A. (2010). Utilitarianism, contractualism and demandingness. The Philosophical Quarterly, 60 (239), 225-242.
11. Hooker, B. (2009). The demandingness objection. In Chappel, T. (ed) The problem of moral demandingness: New philosophical essays, Palgrave Macmillan, pp 148-162.
12. Howard-Snyder F. (2011). Doing vs. Allowing Harm. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
13. Kant I. (1785), translated by J. W. Ellington (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd ed.. Hackett.
14. Kerstein S. (2009). Treating Others Merely as Means. Utilitas, 21 (2): 163-180.
15. Korsgaard C. (1996). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Meacham, C. J. (2022). Utilitarianism, altruism, and consent. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 21 (1): 49-81.
17. Narveson, J. (1973). Moral problems of population. The Monist, 57: 62-86.
18. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
19. Parfit, D. (1991). Equality or Priority, The Lindlev Lecture. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
20. Parfit, D. (2017). Future people, the non‐identity problem, and person‐affecting principles. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 45 (2): 118-157.
21. Portmore, D. W. (2008). Dual-ranking act-consequentialism. Philosophical Studies, 138, 409-427.
22. Scheffler, S. (1994). The rejection of consequentialism (Revised ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Sider, T. (1993). Asymmetry and self-sacrifice. Philosophical Studies, 70 (2): 117-132.
24. Singer, M. G. (1965). Negative and positive duties. The Philosophical Quarterly, 15 (59): 97-103.
25. Thomson, J. J. (1985) The Trolley Problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94: 1395–415.
26. Vessel, J. P. (2010). Supererogation for utilitarianism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 47 (4): 299-319.
27. Walen, A. (2014). Transcending the Means Principles. Law and Philosophy, 33 (4): 427-464.