Should the Majority Always Decide What Is Good? A Critical Analysis of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialist ethical thought that asserts that actions ought to maximize the amount of happiness and well-being for the greatest number of people. This seemingly straightforward principle has been used as a guide for moral decision-making for centuries, in fields such as healthcare, public policy, and social welfare. However, there is a fundamental problem when putting utilitarian ethics into practice: who is to determine what constitutes " greatest good"? If we default to majority preferences by default, then we risk justifying the oppression of minorities and missing important considerations about human flourishing. The purpose of this analysis is to discuss the shortcomings of majority rule in establishing ethical outcomes by examining recent scholarship of the utilitarian system as well as comparative systems of ethics. This essay argues that while utilitarianism offers sound principles for the greatest possible collective welfare, the greater good should not be unilaterally decided upon by the majority because the act ignores the rights of the minority, does not take into consideration the quality of preferences, and does not acknowledge the need for expert moral reasoning in critical ethical conditions.

The Problem of Minority Rights and Majority Tyranny

Allowing majority rule to decide what the most excellent good is runs significant risks to vulnerable populations and minority groups. When utilitarian calculations aggregate the preferences of the majority, grave harms to outgroup members may be justified. Morrell & Dahlmann (2022) agree that utilitarian frameworks often get lost in debates over protecting individual rights when collective calculations favor the majority, creating systematic vulnerabilities for marginalized populations. This weakness is seen in health care rationing, resource allocation, and policy decisions where the preferences of the majority often supersede the demands of minority interests. Wesseh (2025) argues that deontological ethics provides stronger protections against such majoritarianism by setting inviolable duties that consequential calculations cannot outweigh. Even when the majority truly believes their preferences are in the best interest of all, they may lack the knowledge of minority experiences and needs. The modern utilitarian theory needs to incorporate limits on rights to avoid the oppression of vulnerable populations (Häyry, 2021). Methods of ensuring the interests of minorities must entail more than the aggregation of their preferences, e.g., the means to protect from majoritarian oppression, irrespective of utilitarian calculations.

The Quality and Complexity of Moral Preferences

Not all preferences count equally in genuine human flourishing, and thus, mere counting of the majority is not enough in determining the greatest good. People tend to prioritize immediate rewards over long-term health, opt for what they already know over what's objectively better, or endorse policies based on misinformation rather than evidence. Häyry (2021) shows that reformulations of utilitarian theory increasingly embody more nuanced conceptualizations of well-being that remain independent of preferences and focus on objective conditions of human flourishing rather than on subjective preferences. The subjectivist approach recognizes that majorities can be wrong about what maximizes welfare - especially if they know insufficient facts or have no facts about the issue. Social welfare functions must be designed to take into account how preferences are formulated and whether they actually capture individual and collective welfare (Karami, 2024). And beyond that, preferences are influenced by social conditioning, the uneven distribution of wealth, and power structures that may bias people about what they think is in their best interest. Bostyn et al (2023) noted that moral judgments are often influenced by cognitive biases and social factors rather than the rational assessment of outcomes. Thus, the greatest good must be discovered by a careful examination of what most determines human flourishing, rather than mindlessly deferring to the opinion of the majority.

The Necessity of Moral Expertise and Reasoned Judgment

Ethical decision-making involves special knowledge and careful reasoning and is free of popular opinion or majority vote. Complex moral questions involve empirical facts about human psychology, social consequences, and long-term effects, which most people lack the expertise to address thoroughly. Karami (2024) examines the passage of utilitarian social welfare functions requiring sophisticated analysis of impact on different populations and demonstrates that deciding acceptable policy outcomes involves the use of rigorous methodology as opposed to intuitive judgment. Professional ethicists, social scientists, and members of the affected communities have valuable insights that should factor into utilitarian calculations rather than being overruled by uninformed majority opinion. Integrating the expertise on well-being, distributive justice, and human rights is mandatory for utilitarianism to make moral decisions (Häyry, 2021). Morrell & Dahlmann (2022) have suggested that virtue-based approaches focus on developing practical wisdom needed to make sound ethical judgments in complex situations. Structured ethical frameworks help identify relevant considerations, anticipate consequences, and balance competing goods in ways that are impossible with mere majority rule.

Comparative Ethical Perspectives on Majority Determination

Examining utilitarianism alongside alternative moral theories reveals the limitations of majority approaches to determining the good. Deontological ethics, which emphasizes duties and rules against consequences, provides a better defense of individual rights against the preferences of the majority. Wesseh (2025) offers a comparative analysis that shows deontological frameworks give more room to the rights of individuals within a situation where they are in conflict with collective utility and thus perhaps indicate that pure forms of consequentialism are insufficient in protecting fundamental moral constraints. Each of the theoretical approaches reflects aspects of the truth of morality that the majority opinion fails to capture. People are no more likely to trust utilitarian reasoning than deontological reasoning as an explanatory basis for moral judgment, perhaps indicating public awareness of the potential limitations of utilitarianism (Bostyn et al, 2023). These results show that even average moral intuition is sensitive to violations of pure consequential calculation that fail to incorporate rights and duties. Morrell and Dahlmann (2022) further argue that the Aristotelian ethics of virtue offers advantages over utilitarianism and deontology as both address the modern-day futile challenges because of their consideration of human flourishing amid ecological and social boundaries. Integrating understandings from the various ethical traditions results in broader frameworks for determining the good than does the use of utilitarian majority rule alone.

Practical Implications for Implementing Utilitarian Ethics

Recognizing that majorities should not always dictate the best good requires the development of institutional mechanisms to improve utilitarian decision-making. Rights-based constraints can set limits that safeguard individuals despite majority preferences overriding these limits, so that calculations of utility respect fundamental human dignity. Häyry (2021) suggests that refined utilitarianism builds on multiple improvements, such as attention to distribution, respect for autonomy, and consideration of non-welfare values to create more ethically adequate frameworks than classical utilitarianism. Deliberative democratic processes that involve informed deliberations, consideration of evidence, and a range of perspectives are more likely to produce approximations to true collective welfare than are simple voting processes. Practical social welfare analysis requires the systematic consideration of the consequences of policies for various segments of the population rather than restricting one's analysis to aggregate data on preferences (Karami, 2024). This means that implementation also involves sustained evaluation of whether or not policies yield intended welfare improvements, rather than assuming that, because of the majority support, it will produce a good result. Combining utilitarian consideration of consequences and deontological view of rights of people allows for the development of more balanced frameworks of ethics (Wesseh 2025). Feedback mechanisms, empirical assessment, and a willingness to change decisions based on evidence all improve utilitarian practice over static deference to initial majority preferences.

Conclusion

The utilitarian imperative to maximize the good of the greatest number of persons does not support straightforward majority rule over what is the good. Majority rule stands liable to oppress minorities; it refuses to distinguish between preferences that do bring about flourishing and preferences that do not, and it refuses the kind of expert reasoning that we know to be crucial for proper moral reasoning. Contemporary scholarship has shown that sophisticated utilitarianism requires rights-based constraint added to preference counting based on the quality of preferences, incorporation of plural interests into a moral theory, and deliberative process, not by weighing opinions. Democratic participation still has a place in legitimate government of the people, but establishing the greater good is a grave moral problem that requires full consideration of evidence, expertise, and respect for fundamental rights.