In this blog post, we will examine, from the perspective of modified utilitarianism, how morality can be established as an objective standard for regulating scientific and technological progress.

The Clash Between Scientific and Technological Advancement and Morality

In modern society, science and technology have become the core driving force behind human civilization, and they have now reached a level where they can even shake “morality”—a crucial standard for maintaining society. Before morality established itself as the ultimate standard, during the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern era, religious faith—another element that sustained society—faced significant challenges due to scientific and technological advancements. In medieval Europe, as the traditional religious order weakened, the dissection of human bodies—previously taboo for religious reasons—was first attempted through art and later developed into science. Similarly, Copernicus’s heliocentric theory was gradually accepted through advancements in observational techniques and measuring instruments, bringing about significant changes to the existing religious worldview. In this way, science and technology possess the characteristic of constantly advancing toward their own development based on objectivity, rather than considering other factors.
While science and technology shook the authority of religious faith in modern society, today they are threatening even morality—which can be considered the ultimate standard of human society. In this context, simply demanding an ethical stance toward the development of science and technology is insufficient to control it, given that it advances based on objectivity; such an approach has its limitations in ensuring the sustainability of human society. Therefore, to counter the objectivity inherent in science and technology, it is necessary to establish clear and objective standards for morality as well. If the abstract concept of morality can be transformed into objective indicators, it will become possible to interpret and evaluate it from a utilitarian perspective.

Can morality be objectified through utilitarianism?

Morality can generally be defined as the standard for judging issues that divide public opinion from an ethical standpoint.
A utility refers to the promotion of happiness and pleasure and the reduction of suffering, and utilitarianism adopts “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” as its core principle. One of the most representative examples illustrating utilitarianism is the “Panopticon,” conceived by Jeremy Bentham. The Panopticon features a circular prison with a central watchtower surrounded by a circular arrangement of cells. Its most distinctive feature is that while the central guard can see inside the cells, the inmates cannot see inside the watchtower. Consequently, even in the absence of an actual guard, inmates cannot verify whether they are being watched and, as a result, behave as if they are constantly under surveillance.
This structure minimizes the need for surveillance personnel, thereby reducing management costs, and since inmates are compelled to work continuously, it enhances economic efficiency. Utilitarianism takes this a step further, arguing that such a system is justified if, when comparing the labor gained at minimal cost to the restrictions on individual freedom, the overall happiness of society is increased.
This perspective can also be applied to the development of science and technology. If we can establish morality as a standard for controlling rapidly advancing science and technology—which is based on objectivity—and evaluate which approach provides greater utility—pursuing technological development from the perspective of all members of society (including not only current but also future generations) versus prioritizing morality—then morality can also secure legitimacy as a sufficiently objective criterion for judgment.
Here, the term “members” refers not only to humanity living in the present but also to future generations. Furthermore, living and non-living components of the ecosystem are indirectly included as well. This is because, although the advancement of science and technology affects the natural environment and ecosystems beyond humanity, these impacts ultimately reverberate back to human society in the long term. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we will hereafter refer to the entire population—including both present and future societies—as “members.”
However, two issues arise when making such a comparison. The first is how to quantify the utilitarian benefits generated by scientific and technological progress and the pursuit of morality, respectively; the second is how to establish a common unit that allows for the comparison of these different utilitarian benefits using the same standard.

How can the utilitarian benefits of scientific and technological progress be quantified?

In a resource-constrained environment, one of the key factors enabling sustained economic development is scientific and technological progress. Science and technology can drive economic growth across society as a whole; generally, economic growth leads to improved individual economic well-being, and as economic well-being increases, individuals’ life satisfaction and happiness tend to rise. From this perspective, scientific and technological progress becomes a crucial factor in enhancing individual utility.
Of course, specific advancements in science and technology may result in economic losses for some people. For example, as ready-to-wear clothing production technology advances, the ready-to-wear industry and consumers who benefit from its convenience gain economic benefits; however, the competitiveness of the custom-tailored clothing sector may weaken relatively, potentially reducing the economic benefits of those employed in that industry. In this way, technological advancements that compete with specific industries can lower the utility of some members of that industry. However, in the far greater number of industries not affected by such changes, productivity gains and economic benefits often result.
This phenomenon occurs similarly across most industries. Therefore, rather than analyzing every industry individually, a practical approach would be to group industries with similar characteristics into a single cluster—a “representative group”—and calculate the utility based on that group. Of course, it would be unreasonable to simplify all industries into a single category; thus, it is more rational to establish a representative group comprising multiple industries that share common characteristics. Since the utilitarians calculated in this manner are evaluated based on economic value, the monetary units currently in widespread use can serve as the basic unit of measurement.
If the utilitarians derived from scientific and technological advancement are calculated in monetary units, an appropriate method is needed to convert the utilitarians arising from the pursuit of morality into monetary units as well, in order to compare them. In other words, a common framework is needed that can simultaneously resolve the problem of converting the utility derived from the pursuit of morality into monetary value and the problem of calculating the utility derived from scientific and technological development and the utility derived from the pursuit of morality in the same manner. This framework can be described as the process of establishing a basic equation for calculating both types of utility. However, existing utilitarianism has not sufficiently provided a common calculation method or a unified unit of measurement, and thus has limitations in explaining these issues.

The Potential of Utilitarian Calculation Using Game Theory

These complex issues can be partially resolved by incorporating game theory—a representative theory in economics for analyzing human behavior patterns. One of the fundamental concepts of game theory is that, because there is a possibility that the other party will break the cooperation and defect, individuals tend to make relatively safe choices to minimize risk, even if greater benefits are available.
As explained earlier, the entire industry can be divided into several representative groups. Each representative group can calculate the expected utility it would gain by pursuing scientific and technological advancement or by pursuing morality, and based on this, determine which course of action is most advantageous. If all representative groups choose the most appropriate action to maximize their own interests, members of society may be able to restrict or guide that behavior to some extent through laws and institutions, but the actual choices are made by the representative groups. Consequently, members passively derive utility from the resulting outcomes.
However, these calculations represent results based solely on a specific point in time. By incorporating the passage of time from the present into the future, representative groups can calculate new expected utility that includes various dependent variables, taking into account the entire period rather than a single point in time. They then compare how much long-term benefit each choice yields and select the most advantageous course of action. As explained earlier, members derive utility based on the outcomes of these choices.
With the addition of the time axis, expected utility also acquires temporal continuity. Therefore, the game must be played repeatedly at regular intervals from the present into the future among various representative groups and members of society. For example, consider the issue of environmental pollution. Suppose Company A prioritizes ethics and chooses an eco-friendly production process with a higher unit cost. In that case, its competitor, Company B, may have an incentive to produce products at a lower cost without considering the environment in order to maximize profits. The likelihood of such a breach of trust is determined by a complex interplay of various factors, including the laws and regulations in effect at the time, the level of information sharing among companies, and market structure. By reflecting these factors, we can calculate the expected utility for both scenarios: one in which ethics are pursued and one in which they are not.
Ultimately, a company will move in the direction of higher expected utility. Therefore, its choice does not necessarily amount to the pursuit of morality. However, by repeatedly analyzing this game at each point in time, it becomes possible to calculate the expected utility of the principle of pursuing morality and the principle of scientific and technological advancement in the same units and compare them across the entire period extending from the present to the future.

How can the principles of morality and scientific and technological advancement be compared?

Let’s revisit the environmental pollution issue discussed earlier as an example. Suppose that, from the present into the future, an eco-friendly technology X yields an economic benefit of 100, but at the same time, the company’s environmental pollution causes an economic loss of 500 across both present and future societies. In this case, the utility gained by society’s members through the pursuit of morality is 500, while the utility gained through scientific and technological development is 100. Therefore, when comparing the two utilities, we can conclude that pursuing morality is the more desirable choice.
Of course, to reach this conclusion, we must first be able to calculate the values of 100 and 500. To do this, we must apply the game theory explained earlier to calculate the expected utility at each point in time as time progresses, while also considering the cumulative overall effects of each behavioral pattern from the present into the future. In other words, we must not merely compare the benefits at a specific point in time but must also reflect the long-term impact on society as a whole.

What is needed in the age of science and technology is objective morality

Although game theory is a relatively modern theory, it is widely used to analyze various behavioral patterns and identify optimal choices. If a link can be established to organically combine game theory with utilitarianism, morality will no longer remain an abstract ethical slogan used to hinder scientific and technological progress. Rather, it can become a practical standard—equipped with objectivity and quantifiability—to guide and regulate the direction of scientific and technological development.
Science and technology are advancing at a rapid pace based on objectivity, and their influence is also continuously expanding. If such advancements are not appropriately controlled using objective criteria, science and technology will gradually erode the social standard of morality and, ultimately, may even undermine the fundamental values that sustain human society. Therefore, morality must not remain merely a concept based on ethical appeals. It needs to be established as an objective and comparable standard so that it can be discussed on the same level as science and technology, and establishing such standards will become an even more critical task in the coming era of science and technology.