Authors : Lateef Olanrewaju Shobowale

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/474a66wu

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26aug1454

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : This paper critically examines the ethical dimensions of pleasure-oriented food choices through the framework of Jeremy Bentham’s hedonic calculus. In contemporary societies, where the pursuit of gustatory pleasure often eclipses considerations of long-term health, the moral legitimacy of indulgent consumption demands philosophical evaluation. Drawing on Bentham’s utilitarian method of quantifying pleasure and pain, the study assesses whether the immediate satisfaction derived from consuming pleasurable but unhealthy foods can be morally justified in light of their potential health detriments. By systematically applying the parameters of the hedonic calculus which include: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. This analysis elucidates the moral trade-offs inherent in everyday acts of eating. The paper situates this inquiry within broader debates in moral philosophy concerning consequentialism, selfregarding ethics, and the rational pursuit of pleasure. The analysis further contrasts Bentham’s outcome-oriented approach with alternative ethical frameworks, including deontological, virtue-based, natural law, and rights-based theories, arguing that these approaches lack the decision-making tools required for empirically driven, resource-constrained domains such as food systems and public health. It further argues that Bentham’s utilitarian framework offers a coherent and enduringly relevant tool for evaluating the moral worth of actions motivated by sensory gratification. And also offers a pragmatically superior foundation for evaluating dietary practices, emphasizing restraint, long-term well-being, and collective welfare over immediate gratification. Ultimately, the paper contends that applying the hedonic calculus to dietary behavior exposes the ethical tensions between individual pleasure, collective well-being, and the moral limits of hedonistic reasoning.

Keywords : Utilitarianism, Hedonic Calculus, Food Ethics, Dietary Pleasure and Public Health Ethics.

References :

1. Aquinas, T. (1981). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Christian Classics.
2. Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.
3. Aristotle. (2009). Nicomachean Ethics (W. D. Ross & L. Brown, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
4. Bentham, J. (1907). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press.
5. Bray, G. A., Kim, K. K., & Wilding, J. P. (2017). Obesity: A chronic relapsing progressive disease process. Obesity Reviews, 18(7), 715–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12551
6. Daniels, N. (2008). Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge University Press.
7. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.
8. Elster, J. (1999). Strong feelings: Emotion, addiction, and human behavior. MIT Press.
9. Griffin, J. (1986). Well-being: Its meaning, measurement, and moral importance. Oxford University Press.
10. Hursthouse, R. (2013). Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
11. Kant, I. (1785/1996). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
12. Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (J. W. Ellington, Trans.). Hackett. (Original work published 1785)
13. Kenny, P. J. (2011). Reward mechanisms in obesity: New insights and future directions. Neuron, 69(4), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.016
14. Lang, T., & Heasman, M. (2015). Food wars: The global battle for mouths, minds and markets. Routledge.
15. Lustig, R. H. (2013). Fat chance: Beating the odds against sugar, processed food, obesity, and disease. Penguin.
16. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.
17. Malik, V. S., Popkin, B. M., Bray, G. A., Després, J.-P., & Hu, F. B. (2010). Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Care, 33(11), 2477–2483. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-1079
18. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
19. Moss, M. (2013). Salt sugar fat: How the food giants hooked us. Random House.
20. Nestle, M. (2018). Unsavory truth: How food companies skew the science of what we eat. Basic Books.
21. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2007). Public Health: Ethical Issues.
22. Powers, M., & Faden, R. (2006). Social Justice: The Moral Foundations of Public Health and Health Policy. Oxford University Press.
23. Rozin, P. (2007). Food and eating. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 391–416). Guilford Press.
24. Schlosser, E. (2001). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. Houghton Mifflin.
25. Scrinis, G. (2016). Nutritionism: The science and politics of dietary advice. Columbia University Press.
26. Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. New York: HarperCollins.
27. Singer, P. (2011). Practical ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
28. Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., & Baler, R. D. (2013). Reward, dopamine, and the control of food intake: Implications for obesity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.12.004

29. World Health Organization. (2020). Healthy diet: Fact sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet