Who Counts in the Math of "Greater Good"?

Utilitarianism, the most used ethical framework for the greater good, tells us to maximize happiness for the most people. Sounds noble, doesn’t it? But how do we count happiness, and more importantly, whose happiness counts?

Take Geiranger, a small village in a norwegian fjord: 200 locals, 10,000 tourists a day. Of the villagers, 100 are thrilled, they’re earning money. Another 70 are indifferent. But 30 people? They’re miserable. The crowds, noise, and chaos have stolen their quality of life.

Here’s the math: 10,000 happy tourists + 100 happy locals + 70 indifferent locals - 30 unhappy locals. By the numbers, the greater good declares victory for the visitor side. A win for happiness, right?

But wait. Those 10,000 tourists? There is no chance this tiny, tiny village can house them. Many of them are daytrippers, coming in cars, camper vans. Passing through. Many arrive on cruise ships. They spend little in the village, leaving behind only footprints and fleeting smiles. Meanwhile, the cruise ships pump out greenhouse gases, warming the planet and polluting the air. The 100 locals earning money might cheer, but the 30 unhappy ones endure the consequences long after the ships depart.

The math may look simple, but it’s misleading. Happiness isn’t just about counting, it’s about context. Are we trading long-term costs for short-term gains?

And if so, can we really call that "the greater good"? Can we argue that protecting nature is for the greater good?