That's a utilitarian moral framework.

Is it a utilitarian object?

It's a utilitarian article, that's why.

Same with furniture, it's too utilitarian.

If you feel that way, that's a utilitarian choice.

The same goes for every other utilitarian occupation in existence.

Jeremy Bentham, the great utilitarian philosopher, once spiked this argument.

But too utilitarian? I mean is that the way you think of fashion?

By whose compact utilitarian heap The present may sit down and go to sleep,

The utilitarian roles that humans assume in society today are fundamentally technical by nature.

English political philosopher gave first the first clear systematic expression to the utilitarian moral theory.

And what we mean when we say that are things that we would consider to be non utilitarian.

I was a ceramic designer for about 10 years, and just loved utilitarian form simple things that we use every day,

How can we get away from the mouse and use our full bodies as a way of exploring aesthetic experiences, not necessarily utilitarian ones.

Now, the reason for this, the reason that the fashion industry doesn't have any copyright protection is because the courts decided long ago that apparel is too utilitarian to qualify for copyright protection.

What I'm going to argue today is that because there's no copyright protection in the fashion industry, fashion designers have actually been able to elevate utilitarian design, things to cover our naked bodies, into something that we consider art.

The adoption process took, like, a matter of months, so it was a closed shop, you know, sealed deal, an industrious, utilitarian solution the government, the farmer, the adopting parents, the consumer, the mother, the earth, and the child, the crop.