Utilitariansim
- a theory that an action is right if its produces the greatest good for the greatest number. = provide the most happiness and the least pain in a situation.
- ethics should be based on what is most useful
- Based on Hedonism: the beleif that pleasure is the highest good
- consequentialist = looks at the consequences
- teleological = purpose
- A Posteriori:
- Empirical:
principle of utility = Bethams
- the theory of usefulness: the greatest happiness for the greatest number
- concerned with outcomes = teleological
- “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure’’– Bentham.
- Bentham’s principle of utility, assesses governmental actions based on their ability to maximise benefit, pleasure, and happiness or minimise harm, pain, and unhappiness.
- Utility should guide moral behavior to maximize the balance between happiness and sadness caused by actions, rather than adhering to moral commandments or rules.
Bethams (1748)
- He wrote ‘the principle of morals and legislation’
- wanted to create a system which would benefit society
- He stated that naturally we are ruled by two key things - pleasure and pain. This is called the principle of utility.
- he was concerned about passing laws i.e. the Crimial system, class etc = to bring radical change
- he wanted to create a society of right and wrong = and he believed happiness is the answer for this which could lead to the right ethical decsions
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure’’– Bentham.
Hedonic Calcus
remember the acronym as DEPPCCI
- Bentham devised the hedonic calculus to maximise the greatest number for the greatest people.
- He weighed up the pleasure and pain of a situation by focusing on a list of seven criteria:
INTENSITY: how strong is the pleasure/pain? - which is most desirable
DURATION: the lengths of time it lasts, the longer should be sought
CERTAINITY: how likely it could be: more certain pleasures are more desirable.
CLOSENESS (propinquity): the sooner the better.
PRODUCTIVITY: fruitfulness = the action should go on producing further pleasure.
PURITY: freedom from pain e.g. sweatshop
EXTENT: number of people that are affected
e.g if an indivdual wanted to create a sweatshop, it extent will be more as many will be experiencing pleasure as shoes are sold to millions. Only a few tthousand workers expeireicne pain. In terms of the duration, a shoe might not last long = links to business ethics
stengths of hedonic calcus
- It has a morally democratic approach that seeks the fairest
- its teleological so it relies on individuals to accurately predict the consequence of an action = however it is challeged by some that this is not always possible
- Easy to use: weighing up the positive and negative consequences of our actions is something we learn to do from childhood
- Secular: This theory does not rely on specific beliefs about God. In a multi-cultural world, with a growing number of atheists, surely a secular ethical theory is more sensible and most useful.
weakness of hedonic calcus
It is not clear how the Hedonic calculus resolves the problem of assessing the quantity of pleasure. For instance, how is it possible to quantify and compare intensity of pleasure with duration of pleasure?
pleasure is subjective - pleasure for one may be pain for another
The calculus does not prioritise or rank aspects of pleasure so can lead to confusion.
Unpredictable: a problem with teleological theories in general. You never be certain of what will happen in the future.
Naturalistic Fallacy: the idea that just because nature acts in a certain way it doesn’t follow that this is the way things ought to be. Just because people desire pleasure, doesn’t mean pleasure is desirable.
Types of pleasure
*- According to Bethams the source of the types pleasure gained is irrelevant as long it is possible
- For a quantative utilitarianism moral pleasures & pains differ from physical one only in term of quanity
‘Quantity of pleasure being equal, push - pin is good poetry’ bethman
Benthams version
Act Utiliatrianism
every action must be judged
- each moral decisions situation is unique
- applies utility principle to each act.
- applies to hedonic calcus
- Very flexible
- The Principle of Utility must be directly applied for each individual situation
- When determining whether the act is right, it is the value of consequences of the particular act that count.
- So in one situation it may be best to lie, in another not
- But can lead to some very extreme results and justifies A LOT of actions.
problem with act utilitarianism
- not practical: when faced with quick moral choices, we don’t have time to weigh up all the pleasure or pain involve,
- Hedonic calcus can be misued and not accurately followed = leads to unethical moral decision
- cannot truly know if an action will generate the greatest good for the greatest number- hard to predict.
Mill versison
Rule Utilitarianism
- general rules that can be applied univservally to promote happiness = same rules for everyone
- creates a balance of good over evil
- should not be broken
- conducted weak rule as he believed that rules sometimes needs to be changed in extreme situations
problems with rule utilitarianism
- how do you know if a situation is too extreme to break rules?
Strength of Bethams utilitarianism
- it’s egalitarian: the moral view that everyone should be treated equally. No one’s person pleasure is more valued than others
- It provides people with decision making procedures: how do they know what is right in any given situation?
- focuses on the well being of human being: encouraging people to be kind to others
- it emphasises happiness: which according to many ethicist is common sense.
- It is reasonable to link morality with the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain and misery.
2 types of rules utilitarianism: weak and strong:
Strong rule:
- If we break rules, happiness would be threatened.
Weak rule:
- Able to break rules under some circumstance, = leads to the greater happiness.
Weaknesses of Bethams Utilitarianism
- He implies ALL FORM OF PLEASURE of happiness are equal (this is a problem later attacked by Mill) pleasure gained by sadistic torture is as desirable as pleasure gained by friendship and knowledge
- MOTIVES has no importance in utilitarianism so it doesn’t matter at all why you do something therefore actions that promote happiness are GOOD
- NOTHING HAS INTRINSIC WORTH: pleasure makes things acceptable therefore breaking the golden rule from natural law.
- You cannot predict the future so the calculations cannot always be accurate.
Mills version of utilitarianism can be describes as RULE utilitariansim, why?
- precisely because we do not have time to calculate accurately in every instance (as required by the hedonic calcus)
- rule utilairtariasm teaches that we should estabish rules based on the greates happiness principle and then follow these rules
- Mill pointed out that principles other than the principle of utility, at the very least, perform a important service by providing guidance for every dy moral life.
John Stuart Mill (1806)
- He saw flaws in Bethams theory, specifically surrounding the emphasis that Bethams theory placed pure pleasure.
- He was a hedonist, but he stressed happiness over pleasure
- specifically, he argued that the pleasure of the kind is more better and valuable than pleasure of the body.
- was a peer to betham
- QUALITY > QUANITIY = QUANTATIVE (How much?) rather than QUALITATIVE (How good?). Mill believed some pleasures are better than others.
MILL
Criterion of compontent Judges:
- ‘Competent judges’ are people with experience of both higher and lower pleasures.
- Mill claims they always prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures, thus demonstrating their greater quality
MILL
Mill: Higher & Lower pleasure
- developed a system of higher and lower pleasures to distinguish quality of pleasure
- He argues that pleasure are intellectual ones: this is what makes human pleasure different and superior to animal pleasure.
- he realised that not many people opt for higher pleasure = and this is due to ignorane =
His two forms of happiness:
- higher pleasure: stimulated mind - only humans experience this = promotes happiness - Superior/ to be preferred
- lower pleasure: shared with animals. Inferior. E.g. Food, drug, sex. usually temporary but significant
Mills Quote:
- “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”
- this means that not all pleasures are equal. There are higher and lower desires and pleasures.
- it is better to be an intelligent and thoughtful human being who is dissatisfied than a satisfied pig, which is a much lower form of life.
Mill produced his own principle of utility:
Altruism (unselfishness/love for others)
- Happiness is desirable
- happines is only desirable at the ends itself= you do things to be happy - for the outcome
- General happiness of all is desirable = increase happiness of others increase your own
This principle of universability should protect people
links to Jesus’ golden rule: ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ = Christianity emphasises the intrinsic value of happiness and fulfillment, not just as a bi-product of other pursuits.
*^ This would have reflected the audience at the time (christianity) which are very similar links *
good compaison betwen the two = Bentham focuses on pleasure - Mill focus on happiness and others
Strengths of Mill
- SAME STRENGTHS AS BETHANS
- Mill attempts to address the problem of justice evident in Benthams theory it is possbile to eradicate some of the injustices on the grounds that rules make = there is a distinction made between higher and lower pleasures.
- it avoids the time consuming calculations regulated by the hedonic calculus.
- quality > Quantity
Weakeness of Mill
- SAME AS BETHAN
- Many will object to Mill’s claim…
- It emphasis pleasure of the mind is criticised for being intellecually elistist = implies those who are satisifed with thier life that is filled with ‘lower pleasure’ are living the life of an animal. (According to criterion of competent judges they have an ‘infirm characrter’)
- it is not always easy to distinguish higher and lower pleasures. (e.g. getting drunk may be lower pleasure but what if the pleasure comes from drinking wine that have spent years learning about)
- W.D. Ross says that it doesnt take into account for complex lives and moral descision = family takes priority over reason
However, Mill responds to the claims that higher vs low pleasure
no, we can distinguish higher and lower - careful cultivation
- This objection misunderstands his argument.
- Everyone prefers the highest pleasures they have been able to experience, but it doesn’t follow that everyone always chooses them over lower ones.
- The ability to experience higher pleasures requires careful cultivation which is easily lost, either due to falling into addiction, weakness of will/character, external pressures or lack of internal support.
Preference Ultitarianism = Peter Singer (1946)
- A modern form of utilitarianism
- However, unlike Bentham and Mill, who focus on pleasures (in their own way), Singer wants to maximise good by examining PREFERENCES.
- this approach claims that we should not be concerned with trying to maximise pleasure, instead should take into account the preference of all individuals. ~(what’s in peoples best interest and the chance that everyone preferences are satisfied.)
- SINGER argues we should judge moral actions according to whether they fit in with the preferences of the individuals involved.
- “our own preference cannot count any more preferences of others”
STRENGTH:
Pragmatic- it is evident we all have preferences and this is a practical thing to consider in everyday life. (Of course we want to maximise our preferences- IT IS WHAT WE PREFER).
