act utilitarianism
- the theory that happiness is the only good and the right act is that act that maximises utility
- hedonist act utilitarianism understands happiness in terms of the balance of pleasure over pain
preference utilitarianism
- the theory that we should maximise happiness, which is understood not in terms of pleasure and pain, but in terms of the satisfaction of peoples preferences
rule utilitarianism
- the theory that only happiness is good and the right act is the act that complies with those rules, which if everybody followed them, would lead to the greatest happiness
the principle of utility
‘the principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the part whose interest is in question’
utility
something has utility if it contributes to your happiness, which is the same as what is in your interest, happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain
maximising utility
pleasure and happiness come in degrees, an action is better the more pleasure it produces and the best action we could do is the one which maximises pleasure
felicific calculus
> argued that we can measure pleasures and pains numerically, by adding them up on a single scale process called the felicific calculus
> if a pleasure is more intense it will last longer
» in thinking what to do, you also need to take into account how many people will be affected
-> the total amount of happiness produced is the sum total of everyones pains
Bentham’s approach is too simple
- is happiness the only thing that matters morally, should we really bring about the greatest happiness in all situations, even if we have to violate someones rights to do
- further, can we really add up how much happiness an action will cause?
Mill’s rules utilitarianism
- we need to know the principles in order to judge whether an action is right or wrong
- peoples moral approval and disapproval is strongly influenced by the effects of actions on their happiness
- mill says many people can experience happiness, the main obstacles are poor education and poor social arrangements that lead to lack of opportunity and inequality
Mill on higher and lower pleasures
- if everyone who has experience of two types of pleasure prefers one type to the other, then the type that they prefer is more valuable
- a pleasure is higher only if people who have experienced both types of pleasure prefer one, even if it brings more pain with it
- higher pleasures are more intellectual pleasures, lower pleasures
Mill’s proof
- attempted to prove that happiness was the one thing people wanted for its own sake
1. the only proof that something is visible to humans is that humans can see it
2. the only proof that something is desirable to humans is that humans desire it
3. happiness is desired by humans
4. therefore humans desire it
5. a persons happiness is good for them
6. if all individuals desire happiness, therefore all people desire general happiness; if happiness is good for all individuals, therefore happiness is good for all people
7. therefore happiness is the only moral good
8. therefore utilitarianism is proven to be true
Singers preference utilitarianism
- form of non-hedonistic utilitarianism, that argues we should maximise the satisfaction of people preferences
- offers are more unified account of what is valuable > hedonistic utilitarianism
- pleasure is important because it results from satisfying people preferences
the tyranny of majority
the unjust exercise of power by a majority of people over a minority who have different values and desires
> first way: through demographic government
- could pass a law forbidding people to criticise a particular form of religious belief
- argues that the powers of demographic government need to be limited by respect for individual rights
> through the tyranny of social opinion
- the tendency of society to impose its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent them
- everyone thinks that their own way of doing things should be standard for everyone else
(e.g. the disapproval of other religious practices, people take great offence very quickly)
- people are not free to think/life as they please even if there is no law preventing them from doing so
- the majority of people are happy, albeit at the expense of happiness in the majority
problems with calculation
- too difficult and time consuming
- can’t gather the relevant information
issues around partiality
- we are often partial towards our family and friends, doing them favours/buying presents
- act utilitarianism argues that in our decisions we need to consider the greatest happiness that our actions could create; we should be impartial
- if act utilitarianism is right the we should spend less time with the people we like and more time spending with people who need help
addition to partiality
- utilitarianism is too idealistic and misses something morally important in counting each person equally
Nozick’s experience machine: pleasure as the only good
- imagine being faced with the chance of plugging into a virtual reality machine
- it will produce the experience of a very happy life and the experience of many successful achievements
- we will believe that what we experience is reality, but must agree to plug in for life or not at all
- Nozick argues that most of us would not plug in, he says we value contact with reality, even if it makes us less happy
- we can’t understand this in terms of the ‘pleasure’ of being in touch with reality, because if we were in the machine we would still experience this pleasure
- instead what we want is not a psychological state at all, it is a relation to something outside our minds
- Nozick concludes that we cannot understand what is good just in terms of our subjective psychological states, such as pleasure
Utilitarianism ignores both the moral integrity and the intentions of the individual: integrity
- integrity involves acting according it your own values, especially in the face of temptation
- utilitarianism seems to require us to set aside our moral values
- if what one person does is a consequence of what another person does, utilitarianism treats them both the same, it doesn’t respect that my actions are expressions of who i am and values i hold, utilitarianism doesn’t understand integrity
- doesn’t recognise the moral value of our intentions in acting as we do
preference utilitarianisms response to partiality
Peter Singer makes the point that being brought up in a loving family is the best way to ensure children grow up to be as happy as they can. Singer points out that there have been experiments at bringing up children without parents and that they haven’t worked out well. So, if no one had a family, people would be much less happy therefore perhaps the happiness we gain from family is worth the unhappiness caused by our acting partially.
preference utilitarianisms view on act being too simplistic
- easier to know whether someones preference has been satisfied rather than how much pleasure someone experiences
- although difficult, it is easier to do and recognise
