what is the meaning of good and bad for utilitarianism
good: an action which maximises happiness and minimises pain
**bad: **an action which leads to more pain than pleasure
- utilitarianism emphasises on the consequences of any action - they are consequentialist theories
what is the meaning of ‘utility’ and ‘maximising utility’
- the word utilitarianism is derived from the concept of utility or usefulness
- an object has utility if it helps achieve a specific goal
- an object has utility if it brings pleasure
- utilitarianism focuses on maximising the utility of something and minimising the pain
- by ‘maximinising utility’ we aim to achieve the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain.
explain Bentham’s qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism; his utility calculus (act utilitarianism)
- hedonistic utilitarism aims to maximise happiness and minimise pain
ACT utilitarianism:
- says that the moral value of any act is calculated by considering it’s consequences, so this is a consequentialist ethical theory
- to calculate moral worth, add up all the pleasure the act brings and subtract the pain/suffering
- to calculate the pleasure look at things like, the intensity (how strong the pleasure is), duration (how long the pleasure lasts) and extent (how many people it brings pleasure to)
- an action is good if it brings about more pleasure than pain
e.g. consider a mugging - the mugger will gain short-term pleasure from gaining a phone, but the victim will suffer greatly and over a longer period, their family + friends will also be greatly distressed. The act of mugging brings about more pain than pleasure, so it is a bad act
explain rule utilitarianism
RULE utilitarianism:
- is hedonistic
- says that act utilitarianism is impractical, as we 1) can’t know the long-term consequences 2) it takes too long to calculate the moral worth and 3) it can lead to counter-intuitive results e.g. killing and harvesting the organs of an innocent person to save multiple people
- rule utilitarianism overcomes these issues
- it argues that you should follow general rules (Mill calls them secondary principles) such as ‘don’t kill’ and ‘don’t steal’
- should follow the rules that if everyone followed it, it would increase pleasure/maximise preference
- In this theory an act is good if it follows a suitable rule and a rule is good if it is one that will increase happiness
- can have strong or weak rule utilitarianism
- strong says always follow the rules no matter the consequences
- weak says that generally follow the rule unless there is an exception (bad consequences, pain)
explain John Stuart Mill’s quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism (higher and lower pleasures)
- Millll introduced a new distinction of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ pleasures for utilitarianism
- Mill said that pleasures of the mind were superior to physical pleasures as they were likely to last longer and so give more pleasure and satisfaction
- Mill argued that many people would prefer pleasures of the mind (higher) over pleasures of the body (lower) even if the pleasures of the body were more pleasurable
- ‘it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’
- higher pleasures are ones such as learning, reading a book, (they develop our intellect) even if they seem tedious they will bring greater pleasure than eating a chocolate bar or having sex (lower pleasure)
- Mill said that only those who had experienced both types of pleasure can say what is better, these people are ‘competent judges’, a pig cannot say wether reading shakespeare brings pleasure
- lower pleasures can be experienced by non-human animals as well
explain John Stuart Mill’s ‘proof’ of the greatest happiness principle
- Mill’s proof says that we should see happiness as the ultimate end
- Mill starts by saying that the only evidence that something is visible is that it can be seen
- Similarly, the only evidence that something is desirable is that it is desired
- Each person desires their own happiness, So general happiness is desirable
- Therefore, each person’s happiness is a good to that person, so the general happiness is a good to all persons
- so happiness is the only good
- Mill acknowledges that people do desire other things, such as money and virtue, as ends in themselves (not just a means to happiness)
- but he says this is because these things are part of what happiness means to that person –> this happens over time
- e.g. to a baby money is just paper, but through culture and socialisation we come to see money as a means to happiness
- so we should see happiness as the ultimate end
explain non-hedonistic utilitarianism (including preference utilitarianism)
- Hedonistic utilitarianisms aim to maximise happiness/pleasure
- NON-HEDONISTIC utilitarianisms argue that we should maximise something, but that this is not just pleasure
- the most famous form of non-hedonistic utilitarianism is preference utilitarianism
PREFERENCE utilitarianism:
- says that an action should be judged by how it conforms to the preferences of those affected by the action
- A good act is one which maximises the satisfaction of all the preferences of those involved
e.g. when considering turning off a life-support machine, instead of aiming to maximise happiness, we should find out the preferences of all the relevant parties involved and maximise their preferences
- Many decisions will be the same whatever form of utilitarianism we choose, but the reasons may be different
- classic utilitarians may claim that lying is wrong as it leads to unhappiness, a preference utilitarianism would also say lying is wrong but because it goes against the preference we have to know the truth
- the focus of pleasure at the core of utilitarianism can be counter-intuitive
- most peoples preference to be pain-free is stronger than their preference for gaining pleasure
- so it is morally better to help those who are suffering than those who are not
- our moral priorities should be to relieve pain and suffering in the world
- preference utilitarianism also has an advantage in that preferences are easier to find out - we can ask people
explain the issue for utilitarianism: whether pleasure is the only good (Nozick’s pleasure machine)
- Some argue that the idea of pleasure being humans ultimate goal paints a view of humans as pleasure-seeking animals with computer-like brains designed to maximise pleasure
- Nozick uses his pleasure machine to try and prove that perhaps pleasure isn’t the only thing we want
- Imagine you have the option to be plugged into a hyper-real, virtual-reality machine
- When you are plugged into this machine you are guaranteed to live a pleasurable life full of satisfaction e.g. winning an Oscar or becoming a famous footballer
- When you enter this machine your memory is also tinkered with so that you are not even aware that you are in a machine
- But once you have stepped into the machine you cannot come out
- You will live a long life guaranteed of pleasurable sensations, so would you step in?
- If you would step in, then hedonistic utilitarianism is true
- But if you wouldn’t then perhaps pleasure isn’t the only goal
- Nozick created the machine to show that humans seeking only pleasure may be wrong; what humans want is specific states of affairs in the world, e.g. for their children to be happy or to be well liked
- Many would refuse the machine, as what they seek are real things in a real world, not just sensations
- people have died fighting injustices, but not many people would put their life on the line for ‘pleasure’
explain an issue with utilitarianism: fairness and individual liberty of rights (risk of ‘tyranny of the majority’)
- Act utilitarianism can lead to counter intuitive moral judgements, e.g. imagine a rich family kidnap an orphan boy from a poor country and keep him as their slave. The boy is well fed, not beaten, and increases general happiness to the family. So the kidnapping seemed to maximise overall happiness. But is this right?
- Rule utilitarianism avoids these odd conclusions by arguing that following rules such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of speech is the best way to maximise happiness (Mill’s secondary principle)
- act utilitarianism says we should do what makes the most people happy, brings the greatest amount of happiness, but this can lead to suppression of rights/liberty for others
- Mill (preference utilitarian) says secondary principle/rule of liberty plays a central role in utilitarianism
- Although it is considered ‘the will of the people’, democracy is just the will of the majority
- This means that there is the potential for the majority to oppress others - the ‘tyranny of the majority’, even if no oppression would cause greater happiness
- This oppression can make it hard for minorities to express identities/freedom, suppresses their liberty
- As long as what we are doing is not harming others (harm principle) we should be left to pursue our own lives/pleasures- we should have liberty (being free from oppressive restrictions) as this will maximise happiness in the long run
- Mill claimed that his account of liberty is consistent with the principle of utility - will lead to more happiness in the long run
explain an issue for utilitarianism: problems with calculation (including which beings to include)
-consequences; which beings
Consequences
- imagine you save a drowing boy, who later in life becomes a dictator responsible for the death of millions
- is your action good or bad?
- if an actions moral worth is determined by its consequences, then it has to be constantly revised and no final moral value can be assigned
- saving the boy is clearly a praiseworthy act, as you could not forsee the longer-term consequences
- but how do we decide the moral worth - is it a good or bad act?
Which beings do we include
- the basis for our moral equality is our sentience, our ability to feel pain and pleasure
- but animals are also sentient, so we should take their interests into account otherwise it is an example of speciesism
- if only humans have moral status there must be some special quality that all humans share
- all human-specific qualities for this ‘special quality’ are qualities which some humans lack e.g. intelligence
- the only other possible ‘special qualities’ will be ones which other animals have too
- therefore, we cannot argue that only human beings deserve moral status
explain the issue for utilitarianism: issues around partiality
- Should a good utilitarian treat all people equally in their actions?
- If so, this implies that we should never be partial (favouring ourselves, family, friends, when making moral decisions)
- Given that there are starving people in the world it seems we should donate all our money to them every time we get money
- But are we really obliged to treat people we have never met equally to our friends and family?
- Imagine a house is on fire, you run inside to find two people; your son and a scientist who is working on the cure for cancer. You can only save one person, who?
- An act utilitarian would say that you should save the scientist as this will maximise general happiness and it is the morally right thing to do
- But most people would save their own son
- This can be argued as the right thing to do as we have a moral obligation to our family and friends - we have a moral duty to be partial
- looking after families and caring for people we love has moral worth in itself, so utilitarianism is counter-intuitive in this regard
- A rule utilitarian might say that saving your son is the right thing to do as the rule of looking after family is a good one
- Requiring everyone to be perfectly impartial would lower happiness, having family and friends to care for is an integral part of our happiness
- so the rule of partiality is a good one
- should richer countries use their wealth to help starving humans?
- should refugees be given housing or people who have lived here longer have priority?
explain the issue for utilitarianism: wether utilitarianism ignores both the moral integrity and intentions of the individual?
MORAL INTEGRITY
- Utilitarianism requires us to do things that challenge our sense of personal integrity
- Imagine a leader who has kidnapped 20 people. He asks a man named Jim to kill one of these people, and if he does all of the rest of them will be set free.
- An act utilitarianism would say the obvious thing to do is kill the one to save the 19
- But this goes against Jim’s personal sense of integrity and ideologies.
- Jim doesn’t want to harm people, let alone kill them, it goes against one of his key principles
- If Jim did shoot the person, then his sense of self and purpose may be destroyed
- Utilitarianism doesn’t allow you to draw a line and say that you won’t do something, even if it goes against their personal integrity
INTENTIONS
- When judging an act as good or bad, utilitarianism focuses solely on the consequences, but ignoring the intentions can feel counter-intuitive
- Imagine a girl named Simra, she goes to visit her grandma every week and buys her groceries and reads to her. Grandma loves these visits, Simra less so, but she goes out of a moral sense of duty
- Just like Simra, Maisie goes and visits her grandma weekly, but Maisie does it to increase her chance of being in her grandma’s will
- Many would say that Simra’s act has a greater moral worth
- But an act utilitarian would say that they are equally good as both acts bring about the same amount of pleasure
- But this feels counter-intuitive, surely the motif of an act plays a part in its moral worth?
apply utilitarianism to the concept of stealing
- for a utilitarian, stealing would be good if the happiness from the theft outweighed the pain caused
- the end (happiness) can justify the means, even when the means is illegal
- but in general theft is wrong as the pain brought to the victim + family outweighs the pleasure the thief gets and people get upset when the law is broken which adds to the total pain
- lawfulness is a big source of background happiness, so the default position of an act utilitarian is that law breaking is morally wrong
- an act utilitarian might say that stealing from a billionaire and donating to the poor is a good act as it adds happiness to the world, but if the thief were caught it would become bad as the victim + criminal will suffer
- moral worth depends on thief getting away with it
- this seems counter-intuitive, what makes illegal acts bad is the act itself, not the consequences - breaking the law is bad
- strong rule utilitarianism would say that it is always wrong to break a rule/law (if rule maximises happiness) as the moral value of an act comes from its obedience of the rule
- subtler rule utilitarian would say general rule of ‘don’t steal’ but would excuse occasions where it would save lives
apply utilitarianism to the concept of simulated killing
- simulated death refers to plays, video games, films
- according to utilitarianism, being entertained by simulated death is not intrinsically wrong, as wrong is defined entirely by ends (pain)
- these entertainments produce a lot of pleasure (often secondary) from chatting with friends about them
- they are part of successful industries that supply jobs, wealth and advance technology
- video games can have benefits to motor skills
- violent crime in uk has decreased while video game usage has increased, shows there is weak link
- however, has been linked to antisocial behaviour in the long run and too much time spent can have harmful effects on health
- Mill said such entertainments are lower pleasures (physical, lower worth)
- Mill also emphasises the role of liberty - we should all be free to pursue our own lives/pleasures as long as we are not harming others
- so even though video games etc, are lower pleasures, they are not causing harm to anyone
apply utilitarianism to the concept of eating animals
- many humans gain pleasure from eating animals which would suggest it is a good thing
- singer said that we need to take into account the pain and pleasure of animals as it has moral weight, but he still said that eating meat is not always wrong
- singer was a preference utilitarianism
- what makes killing humans wrong is that it goes against their preference to stay alive, and thousands of their wishes and desires (to watch a film)
- but animals are not likely to have a great range of conscious preferences
- we can infer they experience pain but we probably can’t say that they have a conscious preference to stay alive as they lack the necessary conceptual framework
- in which case the painless killing of a sheep doesnt go against its preference and is not morally wrong
- but most current forms of farming would be morally wrong as it causes suffering to animals
- but if there are farms that treat animals well and kill them painlessly there would be nothing morally wrong with eating the animals
apply utilitarianism to telling lies
- for an act utilitarian, lying is morally acceptable if it maximises happiness because the end justifies the means
- but lying is likely to cause upset in many cases as people don’t like being lied to, lying causes hurt when discovered, and lying causes stress to the liar
- so lying comes with a built-in negative outcome, so the good would need to outweigh these
- so it is generally wrong to lie and break promises
- so truth-telling should be the general default position, but it is not a moral obligation
- for a strong rule utilitarian ‘don’t lie’ is a rule that will generally maximise utility/pleasure so it is always wrong to lie
- for a weak rule utilitarian, lying is generally wrong but if the lie would maximise happiness it is okay
- preference utilitarianism focuses on wether a lie would satisfy more peoples preferences
- most people have the preference to be told the truth, but there are times when people would prefer to be lied to
- for an act utilitarian a lie that goes undiscovered may cause no harm, but for a preference utilitarianism the lie would go against someones preference to know the truth (affair example)
