Introduction to utilitarianism
o Utilitarianism is an ethical theory created by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, but it was adopted by Peter Singer. He introduced Utilitarianism in his book ‘Practical Ethics’ (1997) by challenging the idea that ethics is all about sex, rules, religion and what people individually feel is right for them.
o He claims ethics is not a ‘system of nasty puritanical prohibitions, mainly designed to stop people having fun’. He says ethics isn’t about applying simple rules (like don’t kill) as this is the view of the deontologists: ‘those who think that ethics is a system of rules’. For him, ethics should promote the most happiness, rather than focusing exclusively on particular actions.
o For utilitarian’s, ethics is not about religion. It was Plato who argued that just because God approves an actions, this doesn’t make that action right. For Utilitarianism, religion and ethics are not connected.
o This kind of ethics make decisions about right and wrong that are relative to an end- how much pleasure, happiness or well-being is made and how much pain or happiness by any choice.
o The greatest good is typically the thing that achieves the greatest result. Utilitarianism isn’t trying to list what are the right to wrong actions, but instead claims to provide a practical way of making hard moral decisions when we face conflicting goods.
o Central to Utilitarianism is the ‘hedonic calculus’, the calculation of the balance between pleasure and pain, and the evil and good results from any action.
o Classical Utilitarianism, the theories of Bentham and Mill, are consequentialism. This seems goodness as being about happiness, well-being or pleasure, and badness is about the opposite- the unhappiness, distress or pain. Classical Utilitarianism is hedonistic.
o Hedonistic measure happiness. Bentham measures this in quantitative terms only, but Mill applies qualitative pains and pleasures. Mill thinks some kind of pain and pleasure are worth more than other kinds.
o Some utilitarians decisions should be made by individuals at each occasion, each action (act utilitarians). For others, decisions should be made about general issues and these utilitarian rules should then be followed (rule utilitarian).
What is Bentham’s utilitarianism?
- -Bentham was the first utilitarian, he wanted a different approach to ethical decision-making than obedience to the Bible, or fixed moral rules. His ethical theory is about confronting the good and evil in life, the happiness and the trials of living. –He describes pain and pleasure as our masters, instead of a divine authority. We always try to avoid pain and seek out pleasure, we respond to our basic needs. This is the essence of Hedonism.
- -Bentham argues that we must recognise this basis driver for human life. It’s not God that motivates us, but the pursuit of happiness.
- -He’s sceptical of the claims people make about their holy lives. They claim that they act according to some divine rule but in truth they don’t: that’s what Bentham means when he says, ‘In words a man may pretend to abjure their empire’. E.g. some people may do charity to fool people into thinking they are a good person. His view of the world is the basis for his principle of utility.
Is goodness relative to the results?
- -Utilitarianisms is teleological. When decisions are made, they either lead to a good or bad end, making it a relativist ethical theory.
- -Relative ethical theories don’t promote a fixed or absolute set of particular rules (like natural law does). It looks at the situation and decides which actions make the greatest balance of happiness or well-being over evil or pain. It’s a democratic (self-governing) kind of relativism as it wants to maximise the balance of good over evil.
What is the hedonic calculus?
- -Utilitarianism don’t promote a list of rules on what acts are permissible, instead they offer a process for weighing up alternatives. The hedonic calculus calculates the balance of pleasure, well-being or goodness, as opposed to pain or evil.
- -There are different variations of good and evil; some good are momentary while others are long lasting. Some affect individuals and some benefit the majority.
- -E.g. I may gain pleasure by having slaves doing my work for me, even though these slaves are in pain. Individual benefit isn’t enough for utilitarianism, rules that benefit the minority and leave the majority in pain aren’t good enough.
What is the quality of happiness in the utility principle?
o John Stuart Mill was Bentham’s pupil and he followed utilitarianism.
o Mill thinks ‘Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites and when once made conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which doesn’t include their gratification’.
o These higher pleasures are better than base pleasures. Mill distinguished the lower pleasures (drinking, eating, and rest) from the higher pleasures (intellectual, aesthetic, social enjoyment and spirituality).
o The lower pleasures provide powerful gratification but if we overindulge, they bring pain. The distinction Mill made over Bentham wasn’t along any of the axes of the calculus, but in recognition that there were different sorts of pleasure and pain.
o He claimed a person would always value the higher over the lower as they are superior.
o It might be that in a particular instance we face an exponential circumstance which is unlike other occasions- so a thing that usually causes happiness, leads to our personal harm. Telling the truth might seem to be something we should do for everyone’s happiness, but a person trying to keep a secret or hide a crime, might think differently.
What is act utilitarianism?
o Act utilitarian’s are driven by the utility (balance of good and evil done) in each individual situation. Rule utilitarian’s establish rules for what to do based on the ‘calculation; of utility if a given action was chosen in all similar circumstances.
o It’s individualistic in that calculations and decisions are made by the person presented with the situation. It’s responsive to the particular situation, as the person makes the moral decisions about what to do, in and for the particular instance facing them.
o Utilitarianism traditionally set aside rule-based systems about right and wrong, such as religious rules. These systems may benefit the people and some claim they benefit other interests.
o An act utilitarian might find it better to lie in some situations that suit a particular circumstance. This can make act utilitarian’s appear to be hedonistic (self-indulged/ pleasure-seeking) - the adulterer hides his affair to maximise his pleasure. But it also justifies lying to a Nazi about a hidden Jewish family, this undermines the democratic intention of utilitarianism.
What is rule utilitarianism?
- -Rule utilitarianism are more focused on establishing the common good. Rule utilitarianism seeks to set up a series of rules which maximise the greater good for the greatest number: the greatest utility.
- -Rule utilitarian’s might tell the truth always, as this generally better for everyone, even if there are particular instances when a lie might be individually desirable.
- -Rule utilitarian might take a qualitive or quantitative approach to measuring well-being. They can seek to deal worth questions of trust, justice and equality if they look to the qualitive measures of happiness that Mill is concerned about.
- -Rule utilitarian may accept that there are circumstances where, for justice to be done, some harm might happen.
Does utilitarianism provide a helpful method of moral decision-making?
- -Many people argue against utilitarianism saying it relies on guessing about the future and predictions about what will create the greatest good. But can we be sure such guesses are right?
- -Utilitarianism offers no reason to prohibit any action, but surely some acts can never be justified (like rape). We must need some rules that can never be broken for a convenient result.
- -E.g. minorities are treated unfairly, so a community are happier if this minority group is forced to leave. While this achieves happiness to the community, it does however go against the minority’s human rights.
- -Utilitarianism seems less able to deal with these sorts of ideas and they seem to matter, morally speaking.
Can an ethical judgement about something being good, bad, right or wrong be based on the extent to which, in any given situation, utility is best served?
- -Ethical judgements are about seeing utility, in the view of utilitarian’s- the judgement weighs good and bad and works out which option offers the best or worst one.
- -This is a practical benefit for utilitarianism in that there is never a situation where no option is right. If you follow an ethical system which lists rules and are faced with a dilemma that only shows options which break the rules, then you can’t act morally.
- -But, there might be good other than utility. If someone is sacrificed because of the interest of the majority, how can utilitarian society be fair?
- -Critics of utilitarianism believe one can justify a horrendous act by claiming it to be for the pleasure of the many. Do minorities have no interests or should their rights be protected? The majority may take against a minority or single person and may prefer to see them locked away for life, or used for their own happiness (such as people-trafficking for the sex trade) but this would be unfair.
- -A utilitarian might have difficulties explaining why this situation is wrong.
Is it possible to measure good or pleasure and then reach a moral decisions?
- -Utilitarianism relies on measuring happiness or goodness and setting that against sadness or evil. There are many different sorts of ‘good’ (like your first kiss or watching a good film).
- -However if people don’t have the same tastes, then utilitarianism may be more difficult to work though. So goodness is subjective.
- -A second complaint is that our ability to be confident about the desire. Utilitarianism requires some future predictions of how people’s interest will be affected by the choices that we make. Is this straightforward though? Does utilitarianism presume too much foreknowledge?
