Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham

human nature

bentham suggests that pain and pleasure are our masters - we instinctively seek pleasure and avoid pain

it seems that nature has built us this way - it is not god that has made us nor are we driven by our logical reason

our psychology is built on seeking pleasure and avoiding pain

utility

given that we are motivated by pleasure and pain, bentham proposes one simple moral principle that both individuals and governments should adopt

the idea of utility is that actions should be cattied out if they produce more happiness pleasure or goodeness and are liekly to prevent pain misery and unhappiness

in 'a fragment on government' bentham argues that 'it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong'

utility - the idea of usefulness that we should do whatever is useful in increasing overall good and decreasing overall evil

hedonic calculus

in addition to suggesting that we are motivated by pleasure and pain and that the only moral principle needed is that we should do whatever is useful to achieve this end, bentham also provides a method of calculating which course of action to take - this is known as the hedonic calculus

he suggested seven factors that should be taken into account when making a decision

  • intensity - how strong is the pleasure/pain?
  • duration - how long will the pleasure/pain last?
  • certainty - how likely is it that the pleasure/pain actually occurs?
  • propinquity - how soon will the pleasure/pain occur?
  • fecundity - how likely is it that the pleasure/pain will lead to further pleasure/pain?
  • purity - how likely is it that pain will come from the original pleasure?
  • extent - how many people will be affected?

bentham argues that when faced with a moral decision you should weigh up all the possible pleasures and pains using the criteria and work out whether overall there would be more pleasure or pain

JS Mill

possible weaknesses in benthams version

  • the focus on pleasure is too narrow - theres more to life than food, sex and parties
  • it leads to appalling consequences - theoretically benthams version could justify gang rape
  • the hedonic calculus can be too complex if it has to be applied to each situation - not quick to get decisions

higher and lower pleasures

mill supports the utility principle but rejects benthams hedonic calculus
for mill quality of pleasure is more important than quantity
there are certain pleasures that are higher pleasures and others that are merely lower pleasures

'it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be a socrates dissatisfied then a fool satisfied'

a pig is an easy creature to satisfy - it does not mind the quality of its food and is happy to roll in mud
as humans we are capable of greater pleasures so even if our lives are not the best they are still preferred over the life of a pig
likewise the deep thinking philosopher even if unhappy is in a better place than a shallow fool

for mill the higher pleasures are intellectual and social, those things that as human beings we are bale to experience
the lower pleasures - food, sex and sleep - are pleasures but not as important
mill argues that all 'competent judges' when given a choice between the two would prefer the higher pleasures

when mill refers to higher pleasures he is referring to happiness in a broader sense than bentham
mill is to some extent thinking of eudaimonia (happiness, human flourishing and living well)

act and rule utilitarianism

act

rule

act utilitarians believe that decisions should be made on each individual situation or action

rule utilitarians consider issues generally and make rules that cover a range of situations

act utilitarians aim to produce a balance of good over evil in each case
it takes situations on a case by case basis

bethams hedonic calculus approach is an example of this

hence act utilitarianism may give different answers to an issue because of the different contexts

there may be a greater good or happiness brought by stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family but the same shoplifter would be wrong to steal makeup for a wealthy individual

  • the case by case decision making of act utilitarianism is both a strength and a weakness of the theory - it allows flexibility to the situation but takes considerable time to weigh up all the complex factors in each situation

rule utilitarianism also aims at the greatest balance of good over evil but has the common good of society rather than individuals as its starting point

a key difference between mill and bentham is that mill can be seen as a rule utilitarian

it is still utilitarianism as the reason we are adopting rules is that our experience has shown us that these actions tend to lead to the common good - our experiences of stealing would lead us to say that this typically does not lead to the greater good and hence is wrong

  • an advantage of this view is that it is quicker in terms of decision making to apply a rule than to attempt to weigh up all factors involved in each case
  • however the disadvantage comes in cases where rules clash - we may have rules about telling the truth and about saving life but if we are asked by a murderer where their next victim is hiding we cannot satisfy both rules

non harm principle

actions are permissible as long as they do not cause harm to others

'my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose'

applying utilitarianism

trolley problem

trolley problems are hypothetical cases devised by Philipa Foot to test our moral thinking - if a train is heading towards a group of children and you are able to divert it so that it runs over one elderly tramp, then you should do so according to utilitarianism even if you are responsible for his death
utilitarianism is entirely concerned with the outcome - it is a teleological theory - the action itself is not judged and is thud less important

the dying billionaire

Louis Pojman gives a hypothetical case of a billionaire who on his death bed makes you promise to give all his money to his favourite sports team so that they can win the league
however you see anadvertisement that suggests a similar amount of money could prevent 100000 people dying from starvation
it seems obvious that you should break your promise and give the money to charity
utilitarianism is demanding - it requires that you set aside your personal happiness in getting the lastest CD if that money could save an entire village

executing the innocent

suppose a murder is committed in a town where there is racial tension - the crime is believed to be racially motivated
the sheriff knows that the real perpetrator is dead but cannot prove it
if he were to arrest and frame a passing tramp - tensions in the community would be eased and no one need ever know
utilitarians do not put much weight on concepts such as justice and rights unless the outcome requires it

on sexuality

both bentham and mill were keen social reformers who argued for the decriminalisation of homosexuality - as well as equal rights for women
both were out of step with the thinking of their day
yet on both issues it was possible to argue that greater good could be achieved by challenging existing thinking
utilitarianism is progressive and modern in its approach

on euthanasia

utilitarianism tends to suport the right of individuals to end their lives by euthanasia if they wish
this has particularlt been argued by modern utilitarian peter singer who argues that the greatest good is found in satisfying peoples preferences
this challenges the notion of sanctity of life by looking a factors that may improve or limit the overall quality of life
utilitarianism favours quality of sanctity

assessing

key strengths

  • impartiality - requires that we are objective and that we do not resolve ethical dilemmas by having favourites or resorting to personal biases
  • secular - doesnt resort to religion to justify how we should act - attractive theory in a more secular age
  • maximising happiness is a good aim - it would be strange to argue that we should not value happiness or that we should set out to do thins that cause more overall unhappiness
  • straightforward theory - it is not difficult to understand or apply - it offers a decision procedure that enables moral dilemmas to be soled
  • progressive - has been a progressive morality that has enables out of date ideas such as the banning of homosexual acts or the oppression of women to be challenged - utilitarian thinkers have been at the forefront of these changes - modern utilitarians such as singer continue to stand up for the poor and campaign for animal rights
  • democratic - everyones happiness is taken into account and each person counts as one in decision making - there are no favourite or special exemptions

ctiticisms

  • it is not clear how we are to measure pleasure and pain
  • if i enjoy kicking people but you do not enjoy being kicked whose pleasure or pain is greater?
  • things that are measurable have clear units e.g. metres, volts or joules
  • how can pleasure and pain be measured?
  • utilitarianism requires prediction of the future
  • in order to establish what the greater good will be we have to predict future consequences
  • yet the future is not always clear
  • the baby we save might turn out to be a cruel dictator
  • although in theory each person is regarded equally by utilitarianism there is potentially a problem for minority groups
  • e.g. if a majority of a society help homophobic views what would prevent them from imposing their belief that homosexuality was harmful?
  • to some extent mill is aware of this criticism and warns against the 'tyranny of the majority'
  • the swine ethics problem - benthams utilitarianism was called a swine ethic because it seemed to permit such horrors as gang rape
  • although this was not intended by bentham and may be answered by later versions of the theory the worry remains that there are no absolute boundaries in utilitarianism and horrors such as the torture of children may be permitted in extreme situations
  • pleasure and happiness are not the only goods
  • utilitarianism assumes that pleasure or happiness are not the ultimate good
  • there are other views of what goodness is
  • obedience to gods commands is the ultimate good in some world views - the development of good character traits is the ultimate aim in the theory or virtue ethics
  • pleasure and pain may be dependent on the individual
  • we may have different views on what leads to happiness
  • this may make singers version based on satisfying preferences a more viable option than classical utilitarianism

Singer and preference utilitarianism

it attempts to address one of the key issues with the classical utilitarianism of mill and bentham which is the assumption that we all have a similar view of goodness or happiness

preference utilitarianism argues that people should be allowed to pursuit their preferences as long as it does not interfere with anyone elses pursuit of happiness

the morally good thing to do is that which maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of most people - hence as preference approach focuses more on minimising suffering and harm rather than increasing pleasure

in his text 'the life you can save' he argues that we have a responsibility in the western world to give geneously to developing countries in doing so we can minimise pointless deaths and allow others greater opportunity to achieve their goals
singer requires that we adopt the perspective of the impartial observer in order to weigh up the greatest balance of good