Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Utilitarianism - Coggle Diagram
Utilitarianism
-
Can pleasure, happiness or goodness be measured?
Pleasure, happiness or goodness can be measured
- Mill's argument that happiness is desirable rests on the assumption that we can observe what people desire and therefore presumably have some measure of whether they are achieving these desires
- Preference versions of utilitarianism may avoid some of the difficulties of measuring pleasure as they would argue that overall utility or happiness lies in preference satisfaction - we may be able through surveys and other empirical research to ascertain the relative happiness of people in terms of achieving their life goals
- As neuroscience advances it may be possible to measure happiness or pleasure in terms of observing what is happening in the brain during key moments
Pleasure, happiness or goodness cannot be measured
- Things that are measurable or quantifiable tend to have units of measurement - there are no obvious units that could measure pleasure or pain
- Further difficulties in the measurement of pleasure and pain lie in the fact that pleasure and pain are subjective to the individual - this suggests that if any version of utilitarianism is to succeed, it would have to be one such as preference utilitarianism that does not require such a measurement
- Assuming pleasure and pain can be measured would require a very simple version of utilitarianism such as Bentham's - yet Mill seems right that there are higher and lower pleasures, how should the lower pleasures be weighted?
- Nozick's experience machine and Moore's open question argument both raise the possibility that even if we actually could measure pleasure, we are not necessarily measuring the good
The hedonic calculus
- The hedonic calculus is a system for working out the amount of pain or pleasure involved in a course of action
- 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 the hedonic calculus
- Bentham suggests that there are seven factors that should be taken into account when making a decision
- 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
- This method of considering pain and pleasure requires that we consider long-term consequences - fecundity (how likely is that the pleasure will lead to further pleasures) and duration ensure that we should not seek short-term pleasure at the expense of long-term pain
- Utilitarianism is not a selfish ethical theory - the focus on purity and extent requires that we consider how each individual might be affected by our actions
Utility
- Utility is the idea of 'usefulness' that we should do whatever is useful in increasing overall good and decreasing overall evil
- Given that we are motivated by pleasure and pain, Bentham proposes the moral principle of utility that both individuals and governments should adopt
- The idea of utility or usefulness is that actions should be carried out if they produce more happiness, pleasure or goodness and are likely to prevent pain, misery and unhappiness
- Bentham argues 'it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong'
Bentham on human nature
- Bentham suggests that pain and pleasure are our masters - we instinctively seek pleasure and avoid pain, Bentham believes 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 is a good basis for making moral judgements
- Utilitarianism has been progressive and the arguments based on these principles have been used to decriminalise homosexuality, ban slavery and give votes to women
- The idea of utility gives a decision procedure - some other ethical theories such as Kantian ethics may promise clarity, but when duties clash there is no easy way of resolving the issue - utility provides a way of resolving each dilemma
- Utilitarianism offers a pragmatism that works in the real world, whereas other ethical theories offer theoretical solutions that do not work in practice
Utility is a poor basis for making moral judgements
- Nozick's experience machine seems to show that if utility is understood in terms of pleasure, this is not the thing that is most important to us
- If we assume that utility is something similar to preference satisfaction then it is unclear whose preferences do or do not count, for example infants, dogs, snails
- Preference satisfaction is not easily quantifiable and as such this version goes against the spirit of utilitarianism
- Utility is too demanding - greater happiness is always achieved by giving money and resources to the poorest rather than buying oneself a coffee for example - it becomes morally wrong to give ourselves treats
- It may also be possible to argue that other motivations, such as duty, agape or telos represent better moral motivations
Act utilitarianism
- Act utilitarianism is the idea that we should always perform the act that leads to the greatest balance of good over evil
- Act utilitarianism aims to produce a balance of good over evil in each case - it takes situations on a case-by-case basis - Bentham's hedonic calculus is an example of this
- Therefore act utilitarianism may give different answers to an issue because of the different contexts - there may be a greater good or happiness brought about by stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family, but the same shoplifter would be wrong to steal 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
Act utilitarianism is a better approach to moral decision-making
- The case-by-case basis decision-making of act utilitarianism is a strength as it allows flexibility, recognising that no two situations are the same - however compared to rule utilitarianism it takes considerable time to weigh up all the complex factors in each situation
- It could be argued that rule utilitarianism is an incoherent position, particularly in weak rule utilitarianism, as the theory ends up collapsing into act utilitarianism anyway as more and more exceptions are allowed
Rule utilitarianism
- Rule utilitarianism is the idea that we should always follow the rule that generally leads to the greatest balance of good over evil
- 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 of Mill's utilitarianism compared to Bentham's 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 experience of stealing would lead us to say that this typically does not lead to a greater good and hence is wrong
- This is illustrated by Ahluwalia and Bowie in the example of the highway code - whilst it may suit me to drive differently and it may not matter in a specific instance, there are fewer accidents overall if we all adhere to the rules
- Mill argues in allowing freedom for individuals to live as they wish, we are allowing individuals to experiment with different ways of living
- This may lead to discoveries of better approaches to life and better rules - we may discover that homosexuality is not harmful and hence change our rules accordingly
- This freedom for all may mean that some waste their lives experimenting with drink or drugs, but overall allowing humans freedom is beneficial
- However the disadvantage of rule utilitarianism 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
Rule utilitarianism is a better approach to moral decision-making
- Rule utilitarianism offers a quicker approach to decision-making, recognising that case-by-case decision-making is unnecessary and very time consuming - however can be situations where different utilitarian rules and principles clash and a different approach would be needed to decide between the rules
- Rule utilitarianism allows us to make rules that uphold justice and rights, two things that may be lost in individual cases for the act utilitarian - the McCloskey example would be allowed by an act utilitarian but cannot be justified by a rule utilitarian as persistent unjust acts would undermine justice itself
- Utilitarianism argues that the good and right thing to do is that which leads to the greatest good for the greatest number
- Utilitarianism is a relativist theory - right and wrong are not fixed concepts
- Utilitarianism is also a teleological theory - as decisions about right and wrong are based on the outcome
- For Bentham, this greater good is equated to pleasure (hedonism)