If you find these notes helpful, feel free to
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/10079613/
Jeremy Bentham's quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism - Eating animals
● Utility is the usefulness of an action in leading to good consequences,
such as pleasure/happiness
● Therefore, utilitarianism is the normative ethical theory that posits that
utility determines the moral worth of an action.
● Bentham's act utilitarianism is a teleological normative ethical theory,
meaning it argues that it is the consequence of an action that makes it
right or wrong – not the intentions of an action.
● Therefore, whether or not it is morally right to eat animals will depend
entirely on the consequences of doing so, rather than the intentions
behind the act. It is irrelevant if you intend to be cruel or compassionate.
● Utilitarianism presupposes psychological hedonism and thus assumes
that we are intrinsically motivated by “two sovereign masters” - pleasure
and pain. We seek to maximise our pleasure and minimise the pain we
experience. All other motivations are merely instrumentally valuable.
● Therefore, Bentham argued that sentience, not rationality, determines
moral status.
● He did not explicitly advocate for a strictly vegetarian diet or banning the
slaughter of animals, provided their lives were ended painlessly and
without suffering.
● However, he firmly condemned needless cruelty and factory farming
practices.
● Bentham presupposes psychological hedonism to argue for moral
hedonism and thus claims that the maximisation of pleasure and the
minimisation of pain have moral value
● Thus, for Bentham, utility equates to the balance of pleasure over pain
,● Putting these tenets together, Bentham posits the principle of utility – the
morally right action is that which tends to maximise pleasure and
minimise pain for the greatest number.
● Therefore, whether eating animals is morally right depends on whether it
maximises pleasure and minimises pain overall
● Bentham supported the consumption of animals on the basis that
animals do not possess the ability to understand the future or foresee
their own deaths.
● He further argued that, when animals are killed painlessly for food, the
overall suffering caused is not equivalent to that experienced by humans.
● Additionally, he maintained that eating meat could produce greater
overall happiness for humans than suffering for animals, as long as the
animals’ lives and deaths were not marked by “unnecessary cruelty.”
● However, Bentham’s utilitarianism is still relativist. He does not believe
that there ought to be absolute moral laws to follow, and the moral worth
of an action should be determined on a case-by-case basis
● This means there are no absolute rules about eating animals (such as
what a vegan might suggest); it is not always wrong or always right, and
must instead be judged on a case-by-case basis depending on the
consequences.
● He measures the moral worth on a case-by-case basis with the hedonic
calculus. This is a quantitative system which enables the moral agent to
weigh up the consequential pleasure and pain on a scale depending on
seven categories (duration, remoteness, purity, richness, intensity,
certainty, extent).
● Intensity: How strong or powerful the resulting pleasure or pain is.
● Duration: How long will the pleasure or pain last?
● Certainty: How likely or probable it is that the pleasure or pain will actually
occur.
● Remoteness: How near or far away the pleasure or pain is in time or
space.
● Richness: The chance the action has of being followed by more sensations
of the same kind (e.g., more pleasure leading to more pleasure).
, ● Purity: The chance the action has of not being followed by sensations of
the opposite kind (e.g., pleasure leading to pain).
● Extent: How many people are affected by pleasure or pain.
● Bentham opted for a quantitative approach over a qualitative approach
as he believed that all pleasure is equal - “the game of push-pin is of equal
value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry”
● Therefore, when assessing eating animals, only the quantity of pleasure
and pain matters, not the type of pleasure involved, so human and animal
experiences are weighed purely in terms of how much pleasure or pain
they produce.
Jeremy Bentham's quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism - Lying
● Utility is the usefulness of an action in leading to good consequences,
such as pleasure/happiness
● Therefore, utilitarianism is the normative ethical theory that posits that
utility determines the moral worth of an action.
● Bentham's act utilitarianism is a teleological normative ethical theory,
meaning it argues that it is the consequence of an action that makes it
right or wrong – not the intentions of an action.
● Therefore, whether or not it is morally right to lie will depend entirely on
the consequences of the lie, rather than the intention behind it. It is
irrelevant whether or not you lied out of a bitter desire to be deceitful or
whether you lied to make a friend feel better about their horrible new
dress
● Utilitarianism presupposes psychological hedonism and thus assumes
that we are intrinsically motivated by “two sovereign masters” - pleasure
and pain. We seek to maximise our pleasure and minimise the pain we
experience. All other motivations are merely instrumentally valuable.
● Bentham presupposes psychological hedonism to argue for moral
hedonism and thus claims that the maximisation of pleasure and the
minimisation of pain have moral value
● Thus, for Bentham, utility equates to the balance of pleasure over pain
check out my tutoring profile here :D
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/tutors/10079613/
Jeremy Bentham's quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism - Eating animals
● Utility is the usefulness of an action in leading to good consequences,
such as pleasure/happiness
● Therefore, utilitarianism is the normative ethical theory that posits that
utility determines the moral worth of an action.
● Bentham's act utilitarianism is a teleological normative ethical theory,
meaning it argues that it is the consequence of an action that makes it
right or wrong – not the intentions of an action.
● Therefore, whether or not it is morally right to eat animals will depend
entirely on the consequences of doing so, rather than the intentions
behind the act. It is irrelevant if you intend to be cruel or compassionate.
● Utilitarianism presupposes psychological hedonism and thus assumes
that we are intrinsically motivated by “two sovereign masters” - pleasure
and pain. We seek to maximise our pleasure and minimise the pain we
experience. All other motivations are merely instrumentally valuable.
● Therefore, Bentham argued that sentience, not rationality, determines
moral status.
● He did not explicitly advocate for a strictly vegetarian diet or banning the
slaughter of animals, provided their lives were ended painlessly and
without suffering.
● However, he firmly condemned needless cruelty and factory farming
practices.
● Bentham presupposes psychological hedonism to argue for moral
hedonism and thus claims that the maximisation of pleasure and the
minimisation of pain have moral value
● Thus, for Bentham, utility equates to the balance of pleasure over pain
,● Putting these tenets together, Bentham posits the principle of utility – the
morally right action is that which tends to maximise pleasure and
minimise pain for the greatest number.
● Therefore, whether eating animals is morally right depends on whether it
maximises pleasure and minimises pain overall
● Bentham supported the consumption of animals on the basis that
animals do not possess the ability to understand the future or foresee
their own deaths.
● He further argued that, when animals are killed painlessly for food, the
overall suffering caused is not equivalent to that experienced by humans.
● Additionally, he maintained that eating meat could produce greater
overall happiness for humans than suffering for animals, as long as the
animals’ lives and deaths were not marked by “unnecessary cruelty.”
● However, Bentham’s utilitarianism is still relativist. He does not believe
that there ought to be absolute moral laws to follow, and the moral worth
of an action should be determined on a case-by-case basis
● This means there are no absolute rules about eating animals (such as
what a vegan might suggest); it is not always wrong or always right, and
must instead be judged on a case-by-case basis depending on the
consequences.
● He measures the moral worth on a case-by-case basis with the hedonic
calculus. This is a quantitative system which enables the moral agent to
weigh up the consequential pleasure and pain on a scale depending on
seven categories (duration, remoteness, purity, richness, intensity,
certainty, extent).
● Intensity: How strong or powerful the resulting pleasure or pain is.
● Duration: How long will the pleasure or pain last?
● Certainty: How likely or probable it is that the pleasure or pain will actually
occur.
● Remoteness: How near or far away the pleasure or pain is in time or
space.
● Richness: The chance the action has of being followed by more sensations
of the same kind (e.g., more pleasure leading to more pleasure).
, ● Purity: The chance the action has of not being followed by sensations of
the opposite kind (e.g., pleasure leading to pain).
● Extent: How many people are affected by pleasure or pain.
● Bentham opted for a quantitative approach over a qualitative approach
as he believed that all pleasure is equal - “the game of push-pin is of equal
value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry”
● Therefore, when assessing eating animals, only the quantity of pleasure
and pain matters, not the type of pleasure involved, so human and animal
experiences are weighed purely in terms of how much pleasure or pain
they produce.
Jeremy Bentham's quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism - Lying
● Utility is the usefulness of an action in leading to good consequences,
such as pleasure/happiness
● Therefore, utilitarianism is the normative ethical theory that posits that
utility determines the moral worth of an action.
● Bentham's act utilitarianism is a teleological normative ethical theory,
meaning it argues that it is the consequence of an action that makes it
right or wrong – not the intentions of an action.
● Therefore, whether or not it is morally right to lie will depend entirely on
the consequences of the lie, rather than the intention behind it. It is
irrelevant whether or not you lied out of a bitter desire to be deceitful or
whether you lied to make a friend feel better about their horrible new
dress
● Utilitarianism presupposes psychological hedonism and thus assumes
that we are intrinsically motivated by “two sovereign masters” - pleasure
and pain. We seek to maximise our pleasure and minimise the pain we
experience. All other motivations are merely instrumentally valuable.
● Bentham presupposes psychological hedonism to argue for moral
hedonism and thus claims that the maximisation of pleasure and the
minimisation of pain have moral value
● Thus, for Bentham, utility equates to the balance of pleasure over pain
