UTILITARIANISM
utilitarianism → people should maximise human welfare or well being
- consequentialist
- moral theory based on maximizing the collective welfare / well being of humans
the greatest happiness principle → we act morally when our actions maximize the greatest amount of
happiness and minimize the amount of pain and suffering for the greatest amount of people
act utilitarianism → we should act so as to maximise pleasure and minimise pain in each specific instance
1) whether an action is right or wrong depends solely on its consequences
2) the only thing that is good is happiness
3) no individual’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s
Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism
- Bentham is a hedonist
- hedonism → the belief that pleasure is the greatest good
motivation
- human beings are motivated by anticipation of pleasure and pain
- he called this a moral fact because pleasure and pain identify what is good or bad
criticisms
- it's impossible to compare pleasures
- eg, going on holiday vs having a hug
- pleasure is subjective
- is quantity the only factor?
the principle of utility
- to provide the maximum amount of happiness to the most amount of people
the hedonic calculus
- the hedonic calculus provides a way to calculate whether an action is right or wrong
- it should, in theory, provide a means to calculate the total happiness by adding up all the pleasures and
minising all the pains
- it uses seven different variables
1) intensity: how strong the pleasure is
2) duration: how long the pleasure lasts
3) certainty: how likely the pleasure is to occur
4) propinquity: how soon the pleasure will occur
5) fecundity: how likely the pleasure will lead to more pleasure
6) purity: how likely the pleasure will lead to pain
7) extent: the number of people affected
JS Mills proof of utilitarianism
1) to prove what is desired is desirable
☒ fallacy of equivocation
- there are two senses of desirable, that which is able to be desired and that which is ought to be
desired
- eg, someone likes having dandelions in their garden, therefore that is able to be desired,
however dandelions are a weed so are not good for the garden, so it shouldn’t be desired
- however, on Mills behalf, it can be argued that he was an empiricist
, - empiricist → a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on
experience the senses
- he therefore looked for evidence of what was actually happening
2) each person desires happiness therefore happiness is desirable
☒ the naturalistic fallacy → attempts to equate good with a quality in the natural world
3) each person’s happiness is desirable, the general happiness is desirable, each person’s happiness is
good to that person, general happiness is good to all collectively
☒ fallacy of composition → just because something applies to each part it doesn’t mean that it
applies to the whole as well
- eg, this tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber
4) happiness as the sole criterion for morality
- happiness is one of the ends of conduct
- happiness is one of the criteria for morality
- other factors can also be ends in themselves
- however, they start as means to the end happiness and only become ends in their own right
association
- they then become part of what happiness is for those individuals, but they were originally only a
means to an end
pros and cons of act utilitarianism
☑ it has method in its application of the hedonic calculus
☑ it is a morally academic approach that seeks the fairest result
☑ the calculus is thorough in its consideration of measuring aspects of pleasure
☒ it is not clear how the hedonic calculus resolves the problem of assessing the quantity of pleasure
- eg, how is it possible to quantify and compare intensity of pleasure with duration of pleasure,
listing elements of pleasure does not resolve the problem of quantifying the pleasure
☒ the calculus does not prioritise or rank aspects of pleasure and so can lead to confusion
☒ the attempt to quickly calculate pleasure could result in chaos, eg traffic lights
☒ the seven criteria could clash, and how do you know which to prioritise?
☒ tyranny of the majority
☒ moral status of particular relationships, eg friends and families
☒ could result in alcoholism, binging etc
rule utilitarianism → we should follow general rules that maximise pleasure and minimise pain (even if
following these rules doesn’t maximise pleasure in every specific instance)
rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than specific actions
- this provides a response to the tyranny of the majority objection
- eg, although in this specific instance punishing the innocent man leads to greater happiness, as
a general rule it would lead to more unhappiness
- it follows a two stage process
1) does the proposed action conform to a justified moral rule?
2) a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible
rules (or no rule at all)
utilitarianism → people should maximise human welfare or well being
- consequentialist
- moral theory based on maximizing the collective welfare / well being of humans
the greatest happiness principle → we act morally when our actions maximize the greatest amount of
happiness and minimize the amount of pain and suffering for the greatest amount of people
act utilitarianism → we should act so as to maximise pleasure and minimise pain in each specific instance
1) whether an action is right or wrong depends solely on its consequences
2) the only thing that is good is happiness
3) no individual’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s
Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism
- Bentham is a hedonist
- hedonism → the belief that pleasure is the greatest good
motivation
- human beings are motivated by anticipation of pleasure and pain
- he called this a moral fact because pleasure and pain identify what is good or bad
criticisms
- it's impossible to compare pleasures
- eg, going on holiday vs having a hug
- pleasure is subjective
- is quantity the only factor?
the principle of utility
- to provide the maximum amount of happiness to the most amount of people
the hedonic calculus
- the hedonic calculus provides a way to calculate whether an action is right or wrong
- it should, in theory, provide a means to calculate the total happiness by adding up all the pleasures and
minising all the pains
- it uses seven different variables
1) intensity: how strong the pleasure is
2) duration: how long the pleasure lasts
3) certainty: how likely the pleasure is to occur
4) propinquity: how soon the pleasure will occur
5) fecundity: how likely the pleasure will lead to more pleasure
6) purity: how likely the pleasure will lead to pain
7) extent: the number of people affected
JS Mills proof of utilitarianism
1) to prove what is desired is desirable
☒ fallacy of equivocation
- there are two senses of desirable, that which is able to be desired and that which is ought to be
desired
- eg, someone likes having dandelions in their garden, therefore that is able to be desired,
however dandelions are a weed so are not good for the garden, so it shouldn’t be desired
- however, on Mills behalf, it can be argued that he was an empiricist
, - empiricist → a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on
experience the senses
- he therefore looked for evidence of what was actually happening
2) each person desires happiness therefore happiness is desirable
☒ the naturalistic fallacy → attempts to equate good with a quality in the natural world
3) each person’s happiness is desirable, the general happiness is desirable, each person’s happiness is
good to that person, general happiness is good to all collectively
☒ fallacy of composition → just because something applies to each part it doesn’t mean that it
applies to the whole as well
- eg, this tire is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber
4) happiness as the sole criterion for morality
- happiness is one of the ends of conduct
- happiness is one of the criteria for morality
- other factors can also be ends in themselves
- however, they start as means to the end happiness and only become ends in their own right
association
- they then become part of what happiness is for those individuals, but they were originally only a
means to an end
pros and cons of act utilitarianism
☑ it has method in its application of the hedonic calculus
☑ it is a morally academic approach that seeks the fairest result
☑ the calculus is thorough in its consideration of measuring aspects of pleasure
☒ it is not clear how the hedonic calculus resolves the problem of assessing the quantity of pleasure
- eg, how is it possible to quantify and compare intensity of pleasure with duration of pleasure,
listing elements of pleasure does not resolve the problem of quantifying the pleasure
☒ the calculus does not prioritise or rank aspects of pleasure and so can lead to confusion
☒ the attempt to quickly calculate pleasure could result in chaos, eg traffic lights
☒ the seven criteria could clash, and how do you know which to prioritise?
☒ tyranny of the majority
☒ moral status of particular relationships, eg friends and families
☒ could result in alcoholism, binging etc
rule utilitarianism → we should follow general rules that maximise pleasure and minimise pain (even if
following these rules doesn’t maximise pleasure in every specific instance)
rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than specific actions
- this provides a response to the tyranny of the majority objection
- eg, although in this specific instance punishing the innocent man leads to greater happiness, as
a general rule it would lead to more unhappiness
- it follows a two stage process
1) does the proposed action conform to a justified moral rule?
2) a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible
rules (or no rule at all)
