6 A* Moral Philosophy essays
1. Utilitarianism
2. Kantian ethics
3. Virtue ethics/ Aristotle
4. Moral realism
5. Moral anti-realism
6. Moral cognitivism
, How convincing is utilitarianism as an account of what makes an action morally right? (25
marks)
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges the moral value of an action based on
the outcomes. A moral action is one that maximises pleasure. In this essay, it will be argued
that utilitarianism is not a convincing account of what makes an action morally right as it
fails to prove that we only desire happiness.
Arguably the most significant form of utilitarianism was one formed by Jeremy Bentham.
Bentham's quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism argued that:
1. The moral value of any act is calculated by considering its consequences.
2. Good acts are those that apply the principle of utility: the greatest happiness
for the greatest number.
To calculate the moral worth of an action, it is necessary to add up all the pleasure the act brings and
subtract all the pain.
3. Good acts maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
4. A utility calculus should be used to calculate the moral worth of an action.
This includes taking account of purity, remoteness, fecundity, certainty, intensity,
extent, and duration.
Bentham presupposed psychological hedonism (that we do seek pleasure) to argue for
ethical hedonism (that we ought to seek pleasure). He argued that we should seek to
maximise pleasure because that is what we do. Betham’s utilitarianism does have merit as it
provides the utility calculus which acts as criteria for moral decision making. Having a clear
criterion is essential for the practical application of an ethical framework which enhances its
convincingness. Furthermore, the simplicity of Bentham’s utilitarianism makes it easier to
understand and more accessible, however this may mean that complex moral dilemmas
cannot be adequately addressed. Finally, his ethics is logical and provides a rational
foundation for moral decision making which makes it more convincing. However, there are
crucial issues with Bentham’s utilitarianism which overall makes it a less useful account of
what makes an action morally right.
The key practical issue with Bentham’s utilitarianism is the problems of calculation.
Bentham did not specify if we should aim for the total happiness or the average happiness
of people. Additionally, he did not specify which “morally salient animals” should be
considered when calculating happiness, or whether they have the same worth as human
happiness. When do the consequences of an action end and how do we know when an
action is morally good or bad? All these factors contribute to why Bentham’s utilitarianism is
a less convincing account to what makes an action morally right because it is hard to judge
when or if an action has been correctly calculated to maximise happiness. The problem of
calculation carries high weight as it directly impacts the practicability and applicably of
utilitarian decision making.
One of the most important arguments against Bentham's quantitative hedonistic
utilitarianism is the issue of the tyranny of the majority. Mill argued that because any act
can be justified if it maximises pleasure and minimises pain, then this can lead to the
exploitation of minorities and people can lose their rights or liberties. For example, in the
, example of the 10 sadists (10 people gaining pleasure at the expense of 1 person suffering)
Bentham's utilitarianism allows any acts, even morally questionable ones, to be considered
as right. This is not a compelling argument however because the tyranny of the majority
only goes against our intuition and does not undermine the principles of utilitarianism.
Furthermore, a significant criticism of Bentham's utilitarianism is the issue of partiality as
this requires individuals to be neutral and count every person as one. This is a problem as
utilitarianism asks us to disregard all emotional attachments and to not favour a family or
friend over anyone. Although this highlights a significant ethical challenge, it may not be a
decisive factor in all moral decisions so is only a moderate issue for utilitarianism.
Additionally, this leads to the problem of integrity. Using the example of Jim and the Indians
(Jim must kill 1 person to save 20 being killed however this goes against his beliefs), Williams
argues that people must ignore the deepest held convictions and disregard any personal
integrity or self-identity to be neutral. The compromise of integrity, such as sacrificing
fundamental moral principles in pursuit of utility maximisation, weakest the convincingness
of utilitarianism as it impacts the credibility and consistency of the ethical framework.
Mill strengthened Bentham's argument with his “proof” for utilitarianism. Although Mill did
not think that utilitarianism could be proven, he did give reasons and facts for why we
should follow his utilitarianism. He argued that:
1. The only evidence that something is visible is that it can be seen.
2. Similarly, the only evidence that something is desirable is that it is actually
desired.
3. Each person desires their own happiness.
4. Therefore, each person's happiness is desirable
5. If each person’s happiness is desirable, then general happiness is desirable.
He seeks to establish that
1. Happiness is the only good
2. Everyone ought to desire happiness for themselves
3. Everyone ought to desire happiness for the aggregate of all people
Mill has a more convincing argument than Bentham because his utilitarianism solves the
criticism of the tyranny of the majority. He argued that we need to follow generalised rules
that maximise happiness rather than an individual action. These rules include protecting
people’s liberty and not harming innocent people and therefore protecting human rights.
Therefore, Mill’s argument for utilitarianism addresses some issues of act utilitarianism,
providing a stronger theoretical foundation and strengthening the overall case for utilitarian
ethics.
However, there are also strong criticisms of Mill’s utilitarianism. One of the biggest
problems is that it falls victim to Hume’s “is-ought” fallacy. Hume rightly argued that as
judgements of reason describe what is the case and judgments of value describe what ought
to be the case and these are entirely different from one another. For example, the fact that
people do kill does not mean that people should kill. Therefore, you cannot draw
conclusions about value based on judgements of reason. Thus, Mill is wrong to argue that
we should desire happiness because it is what people do. Rule utilitarianism’s issue of
bridging descriptive and normative claims does raise doubts about its logical consistency,
however this is not the strongest issue with utilitarianism as it does not impact the
practicality of the theory which is more important.
1. Utilitarianism
2. Kantian ethics
3. Virtue ethics/ Aristotle
4. Moral realism
5. Moral anti-realism
6. Moral cognitivism
, How convincing is utilitarianism as an account of what makes an action morally right? (25
marks)
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges the moral value of an action based on
the outcomes. A moral action is one that maximises pleasure. In this essay, it will be argued
that utilitarianism is not a convincing account of what makes an action morally right as it
fails to prove that we only desire happiness.
Arguably the most significant form of utilitarianism was one formed by Jeremy Bentham.
Bentham's quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism argued that:
1. The moral value of any act is calculated by considering its consequences.
2. Good acts are those that apply the principle of utility: the greatest happiness
for the greatest number.
To calculate the moral worth of an action, it is necessary to add up all the pleasure the act brings and
subtract all the pain.
3. Good acts maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
4. A utility calculus should be used to calculate the moral worth of an action.
This includes taking account of purity, remoteness, fecundity, certainty, intensity,
extent, and duration.
Bentham presupposed psychological hedonism (that we do seek pleasure) to argue for
ethical hedonism (that we ought to seek pleasure). He argued that we should seek to
maximise pleasure because that is what we do. Betham’s utilitarianism does have merit as it
provides the utility calculus which acts as criteria for moral decision making. Having a clear
criterion is essential for the practical application of an ethical framework which enhances its
convincingness. Furthermore, the simplicity of Bentham’s utilitarianism makes it easier to
understand and more accessible, however this may mean that complex moral dilemmas
cannot be adequately addressed. Finally, his ethics is logical and provides a rational
foundation for moral decision making which makes it more convincing. However, there are
crucial issues with Bentham’s utilitarianism which overall makes it a less useful account of
what makes an action morally right.
The key practical issue with Bentham’s utilitarianism is the problems of calculation.
Bentham did not specify if we should aim for the total happiness or the average happiness
of people. Additionally, he did not specify which “morally salient animals” should be
considered when calculating happiness, or whether they have the same worth as human
happiness. When do the consequences of an action end and how do we know when an
action is morally good or bad? All these factors contribute to why Bentham’s utilitarianism is
a less convincing account to what makes an action morally right because it is hard to judge
when or if an action has been correctly calculated to maximise happiness. The problem of
calculation carries high weight as it directly impacts the practicability and applicably of
utilitarian decision making.
One of the most important arguments against Bentham's quantitative hedonistic
utilitarianism is the issue of the tyranny of the majority. Mill argued that because any act
can be justified if it maximises pleasure and minimises pain, then this can lead to the
exploitation of minorities and people can lose their rights or liberties. For example, in the
, example of the 10 sadists (10 people gaining pleasure at the expense of 1 person suffering)
Bentham's utilitarianism allows any acts, even morally questionable ones, to be considered
as right. This is not a compelling argument however because the tyranny of the majority
only goes against our intuition and does not undermine the principles of utilitarianism.
Furthermore, a significant criticism of Bentham's utilitarianism is the issue of partiality as
this requires individuals to be neutral and count every person as one. This is a problem as
utilitarianism asks us to disregard all emotional attachments and to not favour a family or
friend over anyone. Although this highlights a significant ethical challenge, it may not be a
decisive factor in all moral decisions so is only a moderate issue for utilitarianism.
Additionally, this leads to the problem of integrity. Using the example of Jim and the Indians
(Jim must kill 1 person to save 20 being killed however this goes against his beliefs), Williams
argues that people must ignore the deepest held convictions and disregard any personal
integrity or self-identity to be neutral. The compromise of integrity, such as sacrificing
fundamental moral principles in pursuit of utility maximisation, weakest the convincingness
of utilitarianism as it impacts the credibility and consistency of the ethical framework.
Mill strengthened Bentham's argument with his “proof” for utilitarianism. Although Mill did
not think that utilitarianism could be proven, he did give reasons and facts for why we
should follow his utilitarianism. He argued that:
1. The only evidence that something is visible is that it can be seen.
2. Similarly, the only evidence that something is desirable is that it is actually
desired.
3. Each person desires their own happiness.
4. Therefore, each person's happiness is desirable
5. If each person’s happiness is desirable, then general happiness is desirable.
He seeks to establish that
1. Happiness is the only good
2. Everyone ought to desire happiness for themselves
3. Everyone ought to desire happiness for the aggregate of all people
Mill has a more convincing argument than Bentham because his utilitarianism solves the
criticism of the tyranny of the majority. He argued that we need to follow generalised rules
that maximise happiness rather than an individual action. These rules include protecting
people’s liberty and not harming innocent people and therefore protecting human rights.
Therefore, Mill’s argument for utilitarianism addresses some issues of act utilitarianism,
providing a stronger theoretical foundation and strengthening the overall case for utilitarian
ethics.
However, there are also strong criticisms of Mill’s utilitarianism. One of the biggest
problems is that it falls victim to Hume’s “is-ought” fallacy. Hume rightly argued that as
judgements of reason describe what is the case and judgments of value describe what ought
to be the case and these are entirely different from one another. For example, the fact that
people do kill does not mean that people should kill. Therefore, you cannot draw
conclusions about value based on judgements of reason. Thus, Mill is wrong to argue that
we should desire happiness because it is what people do. Rule utilitarianism’s issue of
bridging descriptive and normative claims does raise doubts about its logical consistency,
however this is not the strongest issue with utilitarianism as it does not impact the
practicality of the theory which is more important.
