4: Utilitarianism
Act Betham's proposition that we should always perform acts which lead to the greatest
Utilitarianism balance of good over evil. Bentham was a hedonist who believed that people are
motivated by the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. He believed that an
action was right if it produced the greatest balance of good over evil. Good is the
maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. Bentham said that you should
always work to avoid pain first. It is done on an act by act basis and is situational
2 Sovereign Pleasure - the sole good
Masters Pain - the sole evil
Principle of 'Seek always the greatest balance of good over evil'
Utility
Hedonic Purity - a pleasure that doesn't involve pain counts for more
Calculus Richness - pleasures that go on giving count more
Remoteness - proximity in time and space multiplies the effect
Intensity - more intense pleasures count for more
Certainty - certain pleasures count for more
Extent - if more people get pleasure it counts for more
Duration - if it lasts a long time it counts for more
Robert Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you any experience you
Nozick "The desired. Super-duper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think
Experience and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book.
Machine" All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should
you plug into this machine for life, pre-programming your life experiences? [...] Of course,
while in the tank you won't know that you're there; you'll think that it's all actually
happening [...] Would you plug in?
1. If all that mattered to us was pleasure, then we would want to plug into the experience
machine.
2. However, we would not want plug-in
3. Hence, there are things which matter to us besides pleasure
Weaknesses Reduces ethical reasoning to maths
to Act Pleasure is not our sole motivation
Utilitarianism It rejects natural rights and does not protect minorities
It can be applied in ways which might justify horrific acts
It is not about personal choices and does not, in fact, allow freedom
It is hard to accurately predict outcomes and therefore predict the 'right' choices e.g.
cheating may be pleasurable if no one finds out, but if you are discovered it actually might
be very painful
Sometimes pain is good e.g. giving up an addictive drug is temporarily painful but in the
long term it is better
Pleasures are sometimes bad e.g. cheating. sadists who get pleasure from torturing others
Incalculable - Even if you knew exactly what would happen, it is impossible to add up all of
the pain and pleasure resulting from a course of action. There's simply too much to
calculate
Immeasurable - A more fundamental flaw. Even with the simplest event - choosing
whether to buy a toy or a magazine for a child - it is impossible to decide on a value to
give for happiness. Is the joy of reading a magazine more intense than the joy of playing
with a toy? Pleasure cannot be measured, so the idea of adding it all up doesn't work.
Sir Bernard Argued that the conscientious utilitarian will be always on guard to prevent harm, leading
Williams to bad acts in an attempt to prevent worse ones. Therefore, the overall picture would be
worse so it is better for people to not be utilitarians
John Stuart Mill thought that act utilitarianism was a 'doctrine worthy of swine' so he developed in into
Mill - Rule rule utilitarianism. He argued that rules were needed by society to protect the common
Utilitarianism love of all - recognising the cumulative and qualitative effect of actions on personal and
social wellbeing. He believed the route to happiness required rules. Believes that we should
always follow that rule which will lead to the greatest overall balance of good over evil.
Distinguished between Higher/lower pleasures
'It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied'
However, ultimately, Mill would break a rule if breaking it leads to the greatest happiness.
Some describe him as a 'soft' Rule Utilitarian, 'Hard' Rule Utilitarians would disagree with
Act Betham's proposition that we should always perform acts which lead to the greatest
Utilitarianism balance of good over evil. Bentham was a hedonist who believed that people are
motivated by the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. He believed that an
action was right if it produced the greatest balance of good over evil. Good is the
maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. Bentham said that you should
always work to avoid pain first. It is done on an act by act basis and is situational
2 Sovereign Pleasure - the sole good
Masters Pain - the sole evil
Principle of 'Seek always the greatest balance of good over evil'
Utility
Hedonic Purity - a pleasure that doesn't involve pain counts for more
Calculus Richness - pleasures that go on giving count more
Remoteness - proximity in time and space multiplies the effect
Intensity - more intense pleasures count for more
Certainty - certain pleasures count for more
Extent - if more people get pleasure it counts for more
Duration - if it lasts a long time it counts for more
Robert Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you any experience you
Nozick "The desired. Super-duper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think
Experience and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book.
Machine" All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should
you plug into this machine for life, pre-programming your life experiences? [...] Of course,
while in the tank you won't know that you're there; you'll think that it's all actually
happening [...] Would you plug in?
1. If all that mattered to us was pleasure, then we would want to plug into the experience
machine.
2. However, we would not want plug-in
3. Hence, there are things which matter to us besides pleasure
Weaknesses Reduces ethical reasoning to maths
to Act Pleasure is not our sole motivation
Utilitarianism It rejects natural rights and does not protect minorities
It can be applied in ways which might justify horrific acts
It is not about personal choices and does not, in fact, allow freedom
It is hard to accurately predict outcomes and therefore predict the 'right' choices e.g.
cheating may be pleasurable if no one finds out, but if you are discovered it actually might
be very painful
Sometimes pain is good e.g. giving up an addictive drug is temporarily painful but in the
long term it is better
Pleasures are sometimes bad e.g. cheating. sadists who get pleasure from torturing others
Incalculable - Even if you knew exactly what would happen, it is impossible to add up all of
the pain and pleasure resulting from a course of action. There's simply too much to
calculate
Immeasurable - A more fundamental flaw. Even with the simplest event - choosing
whether to buy a toy or a magazine for a child - it is impossible to decide on a value to
give for happiness. Is the joy of reading a magazine more intense than the joy of playing
with a toy? Pleasure cannot be measured, so the idea of adding it all up doesn't work.
Sir Bernard Argued that the conscientious utilitarian will be always on guard to prevent harm, leading
Williams to bad acts in an attempt to prevent worse ones. Therefore, the overall picture would be
worse so it is better for people to not be utilitarians
John Stuart Mill thought that act utilitarianism was a 'doctrine worthy of swine' so he developed in into
Mill - Rule rule utilitarianism. He argued that rules were needed by society to protect the common
Utilitarianism love of all - recognising the cumulative and qualitative effect of actions on personal and
social wellbeing. He believed the route to happiness required rules. Believes that we should
always follow that rule which will lead to the greatest overall balance of good over evil.
Distinguished between Higher/lower pleasures
'It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied'
However, ultimately, Mill would break a rule if breaking it leads to the greatest happiness.
Some describe him as a 'soft' Rule Utilitarian, 'Hard' Rule Utilitarians would disagree with
