Utilitarianism Notes
Consists of:
Action (what they do)
Cost vs benefit
Psychological
(Prediction of) outcomes
Usefulness of person to society
Utilitarianism
CONSEQUENTIALIST
Maximising happiness for the greatest number of people
Right actions cause goodness: (goodness= pleasure, happiness, or satisfaction of preferences)
Democratic: everyone is equal when considering people affected by actions
Egalitarian: everyone’s pleasures are equal
Act utilitarianism (Bentham)
- The right action is which brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number (some happiness
isn’t good enough)
- perfec
- Bentham was a hedonist (happiness is the only good)
- Advantages: utilitarianism is intrinsically appealing; we all want to be happy (and we probably think it is
good)
- Problem: - Other actions as well as happiness should constitute goodness (e.g., truth), this agrees with
preference utilitarianism:
Act/ Rule (Hedonistic) Utilitarianism
Hedonistic utilitarianism sees all other
Happiness
Truth values of constituents of happiness.
Honesty Preference utilitarianism sees all other
Love values (including happiness) as
Preference constituents of preference.
Hedonists do not deny that many kinds of things can be good, including food, friends, freedom, and many other
things, but hedonists see these as “instrumental” goods that are valuable only because they play a causal role in
producing pleasure or happiness. Pleasure and happiness, however, are “intrinsic” goods, meaning that they are
good in themselves and not because they produce some further valuable thing.
To measure the happiness caused from actions, Bentham developed the Hedonic calculus:
- Quantitative approach
- Net happiness caused by an action is the sum of pleasures caused minus the sum of pains caused
- Calculus made up of 7 parts: intensity of pleasure, duration of pleasure, likelihood to cause happiness,
propinquity (how long it takes for pleasure to be caused), fecundity (likelihood of pleasure to be followed by
more pleasure), purity (likelihood of action to be followed by pain alongside), and extent (of people affected)
- Problem: seems impractical (time consuming) and impossible to calculate consequences of an action
because certain parts of the calculus (e.g., intensity) is very subjective
J.S. Mill and Utilitarianism
, - Implemented the harm principle: people are free to do anything except physical harm. Likewise,
governments should not intervene in society apart from in cases of violence
- Mill criticised Bentham who made no distinction between pleasure and pain for humans and animals (swine
philosophy)
- Hence, he took a qualitative approach to utilitarianism:
Mill’s Scale
He created a scale of higher and lower pleasures: only humans can access the higher (mental) pleasures
because they have the ability to reason. Animals can only access lower (bodily pleasures).
A higher pleasure is higher if almost everyone prefers that pleasure to the lower one.
Higher pleasures: Mind. Humans access these. They have more
value than bodily pleasures.
Lower pleasures: Body. Animals and humans can access these
Which pleasures are higher or lower are relative to the society. Mill said in each society there must be
competent judges who decide this. Competent judges are those who have full experience of both types of
pleasures and are fully educated.
Mill believed that sometimes we need to sacrifice lower pleasures to access higher pleasures (e.g., sacrifice
overindulging in food to study)
Problem: people will not always choose to indulge in higher pleasures, they are content with lower pleasures
and hence there is still a lack of distinction between animals and humans. Some may prefer lower pleasures
and therefore no guaranteed distinction.
The qualitative nature of pleasures reflects the progression of human happiness.
Through education, each individual can decipher which pleasures are higher and which are lower, though
competent judges are also useful in the distinction.
Higher and lower pleasures are incommensurable because higher pleasures are magnitudes better; they’re
incomparable as you’d always choose higher pleasures over lower pleasures and no matter how many lower
pleasured you get in return you choose higher.
Mill and rule utilitarianism
- Rule utilitarianism: an action is morally good if it complies with a set of rules which, if followed, maximise
happiness for the greatest number
- Mill tended to side with rule utilitarianism because it upheld moral integrity and justice: therefore, it was
applicable to society
- Problem: rule worship/ overriding in the name of happiness??
Further analysis Mill’s argument
G.E. Moore argues for non-hedonism: knowledge aside from pleasure is “good”
Bentham argues that higher pleasures are merely more fecund – they are likely to produce more pleasures
after the action compared to bodily pleasures
Mill says it doesn’t matter if you enjoy higher pleasures or not, they will always be higher pleasures, but Mill
believes certain pleasures are better if we prefer them
Mill is not a pure hedonist, which recognises pleasure as the only good and the only thing we ought to do.
Mill’s idea of higher pleasures disagrees with this as it degrades lower pleasures, indicating we shouldn’t
Consists of:
Action (what they do)
Cost vs benefit
Psychological
(Prediction of) outcomes
Usefulness of person to society
Utilitarianism
CONSEQUENTIALIST
Maximising happiness for the greatest number of people
Right actions cause goodness: (goodness= pleasure, happiness, or satisfaction of preferences)
Democratic: everyone is equal when considering people affected by actions
Egalitarian: everyone’s pleasures are equal
Act utilitarianism (Bentham)
- The right action is which brings about the greatest happiness for the greatest number (some happiness
isn’t good enough)
- perfec
- Bentham was a hedonist (happiness is the only good)
- Advantages: utilitarianism is intrinsically appealing; we all want to be happy (and we probably think it is
good)
- Problem: - Other actions as well as happiness should constitute goodness (e.g., truth), this agrees with
preference utilitarianism:
Act/ Rule (Hedonistic) Utilitarianism
Hedonistic utilitarianism sees all other
Happiness
Truth values of constituents of happiness.
Honesty Preference utilitarianism sees all other
Love values (including happiness) as
Preference constituents of preference.
Hedonists do not deny that many kinds of things can be good, including food, friends, freedom, and many other
things, but hedonists see these as “instrumental” goods that are valuable only because they play a causal role in
producing pleasure or happiness. Pleasure and happiness, however, are “intrinsic” goods, meaning that they are
good in themselves and not because they produce some further valuable thing.
To measure the happiness caused from actions, Bentham developed the Hedonic calculus:
- Quantitative approach
- Net happiness caused by an action is the sum of pleasures caused minus the sum of pains caused
- Calculus made up of 7 parts: intensity of pleasure, duration of pleasure, likelihood to cause happiness,
propinquity (how long it takes for pleasure to be caused), fecundity (likelihood of pleasure to be followed by
more pleasure), purity (likelihood of action to be followed by pain alongside), and extent (of people affected)
- Problem: seems impractical (time consuming) and impossible to calculate consequences of an action
because certain parts of the calculus (e.g., intensity) is very subjective
J.S. Mill and Utilitarianism
, - Implemented the harm principle: people are free to do anything except physical harm. Likewise,
governments should not intervene in society apart from in cases of violence
- Mill criticised Bentham who made no distinction between pleasure and pain for humans and animals (swine
philosophy)
- Hence, he took a qualitative approach to utilitarianism:
Mill’s Scale
He created a scale of higher and lower pleasures: only humans can access the higher (mental) pleasures
because they have the ability to reason. Animals can only access lower (bodily pleasures).
A higher pleasure is higher if almost everyone prefers that pleasure to the lower one.
Higher pleasures: Mind. Humans access these. They have more
value than bodily pleasures.
Lower pleasures: Body. Animals and humans can access these
Which pleasures are higher or lower are relative to the society. Mill said in each society there must be
competent judges who decide this. Competent judges are those who have full experience of both types of
pleasures and are fully educated.
Mill believed that sometimes we need to sacrifice lower pleasures to access higher pleasures (e.g., sacrifice
overindulging in food to study)
Problem: people will not always choose to indulge in higher pleasures, they are content with lower pleasures
and hence there is still a lack of distinction between animals and humans. Some may prefer lower pleasures
and therefore no guaranteed distinction.
The qualitative nature of pleasures reflects the progression of human happiness.
Through education, each individual can decipher which pleasures are higher and which are lower, though
competent judges are also useful in the distinction.
Higher and lower pleasures are incommensurable because higher pleasures are magnitudes better; they’re
incomparable as you’d always choose higher pleasures over lower pleasures and no matter how many lower
pleasured you get in return you choose higher.
Mill and rule utilitarianism
- Rule utilitarianism: an action is morally good if it complies with a set of rules which, if followed, maximise
happiness for the greatest number
- Mill tended to side with rule utilitarianism because it upheld moral integrity and justice: therefore, it was
applicable to society
- Problem: rule worship/ overriding in the name of happiness??
Further analysis Mill’s argument
G.E. Moore argues for non-hedonism: knowledge aside from pleasure is “good”
Bentham argues that higher pleasures are merely more fecund – they are likely to produce more pleasures
after the action compared to bodily pleasures
Mill says it doesn’t matter if you enjoy higher pleasures or not, they will always be higher pleasures, but Mill
believes certain pleasures are better if we prefer them
Mill is not a pure hedonist, which recognises pleasure as the only good and the only thing we ought to do.
Mill’s idea of higher pleasures disagrees with this as it degrades lower pleasures, indicating we shouldn’t
