Can utilitarianism be successfully defended?
In this essay I will be talking about hedonistic act and rule utilitarianism, and preference
utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that moral properties
are determined by the consequences of actions. For hedonistic utilitarianism, the goal
of all actions is gaining pleasure and avoiding pain. There are two types of hedonistic
utilitarianism- act and rule. In act utilitarianism, the moral value of any act is calculated
by considering its consequences, whereas in rule utilitarianism, it states that you
should follow general rules that will increase happiness. Preference utilitarianism
suggests that an action should be judged by how it conforms to the preferences of all
those affected by the action and its consequences. A good act is one which maximises
the satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved. In this essay I will argue that
utilitarianism cannot be defended. I will first begin with act utilitarianism, then show
how act utilitarianism fails, moving onto rule utilitarianism. I will show that rule
utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism, and then discuss preference
utilitarianism and problems with it.
Bentham’s quantitative hedonic utilitarianism states that all pain and pleasure are
comparable. He provides us with a felicific calculus to help us determine the utilities of
actions. For each action, we should consider the intensity, duration, certainty,
propinquity (nearness in time), fecundity, purity, and extent. For example, the pleasure
of reading a book is much greater than the pleasure of eating a meal. In order to
determine the right act, I must consider the options available and determine, for each
person affected, the pleasures and pains my act will produce with reference to the
above criteria. I must then sum this up to determine the overall amount of happiness
each act will produce. The right act is one that produces the most happiness. This is a
form of act utilitarianism.
However, the problem with Bentham’s felicific calculus is that it faces problems of
calculation. Bentham asks us to calculate how much happiness our acts will bring in
order to decide what the right thing to do is. However, I can’t measure my own pleasures
and pains. It is unclear whether I can determine, in my own case, how much pleasure or
pain different acts will bring me. We cannot see into the future and so do not know how
happy something will make us until we are actually doing it.
Bentham replies to this by saying that the calculus is merely there to draw our attention
to factors we should take into account when determining pleasures and pains. He
admits that this is impossible to work out all the details in practice, and it is then simply
a case where we cannot know what the right thing to do is.
However, a bigger problem for Bentham is that we need to consider the effects of an
action on all sentient beings: those that can feel pleasure and pain. This includes non-
In this essay I will be talking about hedonistic act and rule utilitarianism, and preference
utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that moral properties
are determined by the consequences of actions. For hedonistic utilitarianism, the goal
of all actions is gaining pleasure and avoiding pain. There are two types of hedonistic
utilitarianism- act and rule. In act utilitarianism, the moral value of any act is calculated
by considering its consequences, whereas in rule utilitarianism, it states that you
should follow general rules that will increase happiness. Preference utilitarianism
suggests that an action should be judged by how it conforms to the preferences of all
those affected by the action and its consequences. A good act is one which maximises
the satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved. In this essay I will argue that
utilitarianism cannot be defended. I will first begin with act utilitarianism, then show
how act utilitarianism fails, moving onto rule utilitarianism. I will show that rule
utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism, and then discuss preference
utilitarianism and problems with it.
Bentham’s quantitative hedonic utilitarianism states that all pain and pleasure are
comparable. He provides us with a felicific calculus to help us determine the utilities of
actions. For each action, we should consider the intensity, duration, certainty,
propinquity (nearness in time), fecundity, purity, and extent. For example, the pleasure
of reading a book is much greater than the pleasure of eating a meal. In order to
determine the right act, I must consider the options available and determine, for each
person affected, the pleasures and pains my act will produce with reference to the
above criteria. I must then sum this up to determine the overall amount of happiness
each act will produce. The right act is one that produces the most happiness. This is a
form of act utilitarianism.
However, the problem with Bentham’s felicific calculus is that it faces problems of
calculation. Bentham asks us to calculate how much happiness our acts will bring in
order to decide what the right thing to do is. However, I can’t measure my own pleasures
and pains. It is unclear whether I can determine, in my own case, how much pleasure or
pain different acts will bring me. We cannot see into the future and so do not know how
happy something will make us until we are actually doing it.
Bentham replies to this by saying that the calculus is merely there to draw our attention
to factors we should take into account when determining pleasures and pains. He
admits that this is impossible to work out all the details in practice, and it is then simply
a case where we cannot know what the right thing to do is.
However, a bigger problem for Bentham is that we need to consider the effects of an
action on all sentient beings: those that can feel pleasure and pain. This includes non-
