Transcript Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism
Jon Mayled
Utilitarianism – Key Scholars








Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900)
G.E. Moore (1873 –1958)
Karl Popper (1902 –1994)
Richard Brandt (1910–1997)
R.M. Hare (1919–2002)
Peter Singer (1946– )
Utilitarianism – Key Terms







Act Utilitarianism
Consequentialist
Hedonic calculus
Hedonism
Ideal Utilitarianism
Interest Utilitarianism
Negative Utilitarianism







Preference Utilitarianism
Principle of utility
Qualitative
Quantitative
Rule Utilitarianism
Teleological
Universalisability
The School of Athens - Raphael
Hedonism




The idea that ‘good’ is defined in terms of
pleasure and happiness makes utilitarianism a
hedonistic theory.
Plato and Aristotle both agreed that ‘good’
equated with the greatest happiness, while
the Epicureans stressed ‘pleasure’ as the
main aim of life.
The ultimate end of human desires and
actions, according to Aristotle, is happiness
and though pleasure sometimes accompanies
this, it is not the chief aim of life.
Pleasure is not the same as happiness, as
happiness results from the use of reason and
cultivating the virtues. It is only if we take
pleasure in good activities that pleasure itself
is good.
Jeremy Bentham
Bentham




According to Bentham, the most moral acts are those
that maximise pleasure and minimise pain. This has
sometimes been called the ‘utilitarian calculus’. An act
would be moral if it brings the greatest amount of
pleasure and the least amount of pain.
Bentham said: ‘An act is right if it delivers more pleasure
than pain and wrong if it brings about more pain than
pleasure.’
By adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each
possible act we should be able to choose the good thing
to do.
Happiness = pleasure minus pain
Bentham – the Hedonic Calculus







1 the intensity of the pleasure (how deep)
2 the duration of the pleasure caused (how
long)
3 the certainty of the pleasure (how
certain or uncertain)
4 the remoteness of the pleasure (how
near or far)
5 the chance of a succession of pleasures
(how continuous)
6 the purity of the pleasure (how secure)
7 the extent of the pleasure (how
universal).
Bentham’s Utility





Bentham’s Utilitarianism is a universal hedonism – the
highest good is the greatest happiness for the greatest
number.
Actions are judged as a means to an end.
What is right is that which is calculated to bring about
the greatest balance of good over evil, where good is
defined as pleasure or happiness.
Bentham’s view is described as Act Utilitarianism.
Bentham argued that we should be guided by the
principle of utility and not by rules.
Act Utilitarianism

What would be the problems if everyone
acted as an Act Utilitarian all the time?

Are all actions only good because they have
good results?
John Stuart Mill
Greatest Happiness Principle



Mill said: ‘The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote
happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the
absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation
of pleasure.’
‘Some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more
valuable than others, it would be absurd that while, in
estimating all other things, quality is not also considered
as well as quantity.’
Here Mill differs from Bentham’s quantitative approach.
Quality of Pleasure




According to Mill, quality of pleasure employs the use of
the higher faculties.
He is answering the objection to Bentham’s approach that
utilitarians are just pleasure-seekers.
Mill says that the quality of pleasure that satisfies a human
is different from that which satisfies an animal. People are
capable of more than animals, so it takes more to make a
human happy.
Therefore, a person will always choose higher quality,
human pleasures, and reject all the merely animal
pleasures.
Quality of Pleasure

Few human creatures would consent to be changed into
any of the lower animals for a promise of the fullest
allowance of the beast’s pleasures.

…It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied. And if the fool or the pig are of a different
opinion, it is because they only know their side of the
question.
Questions:


Suppose a surgeon could use the organs of one healthy
patient to save the lives of several others. Would the
surgeon be justified in killing the healthy patient for the
sake of the others?
You are an army officer who has just captured an enemy
soldier who knows where a secret time bomb is planted.
If it explodes it will kill thousands. Will it be morally
permissible to torture the soldier so that he reveals the
bomb’s location? If you knew where the soldier’s children
were, would it also be permissible to torture them to get
him to reveal the bomb’s whereabouts?
Universalisability



Mill says that in order to derive the principle of the
greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number we
need the principle of universalisability.
He says: ‘Each person’s happiness is a good to that person,
and the general happiness, therefore, is a good to the
aggregate of all persons.’
This means:



What is right or wrong for one person in a situation is right or
wrong for all.
Each person desires his own happiness. Therefore each person
ought to aim at his happiness.
Therefore everyone ought to aim at the happiness of
everyone.
Universalisability



To move from each person to everyone is a fallacy.
Mill makes this move because he wants to justify ‘the
greatest number’.
This can mean that Utilitarianism demands that people
put the interests of the group before their own interests,
and Mill compares this to the Golden Rule of Jesus of
Nazareth.


‘In everything do to others as you would have them do to you;
for this is the law and the prophets.’ (Matthew 7:12)
Mill also separates the question of the motive and the
morality of the action. There is nothing wrong with selfinterest if it produces the right action.
Rule Utilitarianism

Another aspect of Mill’s approach is the idea that there
need to be some moral rules in order to establish social
order and justice – but the rules should be those which, if
followed universally, would most likely produce the
greatest happiness.

Mill has been seen as a Rule Utilitarian in contrast to
Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism – though Mill never
discussed Act or Rule Utilitarianism in these terms.
Bentham v. Mill
Bentham v. Mill
Act v. Rule Utilitarianism

The distinction is to do with what the principle of utility
is applied to.

According to Act Utilitarianism the principle is applied
directly to a particular action in a particular circumstance.

According to Rule Utilitarianism the principle is applied
to a selection of a set of rules which are in turn used to
determine what to do in particular situations.
Act Utilitarianism
Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism

It is difficult to predict the consequences.

There is the potential to justify any act.

There is difficulty in defining pleasure.

There is no defence for minorities.

It is impractical to say that we should calculate the
morality of each choice.
Rule Utilitarianism
Weak & Strong Rule Utilitarianism



Rule Utilitarianism enables us to establish rules which will
promote the happiness of humanity and will generally be
right in most circumstances (e.g. telling the truth, keeping
your promises).
Strong Rule Utilitarians believe that these derived rules
should never be disobeyed.
Weak Rule Utilitarians say that although there should be
generally accepted rules or guidelines, they should not
always be adhered to indefinitely. There may be situations
where the better consequence might be achieved by
disregarding the rule.
Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism







It is difficult to predict the consequences.
It is difficult to define what constitutes happiness.
There is no defence for minorities.
To invoke rules means that the approach becomes
deontological not teleological.
Followers of Rule Utilitarianism can either be strict rulefollowers or rule-modifiers.
Strict rule-followers can be irrational: obeying the rule
even when disobeying it will produce more happiness.
Rule-modifiers can end up being no different from Act
Utilitarians.
Henry Sidgwick
Henry Sidgwick



Sidgwick argues that the balance of pleasure over pain is
the ultimate goal of ethical decisions.
His argument is closer to Bentham than to Mill, as he
questions how it is possible to distinguish between higher
and lower order pleasures, and how we can distinguish
one higher order pleasure from another.
However, Sidgwick does argue that the process of
deciding is intuitive – we make self-evident judgements
about what we ought to do.
Henry Sidgwick



He argued that justice is the similar and injustice the
dissimilar treatment of similar cases: ‘whatever action any
of us judges to be right for himself, he implicitly judges to
be right for all similar persons in similar circumstances’.
So it is wrong for person A to treat person B in a way in
which it would be wrong for B to treat A, simply on the
grounds that they are two different individuals and
without there being any difference in their circumstances
or their natures.
Saying that people must act according to just laws raises
the issue of which laws are just and sits uncomfortably
with the principle of utility and the Act Utilitarian
position.
G.E. Moore
Ideal Utilitarianism



A Utilitarian theory which denies that the sole object of
moral concern is the maximising of pleasure or happiness.
In G.E. Moore’s version of Ideal Utilitarianism in Principia
Ethica 1903, it is aesthetic experiences and relations of
friendship that have intrinsic value, and therefore ought to
be sought and promoted.
Consciousness of pain, hatred or contempt of what is
good or beautiful, and the love, admiration or enjoyment
of what is evil or ugly are the three things that have
intrinsic disvalue and should therefore be shunned and
prevented.
Ideal Utilitarianism

It was Hastings Rashdall (1858-1924) in The Theory of
Good and Evil (1907) who first used ‘ideal utilitarianism’
for non-hedonistic utilitarianism of this kind.
Negative Utilitarianism
Negative Utilitarianism




The term Negative Utilitarianism was coined by Sir Karl
Popper.
The concept of negative utilitarianism was foreshadowed
earlier e.g. in the work of Edmund Gurney (1847-88).
It has obvious affinity with Buddhism.
However, it has been argued that Negative Utilitarianism
could lead to mass euthanasia, although this implication
has been disputed.
Negative Utilitarianism



Popper’s ‘negative utilitarian’ principle is that we should
act to minimise suffering rather than maximise pleasure.
Classical utilitarian philosophers such as Sidgwick had
explicitly argued for the moral symmetry of happiness
and suffering.
Complications aside, they supposed that increases in
happiness, and reductions in suffering, are essentially of
equal value when of equal magnitude.
Negative Utilitarianism



Popper disagreed.
He believed that the practical consequences of the
supposed moral symmetry were also dangerous.
“Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest
happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a
benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more
modest and more realistic principle: the principle that the
fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim
of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be
left, in the main, to private initiative.”
Negative Utilitarianism



“I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view, no
symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between
pain and pleasure.
Both the greatest happiness principle of the Utilitarians
and Kant’s principle, promote other people’s happiness...,
[and] seem to me (at least in their formulations)
fundamentally wrong in this point, which is, however, not
one for rational argument....
In my opinion... human suffering makes a direct moral
appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase
the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.”

Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1952)
Negative Utilitarianism

Popper believed that by acting to minimise suffering, we
avoid the terrible risks of ‘utopianism’, by which he had in
mind the communist and fascist dictatorships of the
twentieth century.


“Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced
anything but a hell.”
A staunch advocate of the ‘open society’, Popper
defended ‘piecemeal social engineering’ rather than
grandiose state planning.
Negative Utilitarianism



Ironically, the full realisation of a negative utilitarian ethic
depends inescapably on the ‘utopian’ planning that Popper
abhorred.
Only a global bio-engineering project of unparalleled
ambition could bring about the eradication of suffering
throughout the living world - not piecemeal social
engineering.
In seeking to liberate the world from the tyranny of pain,
Negative Utilitarianism is no less ‘totalitarian’ in its policy
implications than communism or fascism, albeit vastly
more compassionate.
Preference Utilitarianism
Singer
Hare
Brandt
Preference Utilitarianism



An Act Utilitarian judges right or wrong according to the
maximising of pleasure and minimising of pain.
A Rule Utilitarian judges right or wrong according to the
keeping of rules derived from utility.
A Preference (or Interest) Utilitarian judges moral
actions according to whether they fit in with the
preferences of the individuals involved. This approach to
Utilitarianism asks:

What is in my own interest? What would I prefer in this
situation? Which outcome would I prefer?’ However, because
Utilitarianism aims to create the greatest good for the greatest
number, it is necessary to consider the preferences of others
in order to achieve this.
R M Hare

Hare argues that in moral decision-making we need to
consider our own preferences and those of others.




‘equal preferences count equally, whatever their content’.
People are happy when they get what they prefer but this
may clash with the preferences of others.
Hare says we need to ‘stand in someone else’s shoes’ and
try to imagine what someone else might prefer.
We should treat everyone, including ourselves, with
impartiality – he also argues for universalisability.
Peter Singer





Singer suggests that people should take the viewpoint of an
impartial spectator combined with a broadly utilitarian
approach.
‘Our own preferences cannot count any more than the
preferences of others’ and so, in acting morally, we should take
account of all the people affected by our actions.
For Singer, the ‘best possible consequences’ means what is in
the best interests of the individuals concerned.
He is not considering what increases pleasure and diminishes
pain.
This principle of equal consideration of preferences or
interests acts like a pair of scales – everyone’s preferences or
interests are weighed equally.
Richard Brandt



Richard Brandt talks about the preferences someone
would have if they had gone through a process of
cognitive psychotherapy and explored all the reasons for
their preferences and rejected any they felt were not true
to their real values.
He argued that the morality someone would then accept
would be a form of Utilitarianism – with their preferences
free from any psychological blocks and them in full
possession of all the facts.
Such a person would not, therefore, be influenced by
advertising.
Does it work?
Strengths of Utilitarianism






It is straightforward and based on the single principle of
minimising pain and maximising pleasure and happiness.
It relates to actions which can be observed in the real world.
Its consequentialism is also a strength, as when we act it is
only natural to weigh up the consequences.
Utilitarianism’s acceptance of the universal principle is essential
for any ethical system.
The idea of promoting the ‘well-being’ of the greatest number
is also important.
Preference Utilitarianism also gives the valuable principle of
being an impartial observer. It is important to think about
others’ interests or preferences as long as one also includes
behaving justly.
Weaknesses of Utilitarianism




It is good to consider the consequences of our actions,
but these are difficult to predict with any accuracy.
Utilitarianism can also be criticised because it seems to
ignore the importance of duty. An act may be right or
wrong for reasons other than the amount of good or evil
it produces.
Utilitarianism can also advocate injustice.
Another weakness is the emphasis on pleasure or
happiness. If I seek my own happiness it is impossible for
me to seek general happiness and to do what I ought to
do.
Weaknesses of Utilitarianism


The qualitative and quantitative approaches pose
problems, as all we can really do is guess the units of
pleasure – how do we measure one pleasure against
another?
Utilitarianism does not consider motives and intentions
and so rejects the principle of treating people with
intrinsic value. Utilitarianism can be seen as too
impersonal and does not consider the rights of individuals
in its attempt to look for the ‘greater good’.
Summary
 Utilitarianism
has some major
weaknesses as far as duty, justice, motives,
intentions and consequences are
concerned, and the principles of ‘the
greatest good for the greatest number’
and ‘treating people as a means to an end’
are rather dubious moral principles.
Utilitarianism