Utilitarianism

• hedonistic

  The idea that pleasure is the true good that should be pursued.
• utility principle

  The idea that we should do whatever is useful in terms of increasing overall good and decreasing evil.
• basics of utilitarianism

  -at a simple level, utilitarianism argues that the good and right thing to do is that which leads to the greatest good for the greatest number

  -this means utilitarianism is a relativist theory: 'right' and 'wrong' aren't fixed concepts at all times and in all places

  -utilitarianism is also a teleological theory of ethics, as decisions about right and wrong are based on the outcome

  -for Bentham, this greater good is equated to pleasure (hedonism)
• Bentham

  -Bentham (18th to 19th century) was the son of a lawyer who wrote about and lived according to utilitarian principles

  -a social reformer, he argued against slavery, supported votes for women and suggested that homosexuality be decriminalised

  -was around when the Industrial Revolution and other revolutions were occurring

  -upon his death, he donated his body to scientific research and an auto-icon was made that can be seen at University College London

  --> went to Oxford when 12

  -Bentham sees utilitarianism as both a political and an ethical theory
• utility principle

  -Bentham takes it as a fact of nature that human beings are motivated by pleasure & pain

  -we're naturally more inclined to want to do things that bring us pleasure & more likely to avoid things that cause us pain

  -Bentham suggests this presents a simple moral rule to us: that we should do whatever leads to the greatest balance of good over evil,

  greatest pleasure and/or the least amount of pain

  -this is known as the utility principle

  -utility literally means usefulness, so the theory invites us to do whatever is useful to achieve this end
• hedonic calculus

  -having established the utility principle, Bentham suggests that there is almost a mathematical way of calculating the overall pleasure and pain involved

  -this is called the hedonic calculus

  -Bentham suggests that 7 factors need to be considered when making a moral decision
• hedonic calculus criterion

  -for the possible pains and pleasures, we need to consider:

  --> intensity: how strong is the pleasure or pain that is involved?

  --> duration: how long will the pleasure or pain last?

  --> certainty: how sure are we that the anticipated pleasure or pain will occur?

  --> propinquity (closeness or proximity): how soon will the pleasure or pain occur?

  --> fecundity: how likely is that the pleasure will lead to further pleasures?.

  --> purity: how likely is it that pain will result from the original pleasure?

  --> extent: how many people will be affected?
• hedonic calculus analysis

  -this method of considering pain & pleasure requires that we consider long-term consequences: fecundity and duration ensure that we should not seek short-term pleasure at the expense of long-term pain

  -it is also worth noting that utilitarianism is not a selfish ethical theory - the focus on purity and extent requires that we consider how each individual might be affected by our actions
• Bentham quotes

  -"nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure"

  -"by the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness"

  --> 'An Introduction to the Principles of Moral and Legislation'
• the swine ethic objection

  -a common objection is that it's a 'swine ethic'

  --> treats us as if we were pigs

  -assumes we're creatures that value each pleasure identically e.g. poetry as pleasurable as push penny (doesn't seem right)

  -in Bentham's utilitarianism, gang rape and other horrific actions could be supported as pleasure of multiple rapists would outweigh pain of victim

  --> wouldn't have intended to imply this, but difficult to see how his system could avoid the criticism
• John Stuart Mill

  -a child whose father was a close friend of Jeremy Bentham

  -interested in social justice & politics as well as ethics

  -his classic works include 'On Liberty' (1859)

  -his marriage to Harriet Taylor, his intellectual equal, reinforced his desire to argue for women's rights

  -served as a Liberal MP towards end of his life

  -1806-1873

  -student of Bentham

  -child prodigy

  -breakdown when 20 due to 'intense upbringing' & not spending any time with other children

  -believes focus of utilitarianism should be quality not quantity of happiness
• John Stuart Mill quote

  "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" ('Utilitarianism')
• Mill

  -Mill's utilitarianism aims to correct what he sees as a major defect in the idea left by Bentham

  -Bentham's utilitarianism is quantitative & appears to suggest we can coldly calculate the pleasures & pains involved in each situation

  -Mill more interested in quality of each pleasure & argues there are 2 types of pleasure

  --> higher pleasures: intellectual & social pleasures that only humans can enjoy e.g. intellectual conversation or the enjoyment of art

  --> lower pleasure: pleasures of the body that humans & other creatures enjoy e.g. food, sleep & sex
• higher vs lower pleasures

  -a creature such as a pig enjoys quite simple pleasures e.g. eating leftover food & rolling in mud, but we are capable of higher pleasures

  -it is possible for us to appreciate music & arts as well as engage in political & philosophical discourse

  -Mill argues all competent judges who have experienced both types of pleasure will argue higher pleasures are more important

  -for Mill, the gang rape example fails because rapists experience a lower pleasure that can never outweigh the trauma & pain caused
• Bentham risk

  -Mill recognises quantitative utilitarianism of Bentham risks allowing the 'tyranny of the majority', where the pleasure of the majority can justify ignoring the suffering of a minority

  -in 'On Liberty', he writes about the non-harm principle

  -Mill believes each individual should be free to live as they choose, so long as they don't cause harm to others

  -he argues the only reason a government should introduce a law is to prevent harm to others
• straightforward weakness

  -utilitarianism (particularly Bentham's version) is relatively straightforward in the sense that that the key idea is not difficult to understand or apply

  --> BUT although the idea of utilitarianism is straightforward, application of the theory is anything but straightforward (so many factors & variables to consider). Difficult to know how far to take the consequences of an action too e.g. a simple decision may have repercussions that affect future generations
• prediction weakness

  -difficult to object to basic principle that happiness is a good thing

  -we wouldn't find many people, if any, who would sincerely argue they don't want to be happy

  -suggests utilitarianism at least has a good aim

  --> BUT utilitarianism requires we're able to make reasonable predictions as to the outcome of an action. Not always obvious what the effects of telling the truth vs telling a lie are in any given circumstance. We can't predict the future
• minorities weakness

  -utilitarianism is a secular ethical theory & doesn't rely on God or other metaphysical ideas that can't be proved in order to justify its decisions

  --> BUT while everyone is considered, the greatest good for the greatest number inevitably leads to poorer treatment of minority groups & may disregard rights to serve the greater good. Bentham famously refers to rights as 'nonsense on stilts'
• measuring weakness

  -utilitarianism democratic in that everyone counts equally regardless of whom they are; each person's potential pains or pleasures are to be considered

  -theory requires we are impartial in our decision-making & don't count those nearer to us, e.g. family, as more significant than a stranger

  --> BUT it is difficult to measure pain & pleasure
• difficulty weakness

  -utilitarianism disregards moral agency

  -in his though experiment 'Jim and the Indians', Bernard Williams gives a situation where a utilitarian can save 10 lives by killing one person themselves

  --> he argues even if this were the right thing to do, we would find it difficult

  --> because we are moral agents who have to live with ourselves after the act
• act utilitarianism

  The idea that we should always perform the act that leads to the greatest balance of good over evil.
• rule utilitarianism

  The idea that we should always follow the rule that generally leads to the greatest balance of good over evil for society rather than the individual.
• act utilitarianism

  -act utilitarianism aims to produce the best balance of good over evil in each case

  --> takes situations on a case-by-case basis

  -Bentham's hedonic calculus is a good example of such an approach

  -an act utilitarian may give different answers to the same action, depending on situation or context

  --> e.g. may be greater happiness produced by telling your friend the correct directions to the shop if they need to purchase some essential goods. Yet telling the truth would not be appropriate if the school bully asks where the person he wishes to beat up is hiding
• rule utilitarianism

  -rule utilitarianism aims at the greatest balance of good over evil, but has common good of society rather than individuals as its starting point

  -suggests we do on the whole know the actions that typically lead to happiness & pleasure - we know stealing tends to cause more misery to the victims than pleasure to the thief (particularly if the thief ends up in prison), so we're able to make a utilitarian rule that 'stealing is wrong'

  -worth noting that unlike other rule-based ethical theories, the rules are not fixed

  --> basis of the rules is entirely utilitarian - the greater good or greatest happiness - hence the rules can be changed if society changes
• strong & weak utilitarianism

  -further distinction within rule utilitarianism is difference between strong & weak versions of the theory

  -a strong rule utilitarian would argue once we've decided the rules that lead to the greatest good, these rules are fixed & cannot, under any circumstances, be broken

  -a weak rule utilitarian would make allowances for exceptions

  --> while the rules do broadly lead to the greatest good & should generally be followed, there may be exceptional cases that require a rule to be broken
• is Mill an act or rule utilitarian?

  -debate as to whether Mill would align himself with act or rule utilitarianism (the categories are later terms that weren't applied during his time)

  -he argues past experience of humans allows us to know the tendencies of actions

  -his principles of liberty & non-harm are rules or principles that would seem to allow society to flourish, so he is perhaps best seen as a rule utilitarian

  -he is, however, aware of the problem posed by Kant of the murderer seeking his next victim & it's Mill's view that it would be sensible to lie in that situation, hence weak rule utilitarianism seems to be his broad position
• act utilitarianism is a better approach to moral decision-making

  -the case-by-case decision-making of act utilitarianism is a strength as it allows flexibility, recognising that no two situations are the same

  --> however, the other side of this coin is that compared to rule utilitarianism it takes considerable time to weigh up all the complex factors in each situation

  -could be argued rule utilitarianism is an incoherent position, particularly in weak rule utilitarianism, as the theory ends up collapsing into act utilitarianism anyway as more and more exceptions are allowed (J.J.C. Smart)
• rule utilitarianism is a better approach to moral decision-making

  -rule utilitarianism offers a quicker approach to decision-making, recognising that case-by-case decision-making is unnecessary and very time-consuming

  --> however, there can be situations where different utilitarian rules & principles clash & a different approach would be needed to decide between the rules

  -rule utilitarianism allows us to make rules that uphold justice & rights, 2 things that may be lost in individual cases for the act utilitarian

  -the McCloskey example, where a sheriff chooses to arrest an innocent man for the greater good, would be allowed by an act utilitarian but cannot be justified by a rule utilitarian as persistent unjust acts would undermine justice itself
• tip

  -one common oversimplification of utilitarianism is that it is almost like having a hands-up vote e.g. if five people want X but only two people want Y, then X is good

  --> this is not what utilitarianism is saying

  -the other factors in Bentham's hedonic calculus or Mill's higher & lower pleasures may mean that the effect on the minority is so great that there are very good reasons for choosing Y
• measuring pleasures

  -1 argument in favour of the notion that we can to some extent measure pleasure or goodness comes from John Stuart Mill

  -he argues if we want to know what is good & desirable, we should look at what people actually desire

  -people do seek pleasure & happiness; they pursue it as an end in itself & everything else in life that is desirable is desirable only because it contributes to the goal of happiness

  --> this simple observation of reality does tell us that happiness is in fact a good thing & that it should be pursued
• measuring pleasure analogy

  -Mill offers an analogy to reinforce his point

  -if we want to know what is or isn't visible, the only way we can prove this is by asking what can actually be seen

  -in the same way, we can only resolve what is desirable by asking what people actually desire

  -other thinkers have expressed some reservations about this proof

  -what people desire or aim towards can indeed be described, but this doesn't establish the normative claim that this ought to be desired

  -perhaps we can measure people's happiness in the sense of what they desire, but this does not necessarily mean those desires are good
• the distribution problem

  -1 subtle variation related to the difficulty of measuring pleasure & pain is the distribution problem

  -assuming we can in some way measure pleasure, this raises the problem that we may create the same overall amount of happiness or pleasure, but that this pleasure may be distributed quite differently

  -if we imagine that decision A would lead to person X being much happier (e.g. by 10 hedons) and persons Y & Z each being slightly happier (by 1 hedon each), then the decision generates 12 hedons of happiness

  --> but we could reach the same overall happiness by decision B, which would give 4 hedons to each person. In theory the amount of happiness is the same overall, yet the 2 outcomes feel very different

  -philosophers argue this actually reinforces the criticism that it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure pleasure & pain in the way that utilitarians hope
• no units weakness

  -Mill's argument that happiness is desirable rests on the assumption that we can observe what people desire and thus presumably have some measure of whether they are achieving these desires

  -hence, on a crude level we may be able to have some measure of pleasure or pain

  --> BUT things that are measurable or quantifiable tend to have units of measurement. Time has hours & minutes, mass has grams, etc. There are no obvious units that could measure pleasure or pain
• subjectivity weakness

  -preference versions of utilitarianism may avoid some of the difficulties of measuring pleasure as they would argue that overall utility/happiness lies in preference satisfaction

  -we may be able through surveys & other empirical research to ascertain the relative happiness of people in terms of achieving their life goals

  --> BUT further difficulties in the measurement of pleasure & pain lie in the fact that pleasure & pain are often subjective to the individual. We enjoy different things & each of us may have a different pain threshold & be willing to suffer more pain for a greater good. This would suggest that if any version of utilitarianism is to succeed, it would have to be one such as preference utilitarianism that doesn't require such a measurement
• simplicity weakness

  -as neuroscience advances it may be possible to measure happiness or pleasure in terms of observing what is happening in the brain during key moments

  -while we are perhaps some way off having portable brain scanners permanently attached to us, the existence of such technology would make measurement of pleasure possible

  --> BUT assuming pleasure & pain can be measured would require a very simple version of utilitarianism such as Bentham's, where 'push penny is as good as poetry'. Yet Mill seems right that there are higher & lower pleasures. How should the higher pleasures be weighted? Are they worth twice the lower pleasures, or three or four times?
• measuring pleasure weakness

  Nozick's experience machine and Moore's open question argument both raise the possibility that even if we actually could measure pleasure, we are not necessarily measuring the good.
• utility is not necessarily pleasure

  -utilitarianism comes in many forms, some which are dependent on pleasure & some aren't

  -theory broadly states an action is good & right if more good (utility) is produced by action than other alternatives

  -but measuring pleasure & pain is difficult if not impossible

  -in addition to hedonistic versions of utilitarianism seen in work of Bentham & Mill, other views of utility are possible

  -some modern utilitarians think focus on pleasure is too narrow

  -idea that pleasure isn't the most valuable thing to pursue seems to be demonstrated by Nozick's thought experiment of the experience machine
• utility is not necessarily pleasure continued

  -even if utility is understood as pleasure, this need not be a bad thing

  -Mill's focus on higher & lower pleasures leads to the development of the non-harm principle which suggests in order to secure the pleasure of most individuals, society should only adopt laws that prevent harm to others

  --> has been adopted by various political thinkers over last 100 years
• Singer's preference utilitarianism

  -1 popular form of modern utilitarianism is preference utilitarianism, as held by philosopher Peter Singer (1946-) & others

  -preference utilitarianism recognises different people have different views about what happiness is

  --> we have different aims in life & different things that we consider important (these are our preferences or interests)

  -preference utilitarianism argues people should be allowed to pursue their preferences as long as this doesn't interfere with anyone else's pursuit of happiness

  -the morally good thing to do is that which maximises the satisfaction of the preferences & interests of the most people

  --> in doing this we have to imagine ourselves as 'impartial observers', free from our personal biases & considering what each individual would truly want
• Singer's preference utilitarianism continued

  -Singer argues preferences of all persons should be taken into account

  --> most famous work around animal rights issues & he argues many species of animal satisfy criteria to be described as persons

  -although they can't articulate their preferences, we can consider their interests & assume what they would desire - just as a parent might do for a small infant or a relative might do for a severely disabled person

  --> fact they can't communicate preferences doesn't stop us as impartial observers from acting in their interests

  -1 advantage of this form of utilitarianism is that it may be easier to measure

  --> it also allows individuals to pursue their own interests & not be restricted to whatever the majority deems to be happiness (avoids the 'tyranny of the majority')

  -we also retain flexibility of resolving different cases & issues differently as we aren't tied to rule utilitarianism