Evaluation of Utility

• problems of felicific/hedonic calculus

  - too time consuming to use

  - too difficult to calculate/measure intensity/duration etc

  - a decision is needed immediately
• strengths of act utility

  - good aim/intention, for everyone to be happy

  - evaluates each situation afresh and individually, looking at circumstances

  - based on democratic values, not personal happiness, unselfish
• weaknesses of act utility

  - problems with felicific/hedonic calculus

  - immoral/unjust/unfair actions can be condoned (e.g. philosopher's cave, blood sports, discrimination)

  - cannot guarantee greatest happiness, always predicting

  - doesn't take into account duty (e.g. priest)/emotional attachment

  - all pleasures aren't of equal quality (e.g. holding baby and eating chocolate

  - can't protect human rights

  - some like 'bad pleasures', e.g. drinking/drugs

  - doesn't protect minorities (e.g. Jim and the Indians)

  - no fixed rules means no consistency
• how did Mill improve on act utility

  - scrapped felicific/hedonic calculus

  - implemented rules (strong = can never be broken, weak = may only be broken in exceptional circumstances, if it achieves greatest happiness)

  - differentiated between different qualities of pleasure (higher = mind, e.g. chess, lower = body, e.g. sex)

  - created harm principle (the will of the majorities should not be imposed on minorities unless it's to prevent harm) in order to protect minorities
• strengths of rule utility

  - recognises that all pleasures aren't of equal quality

  - promotes quality of quantity of pleasure

  - doesn't condone morally excusable acts

  - rules provide consistency, and are based on principle of utility, so are democratic

  - no complex calculations involved

  - protects minorities
• weaknesses of rule utility

  - higher/lower pleasures are subjective

  - quality of pleasure is difficult to measure

  - issue of who creates the rules to bring greatest happiness, and what most beneficial rules are

  - there will always be exceptional circumstances (can't make rules for all situations)

  - elitist; higher pleasures favoured by Mill so seen as better - Mill looked down on lower classes and lower pleasures

  - strong rule is too inflexible

  - weak rule is too subjective (when to break)
• how did Singer improve on utility

  - pleasure is difficult to calculate, however preferences can be easily expressed (some may also not have emphasis on pleasure, e.g. a marathon runner)

  - preference abolishes the need for experience (e.g. someone can prefer not to be tortured without having been before)

  - preference also can be exercised as duty (e.g. priest)
• strengths of preference utility

  - more realistic motive and more practical (applied more easily)

  - preference is easier to measure than happiness

  - good aim (to satisfy desires/preferences)

  - more sophisticated than Betham's idea of hedonism

  - Singer emphasised our moral obligation to help and not just prevent suffering (especially with modern moral responsibility)
• weaknesses of preference utility

  - someones preference may not be what's best for them/society

  - minorities may suffer

  - people's preferences may conflict, who decides whose preference overrides

  - could argue it enters a grey area into deontology when talking about duty
• overall strengths of utilitarianism

  - democratic; focuses on majorities happiness (meaning a dangerous minority cannot dominate, e.g. ISIS)

  - good aim (greatest happiness)

  - allows autonomy for people to make decisions for themselves (unrestrictive)

  - no fixed rules and looks at circumstances

  - impartial = all pleasures/interests are equal, unselfish (christianity)

  - secular, so accessible to everyone

  - straightforward to apply and aligns with common sense

  - applied in modern society (e.g. in NHS for cost-benefit analysis, like allocating organs to people in need)

  - encourages reducing preventable suffering (Singer)

  - reformist and practical (e.g. prison reform, women's rights)
• overall weaknesses of utility

  - defines happiness as pleasure, however it's more than this, preference has upper hand with this

  - bad/harmful/unfair actions can be justified due to the will of the majority; issues of teleology (e.g. blood sports

  - can ignore human rights if the majority decide not to respect them (e.g. Apartheid in South Africa)

  - majority may be wrong

  - cannot ever guarantee happiness, all based on predictions

  - difficult to measure pleasure

  - makes no allowance for reality of personal relationships/attachments, or sense of duty/promises (e.g. Jim and the Indians)