utilitarian

• advantages of utilitarianism

  A great number of people gain happiness and pleasure from the principle being applied.

  As human beings, we naturally look at the consequences of an action before we make a decision. So the hedonic calculus is logical and easy for us to use.

  Rule utilitarianism promotes happiness by applying societal rules that keep the hedonic calculus from being misused.

  The principle as a whole is flexible and easily adaptable to different situations.
• Hedonic calculus

  Bentham - a way of measuring whether an action would bring out maximum pleasure and avoid pain - quantitative approach

  
  

  seven factors to consider:

  1. intensity (is it intense pleasure or just mild)
  2. certainty (will the action definitely bring about pleasure)
  3. duration (how long is the pleasure likely to last)
  4. propinquity (how far in the future is the pleasure)
  5. fecundity (will it lead to other pleasures)
  6. purity (is it purely pleasure or pain as well)
  7. extent (will it affect a lot of people)

  
  

  • rule utilitarianism prevents the hedonic calculus from being misused
• Act utilitarianism

  Bentham: focuses on the consequences of an action not the intention or the moral obligation behind the action

  • each action is considered on its own
  • looks at the balance between pleasure and pain produced by a specific action
  • no particular approach because each situation might involve different people with different interests
  • avoids moral rules - based solely upon the consequences of actions - they do not apply
  • If an action produces the greatest happiness for the largest amount of people, then a moral rule does not matter
• Rule utilitarianism

  Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures - adding to Bentham's act utilitarianism

  • higher pleasures - intellectual, stimulate the mind - music, arts and culture
  • lower pleasures - shared with animals - eating, sex

  'better to be a human dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied'

  • higher pleasures should be prioritised over the lower ones
• EVAL - act utilitarianism

  weaknesses

  • There are certain situations in which pleasure can be bad and pain can be a good thing - developing virtues
  • hedonic calculus can be misused to achieve what people want rather than looking at what is actually good for the majority - individual vs the majority
  • Bentham: look past family attachments - keep decision process unaffected - However, this is impossible as humans do have an obligation to their family and it would be very difficult to not take this into account
  • hard to work out what makes us and others happy - predicting outcomes
• Betham is act utilitarianism

  Mill is rule utlitarianism
• Rule utilitarianism

  Mill: focuses on the application of moral rules to decision-making and how these rules can produce the greatest happiness

  Mill rejects the hedonic calculus - time-consuming and can be misused

  • used a qualitative approach
  • considers what is best for society
  • recognises general laws that benefit everyone - eg promise-keeping and truth-telling

  
  

  he added the harm principle

  • if an action involved harming another person, it was wrong
• Bentham focussed on analysing each individual act and the amount of pleasure for the most amount of people

  Mill focussed on applying general rules to decisions and trying to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the whole of human society as opposed to pleasure for the majority

  Whilst Bentham used a quantitative approach to pleasure and happiness - the amount of pleasure - Mill applied a qualitative approach to his version of utilitarianism - some pleasures are better than others.
• Hedonic calculus - EVAL

  S

  • applies to everyone - outcome is maximum happiness
  • Inclusive - non-religious - Bentham: state and Church should be separate
  • objective - less bias and subjectivity

  w

  • some factors need to be considered more than others
  • measuring emotions is not realistic - subjective
  • teleological - some ends don't justify the means
  • time-consuming
  • can't accurately predict outcomes
• Rule utilitarianism - EVAL

  S

  • provides more clarity on the right course of actions - higher vs lower pleasures and harm principle
  • less likely to be misused - harm principle
  • considers society - maximum happiness for all
  • universalising morality - meta-ethics - is this possible - is good objective/cognitive?

  W

  • can the rules be broken - if so how extreme does the situation have to be?
  • we all have different preferences - rules can't be universalised
• general eval for utili

  s

  • every individual is considered regardless of social status - Bentham: reform and equality
  • doesn't depend on external authority - religion - allows people to make their own decisions

  W

  • Moore - meta-ethics - if we try to define good by saying it is the thing that gives us the pleasure then we have broken down good into something else - good is good
  • can't predict outcomes - teleological
  • no reference to God
  • tyranny of the majority - sadistic guards example
• Sadistic guards example

  • a group of sadistic guards that are gaining pleasure from torturing one prisoner
  • their pleasure outweighs the pleasure/ happiness of the suffering prisoner so according to the hednic calculus, their actions are justified

  
  

  shows Bentham's theory can be used to justify any action - maximum pleasure

  
  

  Mill developed the harm principle to combat this - actions can't be justified if they cause harm
• Preference Utilitarianism 


  Associated with R.M Hare (1919 – 2002), Richard Brandt and Peter Singer

  modern theory asks “What is my own interest? What would I PREFER in this situation? Which outcome would I prefer? However, as it is based on the greatest number it also considers the preferences of others in order to achieve this

  take in the views of minorities and asks if a decision is right and wrong, whether it fits in with what people would rationally prefer
• Preference Uti


  Associated with R.M Hare, Richard Brandt and Peter Singer

  this modern theory asks “What is my own interest? Which outcome would I prefer?

  • based on the greatest number it also considers the preferences of others
  • take in the views of minorities and asks if a decision is right and wrong, whether it fits in with what people would rationally prefer
  • Our own preferences cannot take priority over the preferences of others
  • So the preferences and interests of all those involved must be considered
  • There’s strict equality of all in the weighing of interests.
• Preference 


  the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences

  judge moral actions according to whether they fit in with the preferences of individuals involved

  Hare: we need to stand in someone else's shoes and consider what they may prefer - treat everyone with impartiality

  Singer

  • animal liberation - animals are sentient beings with valid interests - eating animal produce, cosmetic testings, wearing fur is wrong
  • one preference is not greater than another
  • if we have the power to help them we ought to