Mill Utilitarianism Flashcards

Question

Evaluating Bentham ## Footnote **Objection 1: Loss of rights** *Response*

Answer 1

Loss of Rights. The consequentialist nature of Bentham’s theory means that **nothing is intrinsically wrong** and so **rights can potentially be violated**. Bentham said that rights were ***“nonsense on stilts”*** Reply: We _do not need rights if we consider that every action should have a good outcome._ Bentham **includes the severity** and the **number of people affected** in his understanding of pleasure which (maybe) means that this _theory doesn’t allow for tyranny or genocide._

Answer 2

Neglect of Minorities: Bentham’s theory will lead to the **permanent neglect of minorities.** Mill describes this as the ***_“tyranny of the majority”_*** Reply: Bentham does accommodate for the **severity of pain** and his principle of maximizing utility **should not infringe upon other people’s pleasure**. Bentham would possibly factor in the input such a measure would have on our security and feeling of safety but his theory may *allow for example a Stalinist regime* (a small minority is imprisoned eg)

Answer 3

Consequences aren’t everything: There are acts that can **produce net pleasure** which are **nevertheless still morally wrong** eg. *a peeping tom who watches a woman without her knowing gains a lot of pleasure without causing harm.* Reply: Bentham would be **silent** on this… Again, maybe the potential of the woman knowing would cause her pain and this may be considered. **Bentham does promote private acts with little impact on wider society** eg. homosexual sex between consenting adults

Answer 4

Pain is good. **Pleasure is not intrinsically good, nor is pain bad.** _Human greatness and excellence are more valuable than mere pleasure_, and **pain is in fact instrumental to people’s development.** **Neitzsche** *“suffering… has created all enhancements of man so far”* Reply: some suffering may be good in the short term but it is silly to argue that pain is an intrinsic good when **most humans spend their lives trying to avoid it.**

Answer 5

Human nature is not simply hedonistic. The notion that **pleasure is our sovereign master is simply not credible.** _Human nature includes dwelling on our mistakes, getting trapped in abusive relationships, hurting people we most love._ Reply: even though we may find ourselves **allowing/ inflicting pain** on ourselves or others **doesn't mean this is necessarily good and we should carry on**? We may have self-destructive aspects of our nature.

Answer 6

Pain and pleasure are not cumulative. Bentham’s calculus assumes that pain and pleasure are **quantitative (measured by quantity not quality)** in nature. **George Bernard Shaw** argued that **pain is qualitative** in nature, **not cumulative**. Pain _cannot be added together._

Answer 7

The Philosophy of maximising pleasure. 1. **(Descriptive) psychological** hedonism is observing what _**people want** to do to increase their pleasure_ 2. (**Normative**) **pure** hedonism is an ethical theory that states people _should make decisions to increase their pleasure_ Utilitarianism states that people _should maximise human welfare_ or well-being (which they used to call '**utility**') Is morality more than simply pleasure and pain? Plato - ***“Pleasure is the greatest incentive to evil”***

Answer 8

Mill thought that his theory focused too much on **the quantity instead of the quality** of experience. **Troubling implications** - should we sit around drinking all day? What is the need for education? Mill - *“it is better to be human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”*. He also questioned Bentham’s overly simplistic understanding of human nature - he contended that **Bentham’s life experience was too narrow** to afford him a reliable view on welfare. He believed following Bentham’s **hedonic calculus failed to develop moral character.**

Answer 9

**Higher pleasures**: **Intellectual pleasures** that _help humans to_ _develop their intellect_. Eg. reading philosophy or poetry **Lower pleasures:** **inferior pleasures** of the **body** eg. sex, eating or sleeping. Mill did however recognise that a _person first must achieve the lower pleasures_ before they reach higher pleasures.

Answer 10

Competent judges are individuals who **know ‘both sides’** (have experienced higher and lower pleasures) and can **make informed** **decisions**. Mill describes _Socrates_ as a competent judge: he has _experienced both_ the _basic_ se**_nsations_** of life and the _higher_ plea**_sures_** of philosophy. He is therefore in a better to make a judgement as he has **experienced both higher and lower pleasures**

Answer 11

Intuitionism (G.E Moore) is a doctrine claiming that human beings have a **unique faculty of intuition** through which we can **instantaneously know right from wrong**. Mill contends this as a ‘trojan horse’ used to _justify the status quo, and for prejudice and authoritarianism._ Intuitionists maintain that humans are driven by **self-interest**, benevolence and **duty;** that **morality is absolute** and **universal** and known through human intuition.

Answer 12

1. Higher and lower pleasures; could this just be considered **cultural snobbery, elitism?** We know Mill was in favour of an **epistocracy**. 2. _How does one become a competent judge_? What happens when they disagree? How can they be objective?

Answer 13

Argues in order to know what morality dictates, it is necessary to **know by what standard (1st principle) human action should be judged.** Mill was an **empiricist**; he believed that **only** that which can be **experienced** through our **senses** can be **known**. Knowledge – even that of right and wrong – is a posteriori in nature. Since the **moral sense cannot be empirically observed, intuitionism must be rejected.** Believes that the **first principle,** the unrecognized standard, is the principle of utility, or the **greatest happiness principle**.

Answer 14

_Pleasure_ and the _absence_ of _pain_ are the **only things desirable as ends in themselves**, the only things intrinsically good. All Humans desire it

Answer 15

Things added on to the first principle such as 'do not lie' which are valuable as they add pleasure but they come from wisdom not inherent fact.

Answer 16

**_Consequentialist_** & **_Teleological_** - A teleological theory looks to the **consequences or 'end'** of an action to deterine whether it is morally right. A teleological theory can therefore be **applied situationally and contextually**

Answer 17

Mill’s theory conjoins 1. **The Utilitarian Principle** - *morality = the maximisation of pleasure over pain* and 2. **The Welfare Principle** - *what makes life worth living?* Bentham offers an **experience account of welfare** - anything that _happens beyond your conscious awareness_ and does not affect that awareness _cannot affect your welfare._ He introduces the **relative quality** of pleasure as a **determining moral factor** (rather than a focus on quantity), affirming that one **should always aim for the higher** as opposed to the lower pleasure.

Answer 18

Your welfare consists only in those aspects that are good for you. **Welfare is what makes a person’s life worth living** for that personal, equivalent to a personal good, self-interest, well-being or utility. **Doesn’t use ‘utility**’ as it is ambiguous on whether it refers to welfare itself/ or what produces it. Conception/ theory of welfare is essential to utilitarianism as is the **maximising principle**. Mill’s view of welfare can be **seen as separate from his utilitarianism** – morally we are required to maximise welfare.

Answer 19

Bentham offers an **experience account of welfare** according to which welfare consists only of experiences you have. Bentham is a **hedonist** – he holds that **any experience** which makes **him better off counts as pleasure.** **Pains** and **pleasures** can be **measured** – assumes that any particular pain/pleasure has a **determined value** and can be _traded off against other pleasures._ Value of pleasure determined by its **duration** and **intensity** – *_Mill disagreed, bringing in quality_*

Answer 20

Human pleasures are superior to animal pleasures and a distinction is needed between **higher and lower pleasures**. Once understanding the distinction, _one would choose the higher pleasure over lower pleasure even if it came with pain_. Pleasure must be measured in **quality over quantity.** Mill stresses the **discontinuity of pleasure** - _no amount of lower pleasure equates to the higher_.

Answer 21

**Haydn and the Oyster thought experiment** You are given the choice between two lives - that of the **composer Haydn** and that of an **oyster**. Haydn will meet **success** and **honour** in his lifetime, travel, compose and generally **enjoy life** but his life is **short** The oyster’s life will be less exciting, **consisting of the mild sensual pleasure,** like that of a human floating drunkenly in a warm bath.

Answer 22

Benthamite hedonism would argue that, although Haydn’s pleasures are the **more intense**, the **duration of the oyster’s will eventually quantitatively outweigh** that of Hadyn, _ultimately maximising welfare._

Answer 23

Mill would argue, however, that the _richness and variety_ of Haydn’s experiences puts his life into a **qualitatively different category to that of the oyster.** Mill claims that some pleasures are **so valuable** that they will be **preferred** by those **who have experienced and enjoyed** (i.e. not having been forced into) **both**. Crisp calls this the ***_informed preference test._***

Answer 24

Mill defines happiness *_“By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”_* Full hedonism states that what makes experiences good is that solely they are pleasurable. There are two components; a **substantive component** which states that _welfare exists in pleasurable experiences_ and an **explanator component,** which says that _what makes these pleasurable experiences good is them being pleasurable._ Mill uses the terms pleasure and enjoyment interchangeably

Answer 25

Mill claims that some pleasures are more valuable than others and we **judge** this by an **informed preference test** almost. Mill states that humans have **higher faculties** (than animals) and distinguishes between pleasures of the **intellect** and those of **sensation** But it is *difficult to find clear distinction and criteria.* One cannot clarify a pleasure as higher or lower without saying exactly what it is higher and lower than therefore **relative**.

Answer 26

***"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."*** Thus the people (competent judges) best qualified to assess a pleasure's quality are people who have experienced both the higher and the lower.

Answer 27

It is hard to find **criteria for classifying a pleasure as either higher or lower** Also hard to classify higher and lower pleasure **without** **understanding what it is comparative and relative to in the situation.** What in the **nature of higher pleasures make them more valuable?** Is it their inherent nobility or capacity to allow a person to flourish?

Answer 28

Does Mill leave enough room for the vagueness of the value and the vagaries of taste? Can judges be sufficiently impartial? Surely **judge cannot assess both pleasures equally,** humans will always have a preference Is this theory **_elitist_**? Both within and between **cultures**. While the judges may be appealed to for help in instances, does a problem arise when this is applied to every decision over an individual’s life?

Answer 29

The harm principle says people should be **free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else.** According to Mill’s theory, governments should use taxes to **prioritise intellectual and cultural pursuits** e.g. education and the arts. Where does that leave sport? *If this is not the majority view, is it no longer democratic?* It seems rational to suggest that most people would prefer a **combination of qualities of pleasure**. This will maximise welfare more than an austere diet of higher pleasures.

Answer 30

Happiness cannot be the rational attainment of human life because it is **unattainable**: happiness itself is **illusive** - *do we even know what will truly make us happy?* **A morality based on happiness** implies **that since not everyone can be happy, _then not everyone can be moral._** People can exist without happiness, and all virtuous people have become virtuous by **renouncing happiness** (think Christian perspective).

Answer 31

Happiness may be illusive at times, but the **control of pain is very real**. Thus, if happiness is **illusory**, then the **mitigation of pain becomes imperative.** Mill contends that **happiness**, when defined as **moments of rapture** (*“state of exalted pleasure*”) occurring in a life troubled by few pains, is **indeed possible**, and would be possible for **almost everybody** if _educational and social arrangements were different._ The main sources of unhappiness are **selfishness** and a **lack of mental cultivation**. Thus, it is fully within most people’s capabilities to be happy, if their education nurtures the appropriate values i.e an appreciation of the higher pleasures and a social conscience.

Answer 32

Mill accepts the argument that the most virtuous people in history are those who have renounced the pursuit of their own happiness. However, he argues that **martyrs must sacrifice happiness for some greater** **end**. The sacrifice is made so that **others will not have to make similar sacrifices.** Mill admits that the willingness to sacrifice one's happiness for that of others is the **highest virtue**. Furthermore, he says that to maintain an attitude of such willingness is the best chance of gaining happiness. He specifies, however, that the **sacrifice is not intrinsically good**, only **instrumentally** so insofar as it **promotes happiness.**

Answer 33

Mill observes that the utilitarian standard for judging an act is the **happiness of all people** How can we possibly **consider this in all of our actions?** **+** We can **rarely predict the outcome of an action.**

Answer 34

This does not mean that people’s motives must only be to serve the greatest good as utilitarianism is **not concerned with the motives** behind an action; the mortality of the action depends on the **goodness of its result only**. **_Sidgwick_** (more modern utilitarian) called for a distinction between **objective rightness** (actual maximising action) and **subjective rightness** (probable maximising action). If we take the latter view, *consequentialism can be rescued.* In everyday life, a person’s decisions will not affect large numbers of people, and **thus need not consider their actions in relation to the good of all.** Only public office officals have to consider everyone

Answer 35

***Critique**: It only focuses on the consequences of people’s actions, and not on the individuals character* Reply - a**ll ethical standards judge actions in themselves,** without considering the morality of those who performed them (except VE to extent). So **criticism of ethics rather than Utilitarianism**

Answer 36

***Critique**: Its moral foundation is the human happiness, and not the will of God.* **Reply** - depends on the moral character of the deity - **if God desires the happiness of all His creatures**, then _utilitarianism works best._ **Reply** - A utilitarian believes that **God's revealed truths about morality** will fit with **utilitarian principles** e.g. *the Ten Commandments*, if followed, will produce an harmonious and flourishing society.

Answer 37

Expediency - **ends justify the means**, can end in maximising pleasure and **so can justify the means (exploitation)**. With the priority of **individual happiness** it allows for embarrassment and hurt if it **results in the short term gain for a group of individuals**. **Reply** - expedient usually refers to acting against what is right for the sake of personal interest and short term goals. Mill would argue that **hurting society’s interests is to be an enemy of morality** But does a risk to the individual’s or minority’s well-being still remain?

Answer 38

**Christianity** - we can’t guide our conduct by Christianity because we can’t read the Bible every time we had to act. **The traveller** - a traveller will use existing landmarks and signposts to guide their way to their goal. **The sailor** - navigators would be foolish to ignore the calculations of the stars and the planets. Being rational creatures, the common conceptions of right and wrong likewise serve as a reasonably reliable guide. There is no need to reapply the first principle to an action each time one performs it. All rational people go through life with their minds made up on certain basic questions of right and wrong. These secondary principles work on an implicit recognition of the value of the first principle i.e happiness. More Rule Utilitarian?

Answer 39

***Critique**: Utilitarianism is too flexible. Utilitarianism **underestimates the immoral decisions of human nature*** **Reply** - Mill says that **no doctrine is completely rigid.** _Need for exception is part of the reality of human life._ The only safeguards are **intelligence** and **good character** i.e. Education is paramount. And, having a standard of utility to invoke is better than no standard at all (as in intuitionism)

Answer 40

By creating higher and lower pleasures Mill must **explain why higher pleasures have more instrinsic value than lower.** He has already said **pleasure is not quantitive** so it can not simply be a higher amount of pleasure. But then it seems as if he is **not a full hedonist** if what makes higher pleasures higher is that they are **"self realising"** As he says pleasure is the **first principle** and our only desire.

Answer 41

Mill says sanctions are a source of motivation, **consequences for those who break the rules.** **External sanctions**: Exist outside of the human agent - peer pressure etc **Internal Sanctions** - Consists of feeling in one's own mind that create discomfort when one violates duty. If the feeling of duty is innate, i.e. there is a natural regard for the well-being of others, Mill contends that it would support utilitarianism

Answer 42

Mill begins this chapter by saying that it is **impossible to prove any first principles by reasoning**. How then can we know utility is a foundational principle? Proof: **P1**: The **only proof** that something is **desirable** is that **people** actually **desire** it. **P2**: It is a **fact** that **happiness** is a **good**, because **all people** **desire their own happiness.** C: Thus, it is clear that **happiness** is at least **one end**, and one criterion of morality.

Answer 43

P1: The only proof that something is **visible** is that **people** **see** **it**. P2: The only proof that something is **audible** is that people **hear** it. P3/C: Similarly, the only proof that something is **desirable** is that people **desire** it. P4: **People** desire **happiness**. C: Therefore **happiness** is **desirable**.

Answer 44

Problem: Mill uses the word ‘*desirable*’ **_descriptively_** (to show something is *_capable of being seen and heard_*) in P3, whereas in the conclusion, ‘*desirable*’ is used in **_prescriptive_** sense (to show that happiness *_ought to be or is worthy of being desired_*).

Answer 45

G.E Moore (**intuitionist**) disagrees with **equating the natural** **(non-ethical)** property **happiness** with the **ethical principle** of **goodness**. He believes that *pleasure is not always good*, so Mill is committing the **_naturalistic fallacy._** Good is a simple concept that _cannot be defined._

Answer 46

Mary Warnock doesn't think Mill is actually trying to define ‘good’ as he has **already stated that ultimate ends** are **not** **capable of proof,** he is merely trying to *show us what things are good through empirical means*

Answer 47

Mill isn't interested in defining words, he wishes to suggest that **happiness is good, desirable, an end.** Mill is not claiming that goodness is the same as what is desired, what he says is that **desire offers the only evidence for something’s ‘being good’** Although some may desire bad things, mill responds with higher and lower pleasures

Answer 48

**P1**: Each person’s **happiness is good** (prescriptively desirable) to that person. **C**: The **general happiness is a good** to the aggregate of all persons. Critics claim that Mill is **guilty of committing the _fallacy of composition_** here i.e ***assuming something is true of the whole just because it is true for some part of the whole.*** In this case, if we accept that individuals have innate desires, they are _desires for their own happiness_, we _cannot infer that the aggregate has the same desires_.

Answer 49

**The** **Moral assumption** - concern for others is something to be taken seriously. *The egoist, however, may still remain unconvinced that they should care for the happiness of others* **The Aggregative assumption** - happiness can be summed. *Unclear how it can be measured* **The Impartiality assumption** - when summing happiness, the distinction between persons is irrelevant. *There are other ends to happiness (eg. justice) which might provide reasons not to promote the general good (happiness) in certain circumstances eg. the inequality of treatment before the law is itself unjust, even if this leads to the overall maximisation of happiness.* **The teleological assumption** - morality itself will be grounded purely on the generation of good ends. *The field of normative ethics, however, shows that morality is not just about (unpredictable) outcomes, it could also be guided by principles (deontology)*

Answer 50

Mill makes a leap here and says that because **each person desires their own happiness**, we have all the proof ‘that happiness is a good and therefore, **a good to the aggregate of persons.** However this is a leap from **_egoistic_ hedonism** and **_universalistic_ hedonism** Mill responds saying that good is **additive**, in that two people’s equal goods contain twice as much goodness as them alone. *So what Mill needs is an argument for impartiality - one person acting for the greatest good is not increasing their own individual happiness.*

Answer 51

In order to show that happiness is the sole criterion for morality, it is **necessary to show that people never desire anything but happiness**. People may desire things like virtue but Mill argues that **virtue constitutes a part of happiness.** Mill argues that happiness is not an abstract idea, but a **whole with component parts.** Because virtue is a part of happiness, and promotes the general happiness, utilitarianism encourages the development of virtue.

Answer 52

Mill has **not shown desire for the general happiness to exist in any individual,** while yet **requiring proof that a thing is desirable proof that it is desired.**

Answer 53

**_Urmson_** - Mill is a **Rule Utilitarianism**, every person has a responsibility to do the action which they are able to do in that **circumstance** whose **total consequence will have the greatest intrinsic value**. Do an action in accordance with moral rules. *“Moral rule” - an action that promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number* **Orthodox** - *never right when there is an alternative action which can produce more good.* **Urmson** - no, you should **stick to the moral rule,** **even if the particular instance may result in less happiness eventually** it will **promote the most happiness**. Ambiguity in Mill - he switches between Act and Rule Utilitarianism.

Answer 54

"I do not mean to assert that the promotion of happiness should be itself the end of all actions, or even of all rules of action. ***It is the justification, and ought to be the controller, of all ends, but is not itself the sole end."***

Answer 55

"whatever is desired otherwise than as a means to some end beyond itself, and ultimately to happiness, i**s desired as itself a part of happiness, and is not desired for itself until has become so"**

Answer 56

Pluralists deny this, holding that there are desirable ends other than happiness Pluralists vs Mill: Pluralists = desiring something always involves the idea of it as worth doing, **but does not always involve the idea that doing it will be pleasant** Mill = whatever we desire is pleasant

Answer 57

**Happiness** -- It seems right that happiness is given intrinsic value. How can happiness be a bad thing? **Harm** – Utilitarianism seems to be in line with our intuitions that harming people is intrinsically wrong. **Greatest** **good** – It does follow from the above that the right course of action is the one that leads to the most happiness and least harm. It makes sense. **Easy** to **use** – Weighing up the positive and negative effects of our actions is straightforward – we learn to do this from our early childhood onwards. Anyone can apply the principle of utility. **Secular** – Utilitarianism doesn’t rely on specific beliefs about God. **Democratic** – The fairest way to run a country is to balance everyone’s differing interests. We see this happening in all modern democracies – governments use the principles of Utilitarianism to determine what is right. **Objective** – The positive and negative consequences of our actions can be measured. This gives us an objective, independent way of deciding on what is right and wrong. **Universal** – The principle of utility, reducing harming and increasing happiness, is universal, and applies in every culture

Answer 58

**Other goods** – ‘Happiness’ is not the only thing that is of intrinsic worth. For example, love, human life, freedom. **The ends don’t justify the means** – Imagine I killed one healthy person and gave their organs to save 5 others. The balance of happiness over harm supports doing this, but we know that it is not right. **Unpredictable** – You can’t actually know what is going to happen in the future, so it is wrong to base our ethical choices on what may or may not come about in the future. **Immeasurable** – You can’t assign a value to an amount of pleasure. It is impossible to compare the pleasure of getting a new job with the joy of having sex or the satisfaction of washing your car. **People can’t be trusted** – If you get rid of rules and allow people to choose to act in the greater good, they will actually act selfishly, then try to justify their actions by claiming they were in the greater good. **Wrong** – Utilitarianism is just wrong about ethics. Eg. a group of policemen passed around photos of an abused woman for their own enjoyment. When it was exposed, the consequences were very bad. But would it have been right if no one else found out? It wasn’t the bad consequences that made it wrong, it was the act itself. **Subjective** – We all have different definitions of happiness. **Tyranny of the majority** – For example, if most people feel strongly against homosexuality, this would justify laws against practicing homosexuality. This is confusing what is popular with what is right.

Mill Utilitarianism Flashcards

(82 cards)