Mill Utilitarianism

Question 1

Distinction between Act and Rule Utilitarians

Answer 1

Act- we should perform the action that will create the greatest net utility. The principle of utility should be applied on a case by case basis. The right action in any situation is the one that yields more utility than other available actions. (Hedonic Calculus - impractical) (Bentham)

Rule- According to rule utilitarians, a) a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and b) a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible rules.

Question 2

Definition of Utility

Answer 2

state of being useful, profitable or beneficial

Or

To utilitarians: well being or happiness.

Measured in Utils

Question 3

John Skorupski 2 quotes on what utilitarianism is

Answer 3

“Utilitarianism is the thesis that the well-being of each and every individual has intrinsic ethical value, that the greater the well being the greater its value, and _that nothing else has intrinsic value”_

“for the utilitarian the only thing that has intrinsic ethical value is a property of individuals… that of being or faring well”

Question 4

4 General Advantages of Utilitarianism

Answer 4

It offers a democratic morality that promotes general happiness and opposes individual pursuits

It is a common sense system that does not require special wisdom (Sidgwick)

It appears natural to consider the consequences of our actions when deciding what to do

Uses an objective process to decide what’s right and wrong

Secular

Question 5

6 General Disadvantages of Utilitarianism

Answer 5

There are other goods/ commodities that are worth considering such as love and having life

Motive is also important (deontological theories)

Consequentialism can devalue human life, measuring the value of each as a means to an end

Hard to be a disinterested, benevolent spectator

Utilitarianism rests on one’s ability to know what gives other people pleasure or what is good for the general welfare

Have to rely on everyone else following the same moral code

Question 6

3 Specific Criticisms of Utilitarianism

1. Hume
2. McCloskey
3. ‘Wrong Answers’ Objection

Answer 6

Consequences are hard to measure and outcomes are unpredictable - it is impossible to know all outcomes from a certain action (Hume)

Utilitarianism’s demands can conflict with our demand for justice (McCloskey)

The ‘Wrong Answers’ Objection. It permits various actions that everyone knows are morally wrong

Question 7

Bernard Williams (1929-2003) Critique of Utilitarianism

Answer 7

Critiqued utilitarianism with the Integrity objection

Uses the ‘Jim, Pedro and the Indian Captives’ example ‘One can either kill one man to save 19 or refuse and the 19 die.’

Shows how Utilitarianism “ignores the reality of moral integrity.”

Someone may stand, and always stand for something - no matter the calculated consequences.

Integrity is consistency to our own beliefs which is opposed to Utilitarianism as it demands situational responses

Question 8

J L Mackie (1917-1981) Critique of Utilitarianism

Answer 8

Practicality problem

Forces us to make calculations of future circumstances, without providing the means to do this well.

Impossible in practice, and so moral thinking is brought into disrepute.

Question 9

What response can we find in Mill to Williams’ Critique

Also a mini fault

Answer 9

The Integrity objection is avoided as Mill argues for the utilitarian benefit of education and the building of moral character with virtues such as generosity. Mill’s happiness is closer to Aristotle’s individual and social concept of Eudaimonia, social and personal flourishing.

However, Mill can be charged with inconsistency. Opens with a Benthamite view that there is only one intrinsic view: pleasure but then later develops this into higher pleasures, intellect, goals and virtues cultivated including character development.

Question 10

Preference Utilitarianism

Who is associated with it?

Answer 10

Distinct from original utilitarianism in that it values actions that fulfil the greatest amount of personal interests, as opposed to actions that generate the greatest amount of pleasure

Peter Singer

animals have the exact same rights as humans, babies are not “people” yet and therefore are less valued than mature animals.

Question 11

Which scholar is most associated with Preference util and what are his main points?

Answer 11

Richard Hare

He is committed to the principle of utility - to act which does more good, gives greater benefit, or which satisfies more preferences (desires), or the stronger of two or more preferences.

Hare maintains that there are two levels of moral thinking:

1. intuitive level where people apply moral intuitions or general prima facie principles to moral situations
2. critical moral thinking which involves the consideration of people’s preference.

Question 12

Act Utilitarianism In detail

Answer 12

A utilitarian theory of ethics that states that a person’s act is morally right if it produces the best possible outcome in that situation.

Act utilitarians consider only the result or consequence of a single act while rule utilitarians consider the consequence as well as following a rule of conduct.

The difficulty of performing certain moral acts should be taken in to consideration

Act utilitarians believe that whenever we decide what to do we should perform the action that has the greatest net utility.

They focus on the effects on individuals, whilst rule utilitarians tend to focus on the effects of type of actions

Question 13

Rule Utilitarianism in detail

Answer 13

Sets up a moral code which contains rules to maximise utility.

The correct moral rules are those whose inclusion in our moral code will objectively maximise utility

Once one determines what these rules are you can judge individuals actions by seeing how well they conform

Principle of utility: used to evaluate rules instead of individual actions. Specific rules, not up for interpretation.

Question 14

Weak/Soft Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 14

Rules can be broken from time to time if necessary.

But this collapses into Act utilitarianism.

Question 15

4 Strengths of Rule

Answer 15

Practical - Does not require the hedonic calculus for every action

Can be easily combined with our legalistic structure of laws, gives lawmakers a simple method to create laws

A more deontological approach establishes universal standards that can be followed by all, providing clear guidance.

Rules are more objective and can be referred to, instead of considering each situation and its consequences separately.

Question 16

What does Rule Utilitarianism Overcome?

Answer 16

W.D. Ross’ objection that Act Utilitarianism is counterintuitive

i.e. that if lying and telling the truth bring about equally good consequences; they are of equal moral value.

Rule Utilitarianism (Mill’s version) allows rules that prevent bad things being done to bring about the good, for example, stealing.

Question 17

2 General critiques of Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 17

It could bring about more happiness if i break the rule e.g. makes more sense for the police to shoot mass murder as it will diminish the amount of pain overall, more happiness than pain

collapses into act

Utilitarianism seeks to predict the consequences of an action, which is impossible.

Question 18

GE Moore Critique of Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 18

Intuitionism instead of Utilitarianism - enables the discovery of moral truths through intuition. WHO NEEDS RULES?

• Aquinas says we use “synderesis” to give us a general sense of moral goodness

Question 19

John Rawls Critique of Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 19

John Rawls has concerns about Utilitarianism and justice.

It would still be possible to justify slavery, as long as the majority believed that it would maximise happiness

- minority rights are not necessarily protected.

tyranny of the majority

Question 20

R.M Hare critique of Utilitarianism

Answer 20

R. M. Hare has pointed out that Strong Rule Utilitarianism has absolutist rules that cannot be broken.

This version of Rule Utilitarianism has all the weaknesses of moral absolutism; e.g. not lying could put a person’s life in danger if we don’t also consider the situation.

Question 21

Negative Utilitarianism

Who is associated with it and what do they argue?

Answer 21

Karl Popper

Instead of trying to maximise pleasure we should try and minimise suffering.

Fighting against avoidable misery should be a recognised aim of public policy

Question 22

Sidgwick utilitarianism

Answer 22

Believed there are some ‘self-evident’ intuitions such as ‘do not lie.’ But when you look closer it is obvious these are just underpinned with utilitarian values

However, intuitions could only be used as guidelines because they of exceptions and possible manipulation.

He believed Mill’s rule utilitarianism stance was too rigid and would be easily disproven with exceptions.
He believed motives should be considered as well because consequences cannot be predicted with 100% certainty

Act - more like Bentham

Question 23

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

General Points on society and his aim of Utilitarianism

Answer 23

Social reformer and philanthropist

Devised a moral theory which moved away from pleasing God or following a set of rules.

Believed pleasure had an intrinsic moral value

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign matters, pain and pleasure”

Whatever was done in society would be judged by right or wrong according to whether or not benefited the majority of its citizens.

Question 24

Bentham

How to measure Utility?

2 principles of his Utilitarianism that make it more appealing for society

Answer 24

Measured utilitarianism in a hedonic calculus (Act Utilitarianism) - pleasure generated by a particular action can be measured. Rational and scientific way to measure pleasure - goodness being empirically measured

Democratic - “everyone is to count for one, and nobody for one more than one”

Egalitarian - “no one person’s pleasure is greater than another’s”

Belief of equality

Question 25

Evaluating Bentham

Objection 1: Loss of rights

Response

Answer 25

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.

Question 26

Evaluating Bentham

Objection 2: Neglect of Minorities

Response

Answer 26

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)

Question 27

Evaluating Bentham

Objection 3: Consequences aren’t everything

Response

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Evaluating Bentham

Objection 4: Pain is good

Response

Answer 28

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.

Question 29

Evaluating Bentham

Objection 5: Human Nature is simply not hedonistic

Response

Answer 29

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.

Question 30

Evaluating Bentham

Objection 6: Pain and pleasure are not cumulative

Answer 30

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.

Question 31

Definition of Hedonism

2 types of Hedonism

What Utilitarianism suggests

Plato quote

Answer 31

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”

Question 32

Mill’s Issues with Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus

Answer 32

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.

Question 33

Higher and Lower pleasures

Answer 33

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.

Question 34

Competent judges

Answer 34

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 sensations of life and the higher pleasures of philosophy.

He is therefore in a better to make a judgement as he has experienced both higher and lower pleasures

Question 35

Mill v Intuitionism

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

Initial criticisms of Mill

Higher and lower pleasures?

Competent judges?

Answer 36

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?

Question 37

Mill Chapter 1 summary

Answer 37

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.

Question 38

Mill’s First Principle

Answer 38

Pleasure and the absence of pain are the only things desirable as ends in themselves, the only things intrinsically good.

All Humans desire it

Question 39

Mill’s Second Principles

Answer 39

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.

Question 40

Chapter 2

What two things describe Utilitarianism in its nature?

Answer 40

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

Question 41

Mill’s theory of welfare

Answer 41

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.

Question 42

Crisp: Mill’s account of Welfare

Answer 42

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.

Question 43

Crisp: Bentham’s account of Welfare

Answer 43

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

Question 44

Objection 1

Utilitarianism is a swine philosophy

base response

Answer 44

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.

Question 45

Explain the Haydn and the Oyster thought experiment

Just explain it, dont go into analysis yet

Answer 45

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.

Question 46

Crisp: Bentham’s response to Haydn and Oyster

Answer 46

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.

Question 47

Crisp: Mill’s response to Haydn and the Oyster

Answer 47

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.

Question 48

Crisp: Mill’s Hedonism

Answer 48

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

Question 49

Crisp: Taking the higher ground

Answer 49

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.

Question 50

Mill Quote on Swine problem

Who is qualified to assess H or L pleasures?

Answer 50

“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.

Question 51

General Criticisms of Mill’s higher and lower pleasures

Answer 51

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?

Question 52

Alan Ryan’s criticisms of Mill’s higher and lower pleasures

Answer 52

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?

Question 53

The Harm Principle involvement in higher/lower pleasures

Answer 53

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.

Question 54

Objection no.2

Happiness is unattainable

Answer 54

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).

Question 55

Mill’s replies to “happiness is unattainable” criticism

Answer 55

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.

Question 56

Mill’s particular response to the “Virtuous people in history who have renounced their happiness” criticism

Answer 56

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.

Question 57

Objection no.3

“Too demanding”

+

Extra mini critique

Answer 57

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.

Question 58

Mill’s response to Objection no.3

“Too demanding”

+ Sidgwick response

Answer 58

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

Question 59

Objection no4

“Utilitarianism is cold and unsympathetic”

and mill response

Answer 59

Critique: It only focuses on the consequences of people’s actions, and not on the individuals character

Reply - all 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

Question 60

Objection no5

“Utilitarianism is a godless doctrine”

+ Mill’s response

Answer 60

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.

Question 61

Objection no6

“Utilitarianism favours expediency”

+ Mill’s response

Answer 61

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?

Question 62

Objection no7

“Calculations are too complex”

3 Analogies Mill uses to respond

Answer 62

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?

Question 63

Objection no8

“Utility can be manipulated”

Answer 63

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)

Question 64

Describe Crisp’s

“Alleged Dilemma”

Answer 64

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.

Question 65

Chapter 3

Sanctions of Utility

Answer 65

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

Question 66

Mill Chapter 4

Intro and proof for his claim

Answer 66

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.

Question 67

proof of desirability

Answer 67

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.

Question 68

Criticism of Mill’s proof of desirability

Different definitions of desirable

Answer 68

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).

Question 69

G.E Moore criticism of Mill’s proof of desirability

Answer 69

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.

Question 70

Mary Warnock response to criticisms of Mill’s proof of desirability

Answer 70

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

Question 71

Crisp resonse to Mill Criticism

Answer 71

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

Question 72

Premise 2: The happiness of all

Explain the argument and the main critique

Answer 72

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.

Question 73

4 Assumptions Crisp makes about the second premise

+ Critieques of these assumptions in italics

Answer 73

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)

Question 74

What is the ‘leap’ that Crisp identifies Mill making and how does Mill respond?

Answer 74

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.

Question 75

What would Mill’s response to the argument that we desire virtue be?

Answer 75

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.

Question 76

What is the “Alleged gap in Mill’s utilitarianism”

Answer 76

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.

Question 77

Differences between Urmson interpretation and orthodox interpretation

Answer 77

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.

Question 78

Mill Quote from a “system of Logic”

about happiness

Answer 78

“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.”

Question 79

Milll Chapter 2 quote on happiness as the sole human end

Answer 79

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

Question 80

According to Skorupski who disagrees with Mill on happiness being our one true end

Answer 80

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

Question 81

8 advantages of general utilitarianism

Answer 81

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

Question 82

8 general disadvantages of Utilitarianism

Answer 82

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.