Morality - Utilitarianism Analysis

Question 1

Utilitarianism Strengths

4

Answer 1

• Hedonistic Quality
• Human Nature - Consequences
• Equality
• Secular

Question 2

Utiliarianism Weaknesses

4

Answer 2

• Pleasure is not all humans care about
• Unpredictability of consequences
• Which consequences?
• Impossibility of objectivity

Question 3

Act Strengths

3

Answer 3

• Assesses individual situations
• Hedonic Calculus
• Democracy

Question 4

Act Weaknesses

3

Answer 4

• Evil Pleasures
• Tyranny of the Majority
• Hedonic Calculus

Question 5

Rule Strengths

2

Answer 5

• Stops immoral actions
• Time saver

Question 6

Rule Weaknesses

3

Answer 6

• What Rules?
• Soft rule collapses into act
• Hard rule collapses into duty ethics

Question 7

Mill Discussion Points

4

Answer 7

• Elitist
• Modern Higher & Lower Pleasures
• Pleasures or Needs?
• Is it moral?

Question 8

Utilitarianism Strengths:

Hedonistic Quality

2

Answer 8

• Corresponds with common sense - everyone wants to be happy and not suffer, so a theory that works towards this is ideal
• Truly focuses on human’s wellbeing rather than only considering what is ‘moral’

Question 9

Utilitarianism Strengths:

Human Nature - Consequences

2

Answer 9

• Humans naturally look to the expected consequences of an action to make decisions, so we don’t have to adjust our thinking too much to apply utilitarianism
• Sensible as we act in ways to gain particular outcomes in life - I go to school to get into uni, I go to uni to get a job etc

Question 10

Utilitarianism Strengths:

Equality

2

Answer 10

• Fits in with modern views about the equality of race, gender, sexuality etc
• Allows for non-biased decision making, and has evolved with our current society

Question 11

Utilitarianism Strengths:

Secular

2

Answer 11

• No need for an understanding of religious theories - fits with the idea that morality is separate from religion
• Links to equality as you don’t have to be religious or practice a certain religion to be a utilitarian

Question 12

Utiliarianism Weaknesses:

Pleasure is not all humans care about

4

Answer 12

• Util focuses on hedonism, but Robert Nozick’s experience machine thought experiment argues againt this
• The thought experiment is about a hypothetical machine, which you could enter and live out your dream life with the people you want to live it with. It will feel like reality, but won’t actually be happening
• Nozick argued that majority of humans would not enter the machine, ultimately because we seek more than just pleasure: we want to do things for ourself instead of just experiencing them, we want to live on with our identities instead of our real forms becoming ‘indeterminate blobs’ in machines, we want to experience the deeper reality than just what our imagination is limited to
• Shows how hedonism is flawed and demonstrates that there are other things more valuable than pleasure which damages a large basis of the util theory - morality surrounds maximising happiness

Question 13

Utiliarianism Weaknesses:

Pleasure is not all humans care about - counter argument

3

Answer 13

• However, pleasure is a vague phrase which people have different ideas of
• It can be argued that part of our pleasure is these more valuable things - I gain pleasure because I am a deep human being with identity, I gain pleasure from interacting with deeper reality etc
• Therefore, deciding against entering the experience machine may not be a choice of not pursuing pleasure in favour of more valuable things, but pursuing pleasure in reality instead

Question 14

Utiliarianism Weaknesses:

Unpredictability of consequences

4

Answer 14

• Consequences are unpredictable, and using these as a basis of moral decision making can prove to be problematic:
• Actual vs Intended: We may carry out an action with an intended consequence in mind, but the only thing we can control is our own action which can ultimately lead to unexpected and perhaps worse consequences than anticipated
• Long vs Short Term: Most actions, if not all, will have a short term and a long term consequence. The short term consequence may be good, but the long term consequence could be worse or vise versa. It is hard to predict how things will pan out in the long term and short term consequences may be unappealing that we don’t properly consider long term ones, making it hard to factor this into our decision making
• Local vs Global: An action could have a good consequence locally, but a bad consequence globally. (e.g. if I were to buy an apple from the supermarket it would save me money which is a good local consequence, but globally this produces a bad consequence as the emissions from transporting these goods harms our environment)

Question 15

Utiliarianism Weaknesses:

Which consequences?

3

Answer 15

• If we consider that we potentially have six different consequence types to consider when making a moral decision, it is hard to do this as utilitarianism doesn’t explicitly say which we should look to
• One kind of consequence may produce the greatest happiness, but it’s parallel consequence may have the opposite effect - which is more important?
• Makes utilitarianism much more complex

Question 16

Utiliarianism Weaknesses:

Impossibility of objectivity

2

Answer 16

• Humans can’t be objective, almost everyone will favour family over strangers
• May not always be the case, but everyone will have some sort of bias based on preference

Question 17

Act Strengths:

Assesses Individual Situations

2

Answer 17

• Assesses individual situations which produces a truly unique, carefully thought out answer
• This fits in with the complexity of human life as in some scenarios we can justify certain actions for better consequences (e.g. if I were to kill someone out of spite, we can say this is morally bad. If I were to kill someone to save an innocent person, we can say this is morally good)

Question 18

Act Strengths:

Hedonic Calculus

2

Answer 18

• The hedonic calculus ensures that all aspects of pleasure are considered, including longevity and intensity which is ultimately how worthy a pleasure may be worth pursuing
• Also ensures that the likelihood of pain is always considered in any scenario, which is consistent with the idea of maximising happiness AND minimising pain (GHP)

Question 19

Act Strengths:

Democracy

2

Answer 19

• In a basic outline of act utilitarianism we can say that it is democratic because everyones happiness is worth as much as everyone elses
• May not always be the case though (weaknesses)

Question 20

Act Weaknesses:

Evil Pleasures

3

Answer 20

• Bentham focuses too much on quantity of pleasure rather than quality - he sees all pleasures as equal - which can justify what is known as evil pleasures
• For example, if an act utilitarian were to assess a scenario where 10 people were gaining lots of pleasure from torturing one person they could say this is morally correct under act util standards since happiness is being maximised for the majority, but something so violent surely can’t be moral?
• Also slightly goes against consequentialism - one consequence is that the torturers gain pleasure, but another consequence is that the tortured person is traumatised and faced with severe violence

Question 21

Act Weaknesses:

Evil Pleasures - Bentham Quote

Answer 21

“Push pin is as good as poetry”

Question 22

Act Weaknesses:

Tyranny of the Majority

4

Answer 22

• Emphasis on quantity of pleasure alongside maximising happiness for the majority also allows for tyranny of the majority
• This is when the majority may exploit the minority when maximising happiness for themselves, and what the majority want isn’t necessarily right as it ignores the justice and/or rights of the minority
• An example of this is slavery in America - white people were the majority who exploited black slaves (minority) for personal and financial gain
• Bentham himself was against slavery so it is fair to say his personal viewpoint would be strongly against this, but if we consider that his version of utilitarianism allows for this can we question the strength of his theory?

Question 23

Act Weaknesses:

Hedonic Calculus

2

Answer 23

• The hedonic calculus is incredibly time-consuming to apply, making it unrealistic to use in a real-life scenario which would usually require a quick decision
• We’d have to outline the possible actions and their consequences, consider the seven criteria, rank for each consequence, and then make a decision by which it would likely be too late

Question 24

Act Weaknesses:

Hedonic Calculus - Counter Argument

Answer 24

The hedonic calculus isn’t necessarily intended to be used in this way - we should use it to the best of our ability, but it isn’t required to use it in a literal and/or numerical sense

Question 25

Rule Strengths:

Stops Immoral Actions

3

Answer 25

• Not only considers the consequences of an action, but how moral the action is
• e.g. if a judge was faced with a mob demanding the execution of an innocent man and the judge knew that a riot would break out of he did not do as they asked, an act utilitarian would kill the man but a rule utilitarian would not
• Perhaps leads to better consequences in some cases (e.g. an innocent man would be saved, instead of satisfying an angry mob with no motive to want the execution)

Question 26

Rule Strengths:

Time Saver

2

Answer 26

• If we have general rules that we can apply, then this is less time consuming and impractical than considering every act individually
• Therefore, rule is slightly better for real situations where we need a quick decision

Question 27

Rule Weaknesses:

What Rules?

3

Answer 27

• There is no definitive set of rules, so you have to figure it out for yourself
• Hard to decide how to select these rules - do we base them on our own principles, or what has produced a good consequence in a past situation?
• This can also lead to rules conflicting with eachother - if we have a rule to not kill and a rule to protect the innocent, how would we respond to a situation where to save an innocent person from being attacked we would have to kill their attacker?

Question 28

Rule Weaknesses:

What Rules? - Counter Argument

3

Answer 28

• A rule utilitarian would pick the rule that would lead to greater overall happiness
• e.g. ignoring our rule of do not kill to protect the innocent as this produces a better consequence
• However, this can make differentiating soft and hard rule more tricky

Question 29

Rule Weaknesses:

Soft Rule Collapses into Act

2

Answer 29

• If a soft rule utilitarian can choose when to follow rules, is this not just the same as act?
• Involves assessing a situation to see whether we should still follow a certain rule or not, and act involves assessing a situation to see which action produces a better consequence

Question 30

Rule Weaknesses:

Hard Rule Collapses into Duty Ethics

2

Answer 30

• Hard rule utilitarians never deviate from the rules, but this could be considered more like duty ethics than following a consequential theory
• Puts more emphasis on the action than what consequence that action would produce in a scenario

Question 31

Mill Discussion Points:

Elitist

4

Answer 31

• Mill is commonly mistaken as an elitist, and many perceive his distinction as snobbery
• However, Mill’s distinction was based on the context of the time rather than his personal preferences
• Mill does not say we should never choose lower pleasures, but that higher pleasures are more valuable and will increase the quality of our pleasure - to be happy is to exercise our minds and be involved in developing ourselves in some way
• Mill says that humans are weak as we typically pick the easy option for instant pleasure, or that some humans never have the opportunity to experience higher pleasures

Question 32

Mill Discussion Points:

Modern Higher & Lower Pleasures

3

Answer 32

• Mill’s higher and lower pleasures, specifically higher ones, can be considered as old fashioned
• It is hard to apply this nowadays as modern interpretations of higher pleasures don’t feel as valuable and intellectual
• For example, can we really compare listening to opera to listening to pop music?

Question 33

Mill Discussion Points:

Pleasures or Needs?

2

Answer 33

• Lower pleasures are said to be what we have in common with animals, but some of these are just basic needs we must fulfill to survive and evolve (e.g. eating, sex)
• Unfair to categorise basic needs as pleasures, especially when Mill is quite dismissive of them in favour of higher ones

Question 34

Mill Discussion Points:

Is it moral?

3

Answer 34

• Mill created higher and lower pleasures to refine Bentham’s quantitative approach, but this wasn’t the most successful
• It doesn’t necessarily allow for things like evil pleasures as Mill wouldn’t consider this to be a higher pleasure, but it doesn’t address them either
• Perhaps a better distinction would be good/bad pleasures based on the morality of it (e.g. gaining pleasure from torture would be categorised as bad, gaining pleasure from helping others would be categorised as good)