normative ethics: Utilitaranism

Question 1

25 mark plan:
how conceiving us utilitarian as an account of what makes an action morally right?

Answer 1

intro: utilitarian is not convincing account of moral action.
Define: consequentialist, act, rule, preference utilarianism, hedonism.

para1: against, tyranny of the majority.

response: rule, avoids this. “don’t punish innocent people” = greater happiness

repose: rule either leads to fetishism or act.

para4: against, experience machine. hedonistic utuilitarism clearly wrong.

response: preference avoids this problem.

response: conflicting preferences?

conclusion: utilitarianism is not convincing account of moral action.

Question 2

what theory is Utilitarianism

Answer 2

A consequentialist

Question 3

What does a consequentialist theory mean

Answer 3

They say its the consequences of an action that make it either right or wrong. The most obviously relevant consequences are pain + pleasure. So, generally speaking utilitarian theories say we should maximise pleasure + minimise pain.

Question 4

What are the 3 different versions of utilitarianism?

Answer 4

Act, Rule, Preference

Question 5

What is act utilitarianism

Answer 5

Is the simplest form of utilitarianism. AU says that in each situation we should choose the action that maximises happiness.

Question 6

Who is regarded as the creator of act utilitarianism?
(and his famous quote)

Answer 6

Jeremy Bentham
He says; “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation”

Question 7

Bentham Act utilitarianism in further detail

Answer 7

-Also known as hedonistic or quantitative utilitarianism.
-Says morally good actions are those that maximise pleasure and avoid pain in each specific instance.
-so if we want to know what to do in a given situation, we should compare all the possible courses of action + choose the one that maximises happiness. Happiness is the only moral good so it doesn’t matter if you’re lying, stealing, killing as long as that action results in the greatest happiness.

Question 8

Act utilitarianism example to support Bentham (stealing)

Answer 8

e.g An act utilitarian would argue that it is morally right for a poor person to steal from a rich person because the money would cause more happiness for the poor person than it would cause unhappiness for the rich person.
Similarly, an act utilitarian would argue that murder is justified if your victim is himself a murderer who would kill 10 people in the future.

Question 9

What did Bentham create to calculate utility?

Answer 9

The felicific calculus

Question 10

What are the utility calculus seven variables + meaning

Answer 10

Intensity: how strong the pleasure is
Duration: how long the pleasure lasts
Certainty: how likely the pleasure is to occur
Propinquity: how soon the pleasure will occur
Fecundity: how likely the pleasure will lead to more pleasure
Purity: how likely a pleasure will lead to pain
Extent: the number of people affected

Question 11

what are the responses to act utilitarianism?

Answer 11

-difficult to calculate
-the moral status of particular relationships
-tyranny of the majority
-ignores preference (Nozick’s experience machine)

Question 12

Responses to AU: Difficult to calculate

Answer 12

-Benthans utility calculus seems impractically complicated to use every single time you have to make a decision.
-How are we supposed to quantify each of the 7 variables? - obviously not possible
- even if we could objectively measure the intensity of happiness how do we then compare this to the other six variables of the calculus..

• Gets more complicated: when we consider which beings to include in this calculus, animals can feel pleasure and pains too are we supposed to include them?If so, does a dogs pain = to human beings?
  Utilitarians demand we make such calculations every time we act. Such calculations seem, if not possible, a highly impractical way to decide how to act.

Question 13

Response to AU: The moral status of particular relationships

Answer 13

Certain people are namely more important to us than others e.g. family or friends.
-Act utiliarianism is concerned only with the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This means that there are no grounds to justify acting to maximise the happiness of the people you know + care about over random people on the street.
Means for example:
-the £10 you spent buying your mum a bday present made her happy, sure, but it would have made Joe Bloggs in moxambique happier. So buying your mum a bday present was morally wrong according to utilitarianism, because it didnt maximise happiness.
If we sincerely followed AU to the letter then we would never be morally permitted to spend time or money on our loved ones.
These examples can be developed into two possible objections:
-That utilitarianism is too idealistic + doesnt work in practice
- that certain relationships such as family, friends + the local community have a unique moral status but that act utilitarinism forces us to ignore these moral obligations.

Question 14

Responses to AU: Tyranny of the majority

Answer 14

There are some things that just seem inherently wrong regardless of the consequences. However if it makes enough people happy AU would have to say such things are moral correct
For example:
-imagine a society of 1 mil people where 95% of the population enjoy seeing innocent people being tortured.
- in such society AU would justify taking an inncoent person + torturing them on live TV or something for the amusement of 95% of people who enjoy that.
-tourching 1 innocent person causes that individual a great deal of unhappiness is massively outweighed by the happiness of 950,000 people watching TV.
-So, not only would utilitarianism not condemn torturing this innocent person- utilitarianism would say its wrong not to torture him! In other words, torturing the inncoent person is a good thing because it creates the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
-But this is false- its just wrong to torture innocent people, regardless of the consequences.

Question 15

Response to AU: Ignores preference Nozick’s experience machine

Answer 15

There are situations where we might prefer something even if it makers us less happy + situations where we might prefer something not happen even though it would make us more happy.
Experience machine:
imagine you could be plugged into virtual reality that simulates the experience of a perfect life believe it is completely real.
-despite maximising happiness majority prefer not to enter the experience machine.
Illustrates: problem with MIll + Benthan hedonism.
Hedonism = claims pleasure is the source of all moral worth but its clear that human place moral value on things over + above simple pleasure e.g. beings in contact with reality.

Question 16

John Stuart Mill: utilitarianism

Answer 16

Student of Bentham.
MIll rejected Bentham’s quantitative approach in favour of more qualitative approach + made arguments for rule utilitarianism rather than act. Provided metaethic ‘proof’ of utilitaranism

Question 17

Mill’s proof of utilitarianism

Answer 17

Happiness is not only a good thing, is the only good. Other things we desire e.g. truth + freedom are part of what happiness is to us.

Question 18

Whats Mill’s arguments for proof

Answer 18

1. The only proof that something is desirable is that people desire it.
2. No proof can be given why the general happiness is desirable other than that each person desire their own happiness.
3. The fact that happiness is desirable is “all the proof the case admits of” that happiness is a good thing.
4. All our other values consitute what makes us happy- we only value them because they increase happiness.
5. So, not only is happiness good, it is the only good.

Question 19

Higher and lower pleasures (qualitative hedonism)

Answer 19

MIll rejects Benthams utility calculus + argues that not all pleasures + pains are equally valuable. MIll argues- there is a qualitative difference between the “higher” pleasures of thought, feeling + imagination compared to “lower” pleasures of the body + the senses.
Mill argues those experienced higher + lower pleasures prefer higher.
because humans value dignity.

Question 20

Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 20

Focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than consequences of specific action. So, whereas act utilitarianism argues we should act to maximise happiness in each individual case, rule U argues we should act according to general rules that maximise happiness.

Question 21

Is John Mill a rule utilitarian?

Answer 21

some philosophers interpret him as one

Question 22

Rule utilitarianism example

Answer 22

there may be instances where stealing would lead to greater happiness than not stealing. However if people were allowed to steal in such instances it would cause constant level anxiety + uncertainty that you might get property stolen. This constant anxiety would be “generally injurious” + result in less happiness overall.
Thus rule U could argue that we should follow the general rule “don’t steal”.

Question 23

Rule utilitarianism conclusions

Answer 23

Although rule U may avoid some of the morally undesirable outcomes of act U, placing too much emphasis on rules can lead to a different set of morally undesirable outcomes. e.g. is it really sensible to say “never steal” or “never lie” even when saving someones life?

Question 24

what is Preference Utilitarianism

Answer 24

Preference U is a non-hedonistic form of utilitarianism. This means instead of maximising happiness (hedonistic U) we should act to maximise people preferences.

Question 25

Preference Utilitarianism response to experience machine

Answer 25

Act U says we should shove everyone into the experience machine- wether they want or not, because doing so would maximise their happiness. However, Preference reject this by saying we should respect people preference to live in the real world even if means less happiness.

Question 26

Preference U response example

Answer 26

Carrying out wishes of the dead. It can’t increase the happiness of a deceased person to carry out their will.
However, if a deceased person expressed preference for their money to be donated to the local cat shelter, then it seems there is a moral obligation to honour this preference. Act U would say we should ignore this preference + just spend their money in whichever way maximises happiness. But seems wrong to ignore peoples preference like this.
preference- moral obligation to respect preference of the dead.

Question 27

Preference U in relation to MIll’s higher + lower pleasures

Answer 27

Mill- higher pleasure = more valuable than lower .
But preference explain via preference, we prefer higher over lower pleasure + seek to maximise those.

Question 28

what’s the tyranny of majority issue

Answer 28

Issue of conflicting preferences
there r some things that seem inherently wrong but if it makes enough ppl happy act U would say its okay.
e.g. punishing an innocent person is wrong in itself. but would say its morally acceptable if doing so made a large crowd happy
> this is obviously false, wrong to torte innocent ppl regardless of happiness of the majority.