utilitarianism Flashcards
normative ethics
Study of ethical actions. What is right and wrong.
Explain act utilitarianism
We should act so as to maximise pleasure and minimise pain in each specific instance
- Whether an action is right/good or wrong/bad depends solely on its consequences
- The only thing that is good is happiness
- No individual´s happiness is more important than anyone else´s
- The right actions is the one that maximises the total happiness (greatest good for the greatest number)
Explain rule utilitarianism
We should follow general rules that maximise pleasure and minimise pain (even if following these rules does not maximise pleasure in every specific instance)
hedonic calculus
A central idea of Bentham´s Act Utilitarianism.
Used to evaluate how much pleasure and pain an action would produce.
Purity, Remoteness, Extent, Duration, Intensity, Certainty, Fecundity
(Paul Radelt Einen Döner In Colognes Feier)
Explain Jeremy Bentham´s (1748 - 1832) quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism
- Founder of utilitarianism
- He can be seen as an act utilitarian
- He states that all pleasure is of the same worth and that pleasure can be measured through the hedonic calculus
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
English philosopher, political economist, Member of Parliament (MP) and civil servant. He can be seen as a rule utilitarian.
hedonism
Happiness is the most beneficial outcome of an action. More pleasure and less pain is ethical.
preference utilitarianism/non-hedonistic utilitarianism
We should act to maximise people´s preferences (even if these preferences do not maximise pleasure and minimise pain)
It can also tie with Mill´s qualitative pleasures.
While Mill says that higher pleasures are inherently more valuable, preference utilitarianism states that we prefer higher pleasures, and so should seek to maximise those.
The satisfaction of these preferences is what makes a “good” life. The greatest good for the greatest number cannot be reduced to pleasure.
two-tier utilitarianism
rule utilitarianism is the “intuition” of moral acting whereby act utilitarianism should be used to decide about “critical” moral situations.
higher pleasure
Pleasure peculiarly suited to our most sophisticated capacities and sensitivities. For example, poetry, music, and complex thinking.
lower pleasure
Pleasures we share with other sentient animals. For example, eating, sex, and consuming intoxicants.
competent judge
experienced both, higher pleasure as well as lower pleasure.
utility
general well-being or happiness
the principle of utility
Pain and pleasure are the driving force in human behaviour. Good is the pleasure whereby evil is the pain. Pleasure and pain are measurable and the act that produces the most pleasure is the right one.
harm principle
actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals.
means to an end
the way of getting to a specific goal.
end in itself
end result, the ultimate goal, the final conclusion.
Mill´s proof
- Happiness is desirable as an end for an individual
- The “general happiness” is desirable as an end
- Nothing except happiness is desirable as an end
strong rule utilitarianism
always acting in accordance with the rules
weak rule utilitarianism
being able to make the decision to re-evaluate a situation.
deontological
relationship between the duty and the morality of human actions. An action is good not because of the consequences but the characteristics of the action itself.
consequentialism/teleological ethics
only the consequences matter when determining the moral worth of an action
Explain Robert Nozick´s experience machine
- Criticises hedonistic utilitarianism
- Other values might matter as well
Imagine you could be plugged into a virtual reality machine that simulates the experience of a perfect life. In other words, the machine maximises your happiness and minimises your pain. Once plugged in, you don’t know you’re in a virtual reality and you believe your perfect life is completely real.
Yet despite maximising happiness, many people would prefer not to enter the experience machine. These people would prefer to live a real life and be in contact with reality even though a real life means less happiness and more pain compared to the experience machine.
Peter Singer (1946 - present) and his idea of preference utilitarianism
Australian political and ethical philosopher who developed the Preference Utilitarianism.
He thinks that pleasure is a individual preference whereby there is agreement on what is pain.
We should focus on minimising pain rather maximizing pleasure. We need to take everyone´s preference into account.
What is meant by maximising utility?
The greatest good for the greatest number
Name key facts about utilitarianism
- A consequentialist theory (the consequences of an action determine if it is right or wring)
- It looks at minimising pain and maximising pleasure
- The greatest good for the greatest number
What is meant by “quantitative utilitarianism”?
- It is about quantifying happiness (adding up all the happiness and subtracting all pain) and then deciding how to act based on the numbers
What is meant by “qualitative utilitarianism”?
- Brought forward by Mill
He distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures and therefore criticises the quantitative approach of Bentham
Name the 7 parts of the hedonic calculus
- 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 the pleasure will lead to pain
- Extent: the number of people affected
What are problems with utilitarianism?
Difficult to calculate (act utilitarianism)
- the future is unpredictable
The hedonic calculus is impractically complicated
- How do you quantify each of the seven variables?
- How do you compare each of them
- Which beings do we include in the calculation
Tyranny of the majority
- Some things just seem instinctively wrong regardless of the consequences
- Fairness and individual liberty should count as well
Partiality
- only the greatest good for the greatest number
- we are not allowed to treat close people different
Higher and lower pleasures (“doctrine of swine”)
- it reduces the value of human life to the same simple pleasure felt by pigs and animals
Other values/Preference are not taken into account
- Robert Nozick´s experience machine
Moral integrity and intentions
- the “right” thing to do might go against some individual´s integrity/own moral laws
- the intentions of someone are not taken into account (a bad person can do good)
Apply utilitarianism to simulated killing
Simulated killing is about fictional death and murder. There are 3 different sorts of moral dimensions some can discuss:
- The difference between watching and killing
- The effects it has on someone´s character
- Whether simulated killing is wrong in itself
Act utilitarianism would argue that simulated killing is morally acceptable as, after all, no one is being killed in real life and the person consuming it might even get some enjoyment from it. In this situation, simulated killing results in a net gain of happiness.
However, it could possibly decrease happiness if a person is then more violent.
Rule utilitarianism would argue that simulated killing is wrong if a study would show that simulated killing makes people more likely to murder in real life. However, the rule do not consume simulated killing does not produce greater happiness because a lot of people would be mad.
Apply utilitarianism to stealing
Act utilitarianism would argue that if stealing creates greater good then would be morally acceptable to do so.
For example, starving person steals from a shop or poor steals from the rich (Robin Hood).
Rule utilitarianism would argue that a rule which states that you should not steal creates overall greater happiness even though there might be specific instances when this is not the case.
For example, a society where stealing is allowed, no one could trust each other = decrease in overall happiness.
Apply utilitarianism to telling lies
Act utilitarianism would argue that it is morally acceptable to lie if it leads to greater happiness.
For example, in the axe-men scenario lying would be the right thing to do.
Rule utilitarianism would argue that the rule “never lie” would lead to greater overall happiness than a rule the rule “always lie”.
A society where no one can trust each other would be a less happy one overall.
Apply utilitarianism to eating animals
Bentham states that the good, happiness, must be extended to animas because they a sentient being just as humans are.
Peter Singer agrees with Bentham and states that privileging human pain and pleasure over animals is speciesism.
Act utilitarianism would argue that if eating animals creates the greatest good for the greatest number then it is right to eat animals.
Rule utilitarianism could argue that the rule “everyone should eat animals” might not work because not everyone can afford it. Therefore, it might not creates the greatest overall happiness.
However, it could be argued that most livestock would not have existed without their purpose to be eaten at some point. Therefore, if the animals had an overall happy life and a painless death, then eating animals is morally justifiable because it results in a net increase of pleasure.
