Utilitarianism Flashcards
Utility Principle?
Utility Principle (Utilitarianism)
Philosophical Theory: Analyzes whether an action produces the greatest happiness for the largest number of people.
Teleological: Focuses on the end goal or result, not the morality of the action itself.
Consequentialist: Considers the outcomes of the moral decision.
Jeremy Bentham: Leading philosopher who promoted utilitarianism and the utility principle.
Focused more on pleasure than happiness.
The goal is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Utility Principle:
Action is correct if it promotes happiness (or pleasure).
Action is wrong if it causes pain.
Utility = Usefulness of an action in maximizing overall happiness or pleasure.
Decision-making:
Evaluate if an action produces the greatest pleasure for the largest number of people.
If yes, it is the correct action; if not, seek an alternative.
This is the essence of utilitarianism, focusing on practical outcomes for the greater good.
Hedonic calculus?
Hedonic Calculus
The Hedonic Calculus is a method for applying the utility principle to decisions, determining which action will produce the most pleasure (hedonia) by answering 7 key questions:
Purity:
Will the pleasure lead to more pleasure or more pain in the future?
Remoteness:
Is the pleasure or pain experienced in the near or distant future?
Richness:
Will the pleasure lead to other pleasures or further benefits?
Intensity:
How intense is the pleasure or pain?
Certainty:
How certain is it that the pleasure or pain will actually happen?
Extent:
How many people will be affected by the pleasure or pain?
Duration:
How long will the pleasure or pain last?
The hedonic calculus evaluates actions based on these factors to decide which action creates the most overall pleasure and minimizes pain for the greatest number of people.
Act utilitarianism?
Act Utilitarianism (Bentham)
Focus on Consequences:
Act utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action, not the intention or moral obligation behind it.
The rightness of an action is judged by the amount of happiness or pleasure it produces for the greatest number of people.
No Moral Rules:
Act utilitarianism avoids set moral rules like the Ten Commandments or Sharia law.
It emphasizes that moral rules are irrelevant if they don’t lead to the greatest happiness.
Individual Situations:
Each situation is evaluated individually, considering its specific consequences.
Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism:
Pleasure Can Be Bad:
Not all pleasures are good (e.g., drugs can bring pleasure but are harmful).
Pain Can Be Good:
Sometimes pain is necessary for a greater good (e.g., surgery).
Hedonic Calculus:
The hedonic calculus can be used selfishly, justifying actions for personal benefit rather than the greater good.
Family Attachments:
Bentham suggests ignoring family attachments, but humans have obligations to their family that are difficult to ignore when making decisions.
Summary:
Act utilitarianism is about maximizing happiness based on the consequences of individual actions, but it faces challenges such as justifying harmful actions or ignoring family connections.
Rule utilitarianism?
Rule Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill)
Focus on Moral Rules:
Rule utilitarianism emphasizes the application of moral rules that, when followed, produce the greatest happiness for society.
It is a response to Bentham’s act utilitarianism, focusing on long-term effects of rules rather than individual actions.
Rejection of Hedonic Calculus:
Mill rejected Bentham’s hedonic calculus as it was too time-consuming and could be misused.
Instead of calculating individual pleasures, Mill focused on rules that promote general happiness.
Qualitative Approach:
Mill used a qualitative approach to happiness, arguing that some pleasures are more valuable than others.
He divided pleasures into higher and lower categories:
Higher pleasures: Intellectual activities like philosophy.
Lower pleasures: Physical pleasures like eating or drinking.
Harm Principle:
Mill introduced the harm principle, stating that actions that harm others are wrong.
This principle ensures that utilitarianism promotes ethical decisions and prevents exploitation.
Focus on Social Happiness:
Mill believed that the goal of utilitarianism should be the happiness of society, not just individual pleasure.
Individuals should seek collective well-being over personal gratification.
Summary:
Rule utilitarianism focuses on following rules that produce the greatest happiness for society. Mill’s approach is qualitative and emphasizes higher pleasures and the harm principle, aiming for ethical decision-making and societal well-being.
Advantages?
Advantages of Utilitarianism (Act and Rule)
Flexibility:
Utilitarianism is adaptable to various situations and can be applied to different contexts, making it a flexible moral theory.
Natural Human Decision-Making:
People often consider consequences before making decisions, making the hedonic calculus (measuring pleasure and pain) a logical and intuitive process for many.
Clear Benefits:
At its core, utilitarianism promotes the greatest happiness for the largest number of people. This can be seen as a clear benefit as more people experience happiness or pleasure when decisions are made with this principle in mind.
Addressing Issues in Act Utilitarianism:
Rule utilitarianism helps overcome potential issues in act utilitarianism, such as misused decisions based on selfish desires or neglecting long-term consequences. By applying societal rules, it tempers and ensures that the overall happiness is considered in a more structured and ethical way.
Summary:
Utilitarianism is flexible, aligns with human decision-making tendencies, provides clear benefits by maximizing happiness, and improves upon potential weaknesses in act utilitarianism through the structure of rule utilitarianism.
Disadvantages of Utilitarianism
Uncertainty of Consequences:
Utilitarianism often requires predicting the consequences of actions, but it can be difficult to know the full impact in advance. This uncertainty makes it challenging to apply the theory accurately.
Time and Impracticality:
The hedonic calculus requires careful calculation of pleasure and pain for every decision. This process can be time-consuming, making it impractical for quick or everyday decisions.
Subjectivity:
Utilitarianism relies on subjective interpretations of happiness and pleasure, which can vary between individuals. This subjectivity makes it vulnerable to misuse, with people potentially justifying selfish or unethical behavior in the name of maximizing happiness.
Minority Rights:
In applying the hedonic calculus, the happiness of the majority often outweighs that of the minority. This can lead to the marginalization or exploitation of smaller groups in society.
Difficulty in Measuring Happiness:
Utilitarianism seeks to quantify happiness or pleasure, but since everyone experiences these feelings differently, it’s nearly impossible to measure or objectively compare the value of happiness. This makes the practical application of the theory difficult and flawed.
Summary:
Utilitarianism faces challenges in accurately predicting consequences, is impractical for daily decisions, can be misused due to its subjective nature, risks ignoring minority rights, and struggles with the difficulty of measuring happiness or pleasure in a universally objective way.
Universality?
Utilitarianism is designed to be universal and can theoretically reduce harm and increase happiness for everyone.
The utility principle is understandable by everyone, making it flexible and adaptable across various situations and cultures.
Limitations:
Uncertainty of Future Consequences:
One major issue is that we can’t predict the future consequences of actions with certainty. This makes it difficult to know if a particular action will result in more happiness or pain, undermining its practical applicability.
Effect on Universality:
Due to this uncertainty, utilitarianism cannot always be universally applicable, as it becomes challenging to assess the overall consequences when the future is uncertain.
The theory works in theory but not always in practice when predicting outcomes is difficult.
Summary:
While utilitarianism aims to be universal and can theoretically increase happiness and reduce harm, its practical limitations—like the uncertainty of future consequences—raise doubts about its true universality and effectiveness.
Unethical Use of Utilitarianism?
Misuse for Selfish Gain:
Utilitarianism, while logical in its focus on consequences, can be misused to justify actions that create pleasure for some but suffering for others.
This can lead to decisions where the action itself is inherently unethical, even if it theoretically benefits the majority.
Self-Justification for Immoral Actions:
People can misuse utilitarianism to justify actions based on their own selfish reasons, claiming they are acting for the greater good.
This leads to situations where individuals exploit the framework of utilitarianism to justify unethical behavior.
Unreliable Moral Judgment:
Utilitarianism assumes that people can make good moral decisions by weighing the consequences, but not everyone can be trusted to act morally.
People might distort the concept of the greater good to serve their own interests, creating unethical outcomes under the guise of utilitarian logic.
Summary:
While utilitarianism aims to maximize happiness, its focus on consequences can sometimes lead to unethical decisions when misused. It can justify actions that benefit some while causing harm to others, especially when individuals manipulate the principle for personal gain.
Bentham quotes
Bentham Quotes
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain & pleasure.”
Meaning: This quote illustrates the fundamental basis of Bentham’s utilitarianism. According to Bentham, pain and pleasure are the ultimate motivators for human behavior, guiding all actions and decisions. This emphasizes his view that all ethical decisions should revolve around maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.
“It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right & wrong.”
Meaning: This quote defines the core principle of utilitarianism—the utility principle. Bentham argues that actions should be judged based on how much happiness or pleasure they bring to the largest number of people. The goal is to maximize overall well-being.
Epicurus Quote
“When happiness is pleasant, we have everything. When it is absent, we do everything to possess it.”
Meaning: Epicurus highlights the importance of happiness in human life, noting that when we experience pleasure, we feel fulfilled, and when it is missing, we will go to great lengths to regain it. This supports the hedonistic aspect of utilitarianism, where pleasure is seen as the ultimate goal.
Mill Quotes
“Some kinds of pleasure are more desirable & more valuable than others.”
Meaning: Mill introduces the qualitative dimension to utilitarianism. Unlike Bentham, who focuses on quantity of pleasure, Mill argues that not all pleasures are equal—some have higher moral and intellectual value. This reflects his belief in the importance of higher pleasures (e.g., intellectual fulfillment) over lower pleasures (e.g., physical indulgence).
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.”
Meaning: This famous quote emphasizes Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He suggests that human life—with its capacity for intellectual and moral fulfillment—is preferable, even if it comes with dissatisfaction, to the pleasure of a pig, symbolizing base or animalistic desires. It highlights the importance of quality over quantity in Mill’s version of utilitarianism.
“We are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyments as superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it in comparison of small account.”
Meaning: Mill defends his idea that higher pleasures (e.g., intellectual or artistic pursuits) should be valued more than lower pleasures (e.g., physical enjoyment), because their quality far outweighs the quantity of simpler pleasures. This aligns with his qualitative approach to utilitarianism, focusing on refined pleasures that contribute to human flourishing.
Summary of Quotes:
Bentham emphasizes the governance of pain and pleasure in shaping decisions and the greatest happiness for the greatest number as the guiding moral principle.
Epicurus underlines the centrality of happiness and pleasure in human life, highlighting the pursuit of happiness when it is absent.
Mill offers a refinement of Bentham’s theory by arguing for a hierarchy of pleasures, where intellectual and moral pleasures are more valuable than base, physical pleasures, and he defends the superiority of human dissatisfaction over animal satisfaction.
These quotes collectively present a contrast between Bentham’s quantitative approach to utilitarianism and Mill’s qualitative approach, where the quality of pleasure plays a central role in determining what constitutes the greatest good.
Critics quotes?
Bass Quote
“However good the utilitarian case against animal research in general, it will be possible in principle to find cases in which it seems justified.”
Meaning: Bass acknowledges that, while the utilitarian argument against animal research (due to the suffering it causes) is strong, exceptions can be made in certain cases. This reflects the flexibility of utilitarianism in that it allows for a case-by-case evaluation of actions based on their outcomes. While animal research is generally harmful, there may be specific instances where the greater good is achieved, justifying it.
Bentham Quote
“The question is not, can they reason? […] But can they suffer?”
Meaning: Bentham argues that the moral consideration of animals should not be based on their reasoning abilities (as humans might) but rather on their capacity to suffer. This highlights a key aspect of utilitarianism: suffering is the critical factor when assessing the morality of actions affecting animals, as it directly impacts their well-being. According to Bentham, the ability to suffer should be the focus of ethical consideration, not the ability to reason or think like humans.
Julia Driver Quote
“Mill holds that while animals do have moral standing in virtue of their sentience […] their moral standing is not the same as that of persons who have […the] capacity to experience higher pleasures.”
Meaning: Driver explains Mill’s view on animal rights within rule utilitarianism. While Mill acknowledges that animals have moral standing due to their sentience (ability to feel pleasure and pain), their moral consideration is lesser than that of humans, who can experience higher pleasures (e.g., intellectual and moral experiences). This differentiation suggests that, although animals deserve some moral consideration, their interests are not equal to those of humans in Mill’s framework, as humans are capable of higher moral and intellectual pleasures.
Peter Singer Quote
“Given the suffering that this routinely inflicts on millions of animals, and that probably very few of the experiments will be of significant benefit to humans or to other animals, it is better to put our resources into other methods of doing research that do not involve harming animals.”
Meaning: Singer argues that animal research often results in significant suffering for animals with little or no real benefit to humans or other animals. From a utilitarian perspective, the harm caused to animals outweighs the potential benefits of the research. He advocates for alternative research methods that do not involve harmful practices, highlighting the utilitarian concern for maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering, which can be better achieved by shifting to more humane methods.
Summary of Quotes:
Bass recognizes that while the utilitarian argument against animal research is compelling, there are exceptions where it might be justified.
Bentham emphasizes that suffering is the primary concern when considering the ethics of actions affecting animals, shifting the focus from reasoning abilities to the capacity to suffer.
Julia Driver reflects Mill’s view that animals have moral standing but that their moral consideration is less than that of humans, due to their inability to experience higher pleasures.
Peter Singer highlights the suffering caused by animal research and suggests that the resources should be directed toward more humane alternatives, aligning with utilitarian principles of minimizing harm and maximizing well-being.
These quotes illustrate the complex application of utilitarianism in animal ethics, where the balance between suffering and benefit must be carefully considered in deciding whether actions like animal testing are morally justifiable.
The use of animals for medical research?
Introduction
Principle of Utility: Actions are morally right if they produce happiness and reduce suffering for the greatest number of people.
Bentham & Mill: Actions are right if they lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Animal Testing: Controversial, as it involves using animals for medical research to benefit humans, raising ethical concerns about suffering.
Significance of Animal Testing: Important in advancing medical treatments but debated due to potential animal suffering.
Controversy: Whether animal testing is justified due to the benefits it brings to human health or whether it is unnecessary in modern times.
For the Use of Animal Testing (Supporting Utilitarianism)
Act Utilitarianism
Focus on Consequences: Actions are judged based on their outcomes.
Potential Benefits: If animal testing leads to medical breakthroughs that save human lives (e.g., polio, insulin vaccines), the benefits outweigh the suffering.
Hedonic Calculus: Measures the balance of happiness vs. suffering, justifying testing if the benefits to humans outweigh the suffering of animals.
Rule Utilitarianism
Long-Term Happiness: Moral rules encourage long-term benefits for society.
Regulated Testing: If animal testing follows strict ethical guidelines, it can promote the greatest good.
Higher Pleasures: Mill’s theory suggests that human health (a “higher” pleasure) is more significant than animal suffering (a “lower” pleasure).
Qualitative Approach: Prioritize human well-being and health while acknowledging the need for ethical testing.
Criticisms of Utilitarianism (Challenges to Justification)
Subjectivity
Human vs. Animal Utility: People may prioritize human utility over animals’ utility, justifying animal suffering for human benefit.
Animal Suffering: Bentham’s view is that animal suffering should be treated equally as human suffering. However, some argue humans may have greater worth due to rationality and self-awareness.
Moral Equality
Bentham’s View: “Can they suffer?” – animals’ suffering should be considered equally as human suffering.
Challenge to Testing: If animal suffering is equal to human suffering, testing that causes harm to animals for uncertain benefits may be unjustifiable.
Uncertainty of Benefits
Effectiveness of Research: Not all animal research leads to significant benefits for humans. Many tests fail to deliver real-world results.
Long-Term Suffering: Inflicting pain without guaranteed benefits contradicts the ethical principles of utilitarianism.
Quotes Analysis
Bass: Acknowledges that there can be cases where animal testing may be justified, despite the general utilitarian case against it.
Bentham: Emphasizes the importance of suffering, indicating that animal suffering should be weighed equally to human suffering.
Driver: Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures may justify prioritizing human health over animal suffering.
Singer: Argues that the harm caused to animals in testing often does not yield significant benefits, suggesting alternatives to animal testing.
Conclusion
Utilitarianism Justification: The principle of utility can justify animal testing if the benefits to human health outweigh the suffering of animals.
Bentham’s Equality of Suffering: Bentham’s view challenges the justification of testing, as the suffering of animals should be treated equally to human suffering.
Hedonic Calculus: While the benefits of medical research often outweigh the suffering, ethical concerns about the intensity and duration of animal pain persist.
Final Judgment: Utilitarianism provides a strong argument for animal testing in medical research, but concerns about animal suffering and ethical guidelUines make it a complex issue to resolve.
Use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent?
Use of Nuclear Weapons as a Deterrent – Summary
Introduction
Focus: The question is about using nuclear weapons as a deterrent, not their actual use.
Support: Both Act and Rule Utilitarianism would likely support nuclear weapons as a deterrent because they prevent wars, avoiding large-scale harm.
Arguments for Nuclear Deterrence
Nuclear Weapons as a Deterrent: They prevent wars by making the consequences of attacking a country unthinkable.
Not Directly Harmful: The weapons aren’t used to harm anyone directly; they’re a threat that avoids conflict.
Cost vs. Benefit: The argument is that nuclear weapons make attacking nations less attractive due to the catastrophic consequences.
National Security: Governments see nuclear weapons as essential for national security.
Quote (Michael Fallon):
“Deterrents mean convincing any potential aggressor that the benefits of an attack are far outweighed by its consequences.”
What it shows: Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent, discouraging attacks due to the extreme consequences.
No Major Conflict Between Nuclear-Armed States: The threat of nuclear war has maintained peace between nuclear-armed countries since WW2.
Utilitarian Viewpoint – Bentham & Hedonic Calculus
Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism:
Each action is judged separately for its consequences.
Nuclear Deterrence: The use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent prevents large-scale attacks and maintains security, maximizing happiness and reducing pain.
Hedonic Calculus: Evaluates the benefits of deterrence using the seven elements:
Intensity: The pleasure of not being attacked is strong.
Duration: Nuclear weapons provide long-term security.
Certainty: The presence of nuclear weapons makes attacks less likely.
Propinquity (Closeness): Society directly experiences the benefits of security in the present.
Fecundity (Future Happiness): Continued deterrence could ensure long-term peace.
Purity: Deterrence causes less pain than the damage of an actual attack.
Extent: The whole world experiences peace due to nuclear deterrence.
Quote (Bentham):
“The question is not, can they reason? But can they suffer?”
What it shows: Bentham’s focus on the suffering of both humans and animals – here, it applies to human suffering from potential attacks.
Historical Example (Hiroshima/Nagasaki):
Deaths: 240,000 people were killed by nuclear bombs, but estimates suggest 500,000 to 1,000,000 could have died if a ground attack had occurred.
Implication: The nuclear bombs prevented a much larger loss of life, supporting the deterrent argument.
Challenges and Criticisms
Risk: The main issue with deterrence is the risk that the threat may fail. If deterrence doesn’t work, the consequences of nuclear war could be catastrophic.
Long-Term Consequences: Even as a deterrent, the use of nuclear weapons might eventually cause harm (e.g., climate change, radioactive fallout).
Quote (Ban Ki-moon):
“Such weapons have no legitimate place in our world. Their elimination is both morally right and a practical necessity in protecting humanity.”
What it shows: Some believe nuclear weapons are inherently dangerous and should be eliminated to protect humanity.
Utilitarianism and Pain Avoidance: While utilitarianism aims to avoid pain, the potential devastation of a failed deterrent can lead to unimaginable suffering.
Rule vs. Act Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism:
Would look at each specific situation to decide if nuclear deterrence is justified.
In specific cases, nuclear deterrence may be seen as the best option to prevent larger conflicts.
Rule Utilitarianism:
Would support nuclear deterrence as a rule to maintain long-term peace, as no major nuclear wars have occurred since the establishment of nuclear deterrence.
Conclusion
Support for Deterrence: Nuclear weapons as a deterrent can prevent large-scale conflict and promote peace, in line with utilitarian principles.
Ethical Issues: While deterrence may maximize happiness and reduce pain in the short term, the risks of failure and long-term harm (e.g., climate change) present major ethical concerns.
Moral Responsibility: While nuclear weapons may have prevented wars, they still come with significant ethical and environmental risks
