Utilitarianism Flashcards
Define Utilitarianism
- Consequencial ethical theory where the morally correct action will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number
- Developed by Jeremy Bentham
- Later modified by John Stuart Mill
- Hedonic, consequencial, democratic
Define Hedonism
- Philosophical theory
- Hedonists (Greek), believed that humans are in pursuit of pleasure and pain should be avoided
Jeremy Behtham on Hedonism
-“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovreign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.”
Define the Utility Principle
- A morally correct action will bring pleasure and minimise pain
- Incorrect action will bring pain and minimise pleasure
- Therefore an actions rightfulness is determined by the amount of pleasure/happiness bought by it. An action’s “usefulness”
- Teleological as concerned with actions
Quote from Bentham on the Utility Principle
“The property of an object that tends to produce benefit-its usefulness” - Bentham
For a Utilitarian, good is…
The maximisation of pleasure and minimalisation of pain
Utilitarianism is democratic because…
- Pleasure is not only for the good of one person
- Chosen way forward must achieve maximum happiness for the greatest number of people
- Must consider everyone
- Therefore democratic
Bentham on the Utility Principle
-“By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question…”
What is the Hedonic Calculus?
- Used to establish all possible consequences of different actions and the amount of pleasure they will bring to decide which choice of action is appropriate
- Seven factors:
(i) Intensity
(ii) Duration
(iii) Certainty
(iv) Propinquity
(v) Fecundity
(vi) Purity
(vii) Extent
Mnemonic for the Hedonic Calculus
-“In Dreadful Circumstances Please Follow Perfect Example.”
Intensity (HC)
-How good/strong the pleasure is - Intensity
Duration (HC)
-How long will the pleasure last? - Duration
Certainty (HC)
-How certain can you be that pleasure will ensue? - Certainty
Proponquity (HC)
-How close to you will the pleasure be? - Propinquity
Fecundity (HC)
-Will similar feelings of pleasure follow the initial pleasure? - Fecundity
Purity (HC)
-How pain free will the pleasure be? - Purity
Extent (HC)
-How many people will the pleasure affect? - Extent
Bentham quote on the Hedonic Calculus
-“Sum up all the values of pleasure on one side, and all those of pain on the other. The balance, if it be on the side of pleasure, will give the good tendency of the act upon the whole, with respect to the interests of that individual person; if it be on the side of pain, the bad tendency of it upon the whole.”
Define act utilitarianism
- A version of utilitarianism according to which the rightfulness or wrongness of individual acts are calculated by the amount of happiness resulting from these acts
- The correct course of action/the course of action that will bring the most happiness will vary from situation to situation
- e.g. In one situation lying may bring about the greatest happiness, so you should lie. Though in the next situation it may bring more happiness to be truthful
Strengths and Weaknesses of act utilitarianism
Strengths:
- Flexible, as it may be adapted to fit any situation
- Easy, as the hedonic calculus lays out every circumstance and variable to be considered
Weaknesses:
- Has potential to justify any act if the greatest happiness will result. This can cause people to be greedy, or justify sadism, leading to the persecution of the minority
- Pleasures are only measured quantitatively, so small trivial pleasures may be comparable to greater ones
- Impractical to apply hedonic calculus to every situation in turn
- Can lead to extreme results: Utilitarian goes to see film, sees charity worker and donates (to cause greatest happiness). Every time they visit the cinema they see the charity worker, so they must donate, meaning they will never see the film. This seems illogical as it would cause all leisure activity for the person to end
John Stuart Mill
- Life: 1806-1873
- Child Prodigy
- Father, James Mill, followed Bentham’s teachings
- Administrator of the East India Trading Company & MP
- Wrote “On Librety” (1859) and “Utilitarianism” articles in (1861)
How far did John Stuart Mill agree with Bentham’s Utilitarianism?
Agreed:
-Accepted the utility principle of the “greatest good for the greatest number”
Disagreed with/was concerned by:
- the “sadistic guards” principle - if pleasure is purely measured quantitively/the majority benefit from the suffering of the minority, no counter measures may prevent the pleasure (hdnic) of one party being completely extinguished
- Utilitarian promoted the selfish pursuit of pleasure/desire
Mill’s higher and lower pleasures
- Higher pleasures were qualitatively better than lower pleasures
- Higher pleasures are pleasures of the mind, and lower pleasures are pleasures of the body
- Humans cannot be happy without higher pleasures, gratification by lower pleasure is inadequate
- Some pleasures (higher) should be more desirable than others, even if the higher pleasure will bring some satisfaction due to lack of quantity
- But higher and lower pleasures are linked: Lower pleasures (eating, drinking, sexual) are required for us to experience higher pleasures
- Mill recognises that people tend to pursue lower pleasures first, but suggests that it is the person’s lack of character, and not the superiority of the lower pleasure that causes this. He worries that acting in such a way can cause people to become unable to access higher pleasures
- Greatest happiness: far from pain and rich in enjoyment both qualitatively (higher) and quantitively
Quote from Mill on higher pleasures being necessary for happiness
“Human beings have faculties more elevated than animal appetites and, once conscious of them, do not regard anything as happiness which does not include their gratification”
Quote from Mill on preferring higher pleasures
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
Quote from mill on over indulgence of lower pleasures
“They pursue sensual indulgences to the injury of health, though perfectly ware that health is the greater good”
John Stuart Mill’s rule utilitarianism
- General rules for the greatest good of the community
- To seek the greatest happiness for the community general happiness-making rules should be adhered to in every situation
- Rules must be obeyed even if they do not result in the greatest personal happiness, so rule utilitarianism may be self sacrificial
Shortcomings of rule utilitarianism
- Rules are less flexible. Rigid rules may not aways be applied to every situation
- Cannot guarantee protection of minority groups, if the community was in the greater number
- Weak rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism are practically the same. If rules can be bent then can they truly serve their purpose
- Dependence on lower pleasures can restrict one’s ability to access higher pleasures. 1/3 of the world in poverty
Strong/weak rule utlilitarianism
Strong: General rules should always be followed for the best result for the community
Weak: General rules should normally be followed, but may be bent or ignored in some circumstances for the good of the community
Jeremy Bentham
- Life: 1748-1832
- Philosopher, reformer, social activist
- Developed utilitarianism
Preference utilitarianism
- Developed by Peter singer (1946-) in his book “Practical Ethics” (1993)
- Also “best consequence” ethics
- Different from classical utilitarianism which argues for the most pleasure/least pain. Preference utilitarianism argues for the best interests (preferences) of each person involved
- Best interests of all involved>pleasure for those involved
- Everyone’s interests must be considered equal
- “fruit picker” analogy: everyone shares the fruit they have picked to satisfy the preferences of everyone involved. If some stopped gathering fruit, things wouldn’t go well and a fair distribution of fruit would not be possible
- Sacrifice of a person is problematic, as it is their preference to keep living so to kill them would be wrong, even for the benefit of the majority
Singer on sacrifice
“According to preference utilitarianism, an action contrary to the preference of any being is, unless this preference is outweighed by contrary preferences, wrong. Killing a person who prefers to continue living is therefore wrong, other things being equal.”
Singer on preference utilitarianism
“The other version of utilitarianism judges actions, not by their tendency to maximise pleasure or minimise pain, but by the extent to which they accord with the preference of any beings affected by the action or its consequences”
Singer on satisfying the preferences of everyone
“Choose the course which brings about the best consequences, on balance, for all affected”
Universalizability
How universally accessible an ethical theory/pleasure is. Can a utilitarian approach be applied to every situation?
Utilitarianism applied an ethical issue
- Animal Testing*
- Essential to pharmaceutical research, benefits global population and key to development of numerous treatments. But welfare of animals must be considered
- P1: Bentham included animals, as the are sentient: “The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?”
- P2: Utility principle/hedonic. Justifies testing as it is used to seek pleasure. Good usefulness as pain of animals is smaller quantitatively than pleasure for humans
- P3: Teleological/consequencialist. Animal testing will result in pleasure, therefore justified. But we can’t predict future so no guarantee, whilst suffering guaranteed for animals who are euthanised after testing. May use hedonic calculus to weight up options
- P4: Intense pleasure for humans, but intense pain for animals. Problem as pleasure purely quantitative so trivial pleasures ranked with high ones. Pleasure for humans ie using shampoo is compared to pain of loss of life for animal. Immoral. High remoteness for humans, long time between animal testing and products, but immediate pain for animals. Short term pain for animals, long term pleasure for humans. Purity of pain varies for humans + animals. Some humans use drugs like chemo to cause pain but cure disease. Low extent of pain compared to pleasure for humans. Richness high for humans but low for animals
Conclusion: Could be justified, minority of animals, brief intense pain results in majority experiencing prolonged pleasure. However intensity varies for humans, so each situation must be considered (act utilitarianism). Drugs may sometimes provide alternative to bring greatest happiness eg in vitro testing (testing drugs on human tissue). Thus animal testing may sometimes be justified
Ending pain vs increasing pleasure
Increasing pleasure:
- Utility principle: Greatest good/number. Naturally sought by increasing pleasure, support from majority.
- Democratic, fair, majority support for increasing pleasure=correct action
- Increasing pleasure for others leads to increased pleasure for the self, sense of accomplishment. General benevolence
- Pleasure clearly defined (higher/lower pleasures) but pain is subjective. Some pains are good (treatment)
- Increase of pleasure causes an ending of pain
Ending pain:
- Increasing pleasure may encourage selfish behaviour/may bring pain for minority
- Ending pain brings sense of accomplishment, general benevolence
- Many live in poverty, ending their pain would bring pleasure/allow them to experience higher pleasures
- Altruistic, therefore accepted by religion. Buddhists: end pain through material detachment to bring enlightenment
Conclusion:
- Ending pain>increasing pleasure
- Moral approach, alleviates suffering more fully than compensating with pleasures
- 2/3 of world in poverty so more immediate issue is ending pain, to bring higher pleasures
- Ultimately ending pain will bring pleasure in the same way that increasing pleasure will, but selfish action is discouraged
How worthwhile is the pursuit of happiness, and is it all that people desire?
Advantages of happiness:
- happiness could be applied to basic human needs such as food, shelter, health, education
- Humans are hedonists, in pursuit of pleasure or “happiness”
- Mill’s definition of higher and lower pleasures include ideas of well being. Happiness is a higher mental pleasure and should be sought
- Happiness can be advantageous. Eg nike workers in Vietnam who receive social benefits/good working conditions. Happiness for company and for them
Other pursuits:
- Pursuing happiness may encourage selfish behaviour and will not protect minorities. May even justify sadism if utilitarian approach taken
- Utilitarianism is not altruistic (selfless) therefore some may wish to seek happiness for others ie charity work. Seeking another’s happiness may be just as beneficial as your own
- Happiness can be a by-product of other activities ie education/charity/friendships so seeking them is as important as happiness itself
- Pain is needed to understand happiness, cannot only seek happiness
Conclusion: Pursuit of happiness necessary, Mill believed higher pleasures necessary for fulfilment. But may lead to persecution of minority, and other things ie relationships must be sought too
Is Utilitarianism compatible with a religious approach to ethics?
Incompatible:
- Bentham’s act utilitarianism is flexible, no absolute moral laws. Contradicts 10 commandments/Catholicism
- Utilitarians are hedonists, wheras religious believers look beyond immediate gratification to some higher goal (moksha/heaven)
- Some, ie buddhists/samnyasis renounce all material desire and complete acts of penance, and thus do not permit themselves pleasure
- Self sacrifice/suffering are part of spiritual life, not to be avoided. I.e. story of Job in Bible. Contradicts preference utilitarianism which teaches against self sacrifice
- Mill/Bentham/Singer are athiests, little religious foundation
Compatible:
- Supports general benevolence, Xns: treat them as you would like to be treated/love thy neighbour
- Jesus died for the greatest good of the greatest number, persecution of the minority
- Absolutist rule utilitarianism compatible with 10 commandments/catholisism
- Jesus worked on the Sabbath, showed he could disregard rules like act/weak rule utilitarianism
Conclude:
-Some general principles are the same ie General benevolence and the utility principle. However at large mayor contradictions ie with no absolute rules in preference/rule (weak) and act and Xn support of self sacrifice/suffering. Ultimately religious believers look to a higher aim than pleasure, cannot be hedonists so utilitarianism can’t be compatible
How easy is utilitarianism as a method of moral decision making
Easy:
- Hedonic calculus out all variables/options
- Democratic, accounts for everyone
- Adaptable/flexible for each situation
- Mill: defines pleasures (higher and lower) so easy to understand. Also general rules so less need to consider every aspect of each situation
Complex:
- Difficult to justify persecution of minority
- Impractical to apply hedonic calculus to every situation in turn. Many variables to consider
- Hard to define pain, as some pains are good eg chemotherapy
- Difficult to predict the consequences of the situation as it is consequentialist. Cannot predict the future
Conclusion:
- Only practical to some extent
- Hc is helpful, as are defining higher/lower pleasures. But hard to apply Hc to every situation in turn, and even harder to predict consequences. So may seem easy but hard to be sure it will work as consequential. Further may be difficult to understand higher pleasures if you are limited only to lower pleasures, so may not be able to judge best outcome.
- Overall not easy
Bentham’s General Benevolence principle
In calculating pleasure/pain no one’s pleasure is to be regarded is more important than anyone else’s
