Utilitarianism

Question 1

Utilitarianism is relativist, consequentialist and teleological - what does this mean?

Answer 1

• A relativist system: most versions of the theory do not set out fixed rules and are largely flexible.
• Consequentialist – it judges morality by the direct consequences of an action.
• Teleological (similar to consequentialist) - it is concerned with the end results or final outcomes of our actions.

Question 2

In which philosophical concept first expounded by Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus is Utilitarianism rooted?

Answer 2

Philosophical hedonism:

Plato and Aristotle both agreed that ‘good’ equated with the greatest happiness, while the Epicureans stressed ‘pleasure’ as the main aim of life. The ultimate end of human desires and actions, according to Aristotle, is happiness and though pleasure sometimes accompanies this, it is not the chief aim of life.

Question 3

What are the strengths (3) and weaknesses (2) of philosophical hedonism?

Answer 3

+ Basis in human psychology (we all pursue happiness/pleasure and avoid pain).

+ Promotes human happiness and cooperation/a greater quality of life.

+ Compassionate.

• Some people find happiness in others pain (eg. sadists/psychopaths)
• Potentially selfish/egocentric.

Question 4

Historical context of Jeremy Bentham’s act utilitarianism?

Answer 4

Jeremy Bentham developed his theory in the late 18th century, in the age of industrialisation and revolution. In Europe and America, new ideas of political liberty were emerging. Bentham argued that the new, enlightened and scientific era required a new approach to ethics that should not be based upon the old established idea of the Church and external moral authority. He hoped to create a rational and secular moral ethical theory.

Question 5

He formulated Utilitarianism from a basis of philosophical hedonism: “nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as determine what we shall do.”

Act Utilitarianism incorporates the Principle of Utility, in Bentham’s words, “the greatest good for the greatest number”.

He developed the hedonic calculus to stipulate the considerations that must be made when using utilitarianism to make an ethical decision.

Question 6

Try and list as many of the 7 points of the hedonic calculus as possible

Answer 6

• Intensity -How intense is the pleasure or pain?
• Duration -How long does the pleasure of pain last?
• Certainty -What is the probability that the pleasure or pain will occur?
• Propinquity (nearness or remoteness) -How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain?
• Fecundity -What is the probability that the pleasure will lead to other pleasures?
• Purity -What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pains?
• Extent -How many persons are affected by the pleasure?

Question 7

4 main strengths of Act Utilitarianism?

Answer 7

• The hedonic calculus tells us how we ought to act in any given situation: it provides a decision procedure.
• Avoids issues of deontology/moral absolutes
• Secular
• Easy to use process

Question 8

6 main weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism?

Answer 8

• Bentham’s claim that all pleasures are of equal value seems weak. Would sadism be a good reason for acting? If several sadistic guards derived intense pleasure from torture, then this act might be deemed to be justified (an objection raised by Bernard Williams, among others).
• Another difficulty in judging each act individually by its consequences is that we cannot predict what the full future consequences of actions will be. Controversial actions have been justified by ‘the greater good’, but the true impact of acting in a certain way is very hard to judge. Complex government level decisions can be particularly helpless in this regard; if we invade a country (like Iraq), will we really know what will happen in the long run?
• Act Utilitarianism could subvert justice: it could allow for the torture and imprisonment of the innocent if it serves a greater good.
• Reduces morality to simple maths.
• Is happiness/pleasure really the only thing with intrinsic worth?
• Tyranny of the majority – For example, if most people feel strongly against homosexuality, this would justify laws against practicing homosexuality. This is confusing what is popular with what is right.

Question 9

What were John Stuart Mill’s criticisms of his god father’s Act Utilitarianism?

Answer 9

• Mill argued that the greatest good for the greatest number should not just be a quantitative matter (as in Bentham’s calculus). Quality of pleasures also should matter. For instance, the sadism of prison guards can hardly be as valuable as friendship, or great literature.
• Mill wanted to avoid the implication that Utilitarianism was a theory of base gratification; it doesn’t mean giving people what they want all the time. He wanted to apply the theory to a number of progressive political causes, arguing for personal liberty and the political enfranchisement of women.

Question 10

How does Mill’s rule utilitarianism differ from Bentham’s act utilitarianism? (4 main points)

Answer 10

• Distinguished between higher and lower pleasures due to Mill’s belief that “it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”.
• Introduces the concept of ‘competent judges’ – people who have experienced many types of pleasures and so are able to discriminate. He said these people should be educated and refined (like himself).
• Substantiates that any action taken must be deemed good for society and not just for an individual circumstance, a notion known as the Principle of Universality. The ultimate aim is to avoid moral anarchy.
• Strong rule utilitarianism is the utilitarian theory that says the moral rules should be adhered to at all times. This theory does not deteriorate into Act utilitarianism like weak rule utilitarianism, but is an absolutist theory and has all the same issues as deontological theories.

Question 11

Strengths of rule utilitarianism? (6)

Answer 11

• Principle of Universality bridges the gap between Act Utilitarianism and traditional antinomian approaches to ethics
• It avoids the problem of ‘evil’ pleasures, such as sadism.
• It is natural to distinguish between pleasures. Surely we can agree that friendship is a higher pleasure than getting drunk.
• Rule Utilitarianism would not allow crimes against minorities which benefit the majority.
• Allows for a concept of justice – the innocent cannot be hurt for the pleasure of others.
• Advocated the betterment of society as a whole and therefore human progression.

Question 12

5 main weaknesses of rule utilitarianism? Include the criticisms of Hare and Moore

Answer 12

• A distinction between higher and lower pleasures is ignorant to the basic primal needs of humans , and arguably propagates intellectual snobbery.
• Mill’s ‘competent judges’ establishes an intellectual elite and therefore entrenches inequality/tyranny over the masses.
• The distinction between higher and lower pleasures is very subjective to Mill’s human experience. For people living in poverty, food is a far greater priority than art or culture. Additionally, people may have preferences for ‘lower pleasures’, and so why should they not be able to pursue these?
• According to R.M. Hare, Rule Utilitarianism might disapprove of sensible rule breaking, like telling white lies. What if a mad axe murderer asks you where your friend s hiding? Should you tell the truth?
• G.E. Moore (1873 - 1958): “Mill has made a naive and artless a use of the naturalistic fallacy as anybody could desire. “Good,” he tells us, means “desirable,” and you can only find out what is desirable by seeking to find out what is actually desired. This is, of course, only one step towards the proof of Hedonism; for it may be, as Mill goes on to say, that other things beside pleasure are desired. Whether or not pleasure is the only thing desired is, as Mill himself admits, (p. 58), a psychological question, to which we shall presently proceed. The important step for Ethics is this one just taken, the step which pretends to prove that “good” means “desired.”

Question 13

Which 3 utilitarian principles did Henry Sidgwick develop ?

Answer 13

The Principle of Justice:“whatever action any of us judges to be right for himself, he discreetly judges to be right for all similar persons in similar circumstances”

The Principle of Prudence: This is related to the idea of the good on the whole of a single individual, and is stated as follows - “Hereafter as such is to be regarded neither less nor more than Now”; “the mere difference of priority and posteriority in time is not a reasonable ground for having more regard to the consciousness of one moment than to that of another”

The Principle of Rational Benevolence: This is about the universal good, i.e. the good of all individuals, and is stated as follows -“the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view of the Universe, than the good of any other”; so that “as a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally,—-so far as it is attainable by my efforts,—-not merely at a particular part of it”

Question 14

How did Sidgwick’s form of utilitarianism answer Kant’s criticism that the consequences of an action can’t make it right?

Answer 14

He said intention should also be considered.

Question 15

Outline G.E. Moore’s ideal utilitarianism

Answer 15

• In G.E. Moore’s formulation (Principia Ethica, 1903), it is aesthetic experiences and relations of friendship that have intrinsic value, and therefore ought to be sought and promoted. These are the ideals that must be maximised in society
• Consciousness of pain, hatred or contempt of what is good or beautiful, and the love, admiration or enjoyment of what is evil or ugly are the three things that have intrinsic disvalue and should therefore be shunned and prevented.

Question 16

Describe Karl Popper’s negative utilitarianism

Answer 16

• Popper’s ‘negative utilitarian’ principle is that we should act to minimise suffering rather than maximise pleasure.
• Classical utilitarian philosophers such as Sidgwick had explicitly argued for the moral symmetry of happiness and suffering. Complications aside, they supposed that increases in happiness, and reductions in suffering, are essentially of equal value when of equal magnitude. Popper disagreed. He believed that the practical consequences of the supposed moral symmetry were also dangerous: “Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle.

Question 17

Which developments did Richard Brandt make to utilitarianism?

Answer 17

• Brandt hoped to solve problems involved in selecting the proper rules by accepting current moral rules as a starting point. The current system of moral rules has, after all, survived many decades of social evaluation.
• The moral status quo is commendable because people rely on such behavior. Brandt calls the current system of rules an Optimal Moral System. We are obliged to obey that system, but he adds that this system, though it is the best system we now have, may be made even better.
• Utilitarian goals are already achieved to some degree because the current moral system, to survive through social evolution, must be producing a good deal of human happiness. However, with the evaluation of the current system, the utilitarian principle comes into direct play. Reform comes from a direct application of the utilitarian standard to the current moral system.

Question 18

Which utilitarian theory uses the metaphorical analogy of the ‘archangel’ and the ‘prole’?

Answer 18

R.M. Hare’s Two-Level Utilitarianism

Question 19

Describe the process of two-level utilitarianism

Answer 19

In any moral decision, one must identify whether to think like an archangel (a supreme rational being), and when like a prole (blighted by human weakness and reliant on deontological rules).

Question 20

List 3 main weaknesses of two-level utilitarianism

Answer 20

• One objection is that two-level utilitarianism undermines an agent’s commitment to act in accordance with his or her moral principles. For example, a theist will comply with his/her moral code because he/she sees it as based upon God’s will. However, a two-level utilitarian knows that his everyday set of moral rules is merely a guideline, and as such any breach of these rules is unlikely to accompany the same degree of guilt as would someone who believed that it was wrong in principle to act in that way.
  
  • In reply to this objection, some utilitarians have put forward a “radical proposal”; although they accept utilitarianism as the correct moral theory, it would be more beneficial if they do not proclaim this fact, and keep it a well-guarded secret. “Utilitarianism would then become an esoteric doctrine, accepted by only a few philosophers who would, if challenged, deny its existence in public.”.
• David McNaughton argues that, even if the agent’s commitment to his/her principles is not undermined, two-level utilitarianism does not succeed in its goal of showing, “how, on utilitarian principles, it is a good idea to think and reason in a pluralist and non-consequentialist manner.” It is impossible, he claims, to compartmentalise one’s thinking in the way the two-level account requires.
• A third variety of objection somewhat related to the problem of ‘weakness of will’ is that difficulties arise when we try to keep critical thinking separate from intuitive thinking.

Question 21

What does Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism entail?

Answer 21

• Instead of focusing on the actions that maximize pleasure and minimize pain, preference utilitarianism entails promoting actions that fulfil the interests (or preferences) of those beings involved.
• Their interests may therefore be carefully selected based on future projections.
• Since what is right and wrong depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is intrinsically good or bad.

Question 22

2 strengths of preference utilitarianism?

Answer 22

• Recognises that every person’s experience of satisfaction is unique.
• Looks at long term as well as short term consequences.

Question 23

8 main strengths of utilitarianism?

Answer 23

• Not deontological, so we do not end up with a conflict of duties; we can decide which action is best and brings the best consequences.
• Secular and therefore applicable in both non-religious and religious contexts - does not rely on God. (more universal/can transcend cultures).
• Considers the consequences of an action and therefore works towards the best possible outcome: avoids good intentions leading to harmful/immoral consequences.
• Utilitarianism appeals to our inherent desire to pursue what is pleasurable in life.
• Doesn’t make us slaves to rules and appeals to the sense of wanting to make exceptions in extraordinary circumstances.
• Easy to use as weighing up the positive and negative effects of our actions is straightforward – we learn to do this from our early childhood onwards. Anyone can apply the principle of utility
• It’s democratic as the fairest way to run a country is to balance everyone’s differing interests. We see this happening in all modern democracies – governments use the principles of Utilitarianism to determine what is right.
• Objective theory as the positive and negative consequences of our actions can be measured.

Question 24

What was Kant’s objection to utilitarianism? What is the utilitarian response?

Answer 24

He argues that there are, ultimately, only two sources of motivation: happiness and reason. But happiness can’t be the basis of morality because what makes people happy differs from person to person. If morality was about happiness, then different people would be motivated to act in different ways. But morality is the same for everyone. Kant would also argue that it treats everyone as a means to an end.

• A utilitarian would object that morality can be the same for everyone and be about happiness if morality is about creating the greatest happiness. Kant would respond that everyone else’s happiness does not necessarily motivate me, only my own happiness does.

Question 25

Outline John Rawls’ and Bernard Williams’ objections to utilitarianism

Answer 25

• Rawls objects that utilitarianism ignores the separateness and distinctness of persons and does not recognize that justice is what free persons would choose as the principles to regulate their social cooperation under conditions that are fair. He argues that Utilitarianism is too impersonal and does not consider the rights of individuals in it’s quest for the greatest good for the greatest number.
• Williams says that utilitarianism does not distinguish what we ourselves do from that which we only allow to happen.

Question 26

9 main weaknesses of utilitarianism?

Answer 26

• It allows us to do evil so that good might come. For example, in a time of crisis, innocent people may be imprisoned or executed if it calms down the population (if say they are believed to be responsible for terrorist acts). The British police were guilty of this during the Northern Irish troubles.
• The no-rest objection: act utilitarianism, if followed to the letter, could prevent us from doing things we enjoy.
• Some would argue that we are not just motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain, but that many are motivated by other things such as spiritual truth or objective moral values.
• It is not always possible to predict the consequences of our actions. Because Utilitarianism depends on this, it is flawed in this respect.
• It is too impartial: the burning house dilemma. If a house is burning down and it contains your Mum and a cancer specialist who is about to develop a cure for cancer, who should you save? It would have to be the cancer specialist. Utilitarianism does not take account of family ties.
• Naturalistic Fallacy – Just because people desire pleasure, this doesn’t make pleasure desirable. Put another way, just because the majority of people would prefer something, doesn’t meant that they ought to prefer it or that it’s right to do it.
• Subjective – We all have different definitions of happiness. Even with Singer’s talk of ‘preferences’, we would all differ in the weight we gave to, say, a Muslim’s preference to wear a hijab in public against another person’s preference to ban hijabs in public places.
• People can’t be trusted – If you get rid of rules and allow people to choose to act in the greater good, they will actually act selfishly, then try to justify their actions by claiming they were in the greater good.
• Motivation – Knowing that something would promote the ‘greater good’ is not enough to motivate people to do it. Singer hits this problem when trying to convince people to give more to developing countries. We know our money could do so much more in Africa, we just don’t care enough to give more.

Question 27

Utilitarianism in the modern day?

Answer 27

+ The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights are rule utilitarianism in action.

+ Constantly being reformulated and revised: not yet defeated.

+ U.N. Happiness Report

• The theory itself has little profile today, has not been explicitly adopted by any major institutions/states.