Utilitarianism

Question 1

What is the principle of Utility

Answer 1

The action is right which aims at the greatest happiness for the greatest number

Question 2

Hedonism ?

Answer 2

‘Pleasure’
Happiness is the only intrinsically valuable thing

Not valuable for some other purpose I.e. Money

Question 3

What is Commensurable ??

Answer 3

Comparable

Question 4

What does it mean to be a consequentialist ?

Answer 4

Acts are judged on outcomes alone

Question 5

What is the utility calculus ?

Answer 5

Test for measuring an actions outcomes in terms of outcomes
Based on the principle of utility
It is a hedonistic theory (only considers happiness to have intrinsic value) and a consequentialist one (morality is judged on outcomes of actions

The intensity , duration , certainty and fecundity of the pleasures caused by an action will be considered

For example
If I saw someone who was very poor stealing bread, would I tell the shopkeeper ?
Weigh up the happiness produced in this calculus

Question 6

What is the criticism of utilitarianism that it is a “doctrine for swine “

Attack on hedonism

Answer 6

This criticism of utilitarianism follows that it focuses too much on animalistic , simple and sensory pleasures at the expense of more important values

Although most humans can agree that happiness is something to aim for, utilitarianism’s focus on hedonism seems to dismiss humanity’s other desires

For example justice , truth and loyalty cannot be reduced to happiness

There are other things intrinsically valuable that are worth achieving in themselves. Truth doesn’t necessarily lead to happiness !!

Question 7

How does Mill attempt to defend Utilitarianism to the criticism that it is a doctrine for swine ?

Answer 7

Mill makes a distinction between higher and lower pleasures saying all pleasures are not equal.

He presents the test of the competent judge to distinguish if something is a higher pleasure
The quality of a pleasure is measured by if people have experienced both pleasures, the one the majority prefer is the higher pleasure

Mill says those who have experienced both intellectual and animalistic pleasures will generally chose the “higher” intellectual pleasures

Therefore separating us from animals as human beings would generally choose a higher , intellectual pleasure over an animalistic one

Question 8

What is a higher pleasure ?

Answer 8

If people have experienced two pleasures, the one that the majority prefer would be classed as the “higher pleasure”

Mill says people would generally choose intellectual pleasures rather than animalistic pleasures therefore separating us from animals

Question 9

Why can’t Mill just come out and say intellectual pleasures are the best pleasures ?

Answer 9

That would cause tension with the principle of utility

Question 10

How could someone respond to Mill’s higher and lower pleasure distinction ?

Answer 10

People who have experienced both animalistic and intellectual pleasures may choose sensory pleasures. So the ‘higher’ pleasures wouldn’t be the intellectual ones he defends.
Therefore utiliarianism would still be vulnerable to the doctrine of swine criticism

Question 11

Which two ways could Mill respond to the criticism of his higher and lower pleasures ?

Answer 11

1 there is a difference in how we frame the test

There is a difference between preference (what you intellectually know to be the better thing and what we act one.
Mill argues that most people prefer intellectual pleasures but may opt lazily for sensory pleasures
The question must therefore be carefully framed

2 not everyone’s preference counts
You have to cultivate appreciation of art so just calculating what most prefer is not a clear guide to higher pleasures

Question 12

What is Act Utilitarianism ?

Answer 12

Applies the principle of utility to individual actions

Question 13

What is rule Utilitarianism

Answer 13

Applies the principle of utilitarianism to rules for action

Question 14

What is the criticism of utilitarianism about individual liberty / rights ?

What is the response to this ?

Further reply ?

Answer 14

Minority mistreatment

Utilitarianism advocates the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as it would support individuals being sacrificed if the majority of people would be happier as a result

The rights of the minority are pushed aside
I.e. Arresting innocent people for crimes so the community is relieved and is happy - the Guildford 4

Reply - utilitarian could argue that the greatesty happiness will only be served when the right person is convicted as the greatest happiness is not served when the public are in a false sense of security as the guilty could commit more crimes

Response
- at that moment the greatest happiness is served (attack on act Utilitarianism
Also that only attacks the example rather than the argument -

Minorities do lose out and some decisions made to make the majority happy. I.e. Cornering of a diseased ridden area to protect others even tho some people in the area may not have got the disease yet

Question 15

What is the criticism of utilitarianism about the problems with calculation ?

Reply ?

Further reply ?

Answer 15

There is an issue with the utility calculus as we cannot truly know the consequences that out actions will produce
-unforeseen consequences
E.g. Someone running into a ball I throw and this person was outside of everyone’s vision
- procedure is too complicated to work out exact consequences
E.g. How many animals will be disrupted when i build this road over their habitat

Utility calculus is therefore flawed as the procedure is too complex + time consuming and we cannot know the certainty of our Actions

Reply -
We can make sensible estimates of consequences which let us make choices
Bentham said the calculus just needs to be “kept in view” not “strictly pursued”

Response - Bentham in saying this makes Utilitarianism more flawed as It adds confusion as to how and when we should follow the utility calculus
He does not present accurately the extent of which we should follow the calculus . “Kept in view” is not sufficient direction

Question 16

What is the 2 criticisms of the possible moral states of particular relationships ?

Response ?

Reply ?

Answer 16

Utilitarianism doesn’t consider other moral values as hedonism dictates that happiness is the only intrinsically valuable thing.

1 -things like promises would become meaningless if it as if it would result in more happiness to break a promise than to keep it, Utilitarianism would advocate for the latter. If breaking promises was okay, nobody would trust anyone.
Utilitarianism doesn’t consider trust and other moral values.

2 also utilitarianism goes against our natural instincts of attachment
I.e. If you could only save a movie star or your mother, it would be natural and morally commendable to save your mother despite the movie star making more people happy.

Reply - morality should be impartial otherwise preference of looking after those close to us leads to discrimination and things like racism.

Response - this is a step too far in saying that our natural instinct for attachment to family should be disregarded as it leads to discrimination.
Family attachments are natural and instinctual and are seen in all species. Racism is unnatural and is developed in society rather than in our nature.
There is no correlation in the two.

Question 17

What is the criticism of utilitarianism about the possible value of certain motives

Reply

Further reply ?

Answer 17

Williams presents a scenario whereby a man can either shoot one person to save 19 or refuse causing ten people to be shot.

Here , other people’s actions produce the consequences but the individual is held responsible.
Williams argues that utilitarianism ignores the crucial role of motives and integrity as the idea that an individuals moral identity is shaped by their choices and principles is ignored in favour of how much happiness comes from every action

Morality is judged by a collective outcome separated from individual choices rather than something fundamental about individual’s choices

Reply - Pettit
Defends utilitarianism as if can give a more coherent account of what we should do when confronted with choices in life and it promotes happiness

Further reply - this does not directly answer the criticism

Question 18

4 benefits of utilitarianism ?

Answer 18

Egalitarian theory - every person’s happiness is treated equally

Non religious moral basis - more appropriate for a secular society

The appeal for happiness fits with common desires of everyone

Practical procedures are provided for how to decide on whether an action is right or wrong

Question 19

What does Egalitarian mean ?

Answer 19

Everyone’s happiness is treated equally

Question 20

Why is rule utilitarianism unsuccessful ?

Answer 20

The distinction between strong rule utilitarianism and weak rule utilitarianism whereby weak rule utilitarianism allows some exceptions to the rule in certain circumstances is problematic

For example a weak rule utilitarian may opt for not torturing someone to give the majority overall happiness in this extreme circumstance

This risks falling back into act utilitarianism as if there is exceptions to the rule, there is little point in having the rule at all

Question 21

What is preference utilitarianism

Answer 21

Non - hedonistic utilitarianism that gets around hedonism criticisms

1 singer’s theory that argued that actions should not be judged by its tendency to produce pleasure or pain due to people’s different ideas as to what constitutes this

Doesn’t focus on maximising pleasure but maximising preferences
It therefore accepts that you may prefer something that does not bring the greatest pleasure

What is right is what maximises the satisfaction of most people’s preferences

Allows truth , loyalty or trust to have moral worth !

Question 22

What is the problem with preference utilitarianism ?

Answer 22

What people prefer is not a sufficient guide to what is moral

What people prefer may not be in their best interests
I.e Louis Theroux presented a town addicted to heroin. The people in this town would have an overall preference for heroin. Maximising this preference would go against our basic ideas of morality
It is therefore too far to say that whatever is preferred is moral