Utilitarianism (moral philo)

Question 1

Utilitarianism

Answer 1

A normative ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes (a form of consequentialism).

• an act is right iff we can reasonably predict that doing an action produces at least as much utility as any other act that could be performed

Question 2

Consequentialism

Answer 2

The consequences of one’s actions are the ultimate basis for judgement about how wrong/right the action is

Question 3

Moral Hedonism vs psychological hedonism

Answer 3

Moral : The claim that we SHOULD pursue pleasure and if we favour pain>pleasure we are a bad person. (we should aim for pleasure)

Psychological : Claims that only pleasure or pain motivates us DOES
- we as humans pursue pleasure over pain (we can only aim for pleasure)

Question 4

Briefly outline Bentham’s utilitarianism (3 marks)

Answer 4

=Bentham is a quantitative hedonistic utilitarian. He argues that actions are morally right to the extent their consequences maximise pleasure and minimise pain for the greatest number. For Bentham all pleasures are equal and should be judged only on the amount of pleasure produced.

-An action is only morally right if it brings about the greatest amount of happiness for the most amount of people.
- It focuses on the consequences of the individual in the act
- It makes complicated decisions easy by choosing the action which will result in the most happiness
- hedonistic approach : pleasure as a guide to happiness/morality

Question 5

Utility Principle - Bentham

Answer 5

= a moral system that invokes us to maximise happiness and minimise pain - for both the universal and the sum of individuals in a community.

• utility ; The principle that’s actions can be judged by their usefulness (tendency to provide pleasure>pain). Therefore, an object is useful (has utility) if it helps to bring about a specific goal.
  So, pleasure/avoidance of pain are the goals to pursue.

Question 6

Felicific calculus

Answer 6

= Utilitarianist, Jeremy Bentham’s quantitative method to add up all the happiness which may occur as a consequence of an action - unhappiness/pain
A single scale that measures pleasure and pain (‘felicity’ means happiness)

Question 7

What are the two main guides of morality, according to Bentham?

Answer 7

pleasure and pain

Question 8

Pros + Cons of Utilitarianism

Answer 8

Pros:
-simple/easy -> makes difficult decisions easy by choosing the action which brings about the greatest amount of happiness
-objective (fair)
-thinks about individual (know you made the right choice) and group happiness
-gives clear answers

Cons:
-time consuming (impractical)
-subjective on the thesis of happiness( how much happiness is actually caused/different for everyone)
-reductionist for such a complex structure (e.g killing 1 person instead of 5 people should lead to greater happiness but doesn’t take into account individual differences, what if the 5 ppl were rapists and that one person was innocent? Should we value all humans lives equally?

Question 9

Bentham’s quantitative hedonistic (felicific) utilitarianism methods

Answer 9

1) its intensity (how strong/grand is the happiness)
2) its duration (how long the happiness lasts for)
3) its certainty or uncertainty (how sure are we that the act will achieve happiness)
4) its nearness or remoteness (how close are people to the happiness e.g long term?)
5) its fecundity (its chance of being followed by sensations of the same kind)
6) its purity (how free are people of pain)
7) its extent (how many people will receive the happiness)
- used for quantitatively calculating the amount of happiness an action produces
= If Dogs Cant Neatly Finish Poos Ew

Question 10

John Stuart Mill: Tyranny of the Majority
= student of Bentham (issue with act util)

Answer 10

= when the majority view is taken simply because it is the majority view: often effects the minority negatively (they are ignored)

Question 11

John Stuart Mill’s harm principle

Answer 11

He states that freedom should only be restricted in such instances where harm may come to someone
= solution of tyranny of majority

Question 12

Mill’s solution for the impracticality of calculation (against ACT/strength of RULE)

Answer 12

Mill states that we rely on secondary principles the majority of the time but only in outlying situations will we have an appeal to first principles. This makes morality less of a calculation thus making moral decision making faster and more practical .

first : kinds of principles that we are trying to uncover in moral philosophy (ie utilitarianism)

secondary: common ways we understand right from wrong in our social groups.

Question 13

Briefly outline Mill’s Utilitarianism (3 marks)

Answer 13

= Mill is a qualitative hedonistic utilitarianism. He argues that the right action is one which follows a rule which, if generally followed, will maximise pleasure and minimise pain. For Mill not all pleasures are equal, some pleasures are “higher”, and these should be prioritised even if in the moment they are less pleasurable than another option.

-> an action is right insofar as everyone complies with the rules/if everybody followed them, would lead to the greatest happiness (e.g secondary principles).
-> rather than focusing on the consequences of an individual acts, we focus on the consequences of the rule.( strong rule/weak rule)

Question 14

Strong/weak rules

Answer 14

Strong -> must never be broken (e.g rape)
Weak -> can be broken when we an justify it according to the utilitarian principles (e.g stealing to prevent starvation, lying,murder in self defence).

Question 15

‘Rule worship’ by Smart (rule utilitarian issue)

Answer 15

Abiding by rules means sticking to them, even when going against the rule would increase happiness in a particular act.
It seems to be irrational to blindly stick to rules when sticking to one isn’t the right thing to do.

Question 16

Smart’s objections that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism

Answer 16

There are always exceptions to rules in some circumstances which will cause more happiness. If we modify rules to allow for these, we are really judging morality based on acts not rules. This is act utilitarianism.

E.g do not commit murder (strong rule) but it could be a weak rule as it could be justified if you are acting out of defence. Therefore, you are judging the morality based in the individual in the act, so it collapses into act utilitarianism.

Thus, is rule utilitarian pointless? Can all strong rules be justified into weak rules?

Question 17

Mills claim that happiness is the only good

Answer 17

Mill claimed he can provide a proof that happiness is desirable for all humans, and aimed to prove that it is the only good.

E.g final goal = the end = life goal ——-> happiness

• For Mill happiness is not just pleasure, it includes other ingredients such as love, freedom, virtue, health, wealth, knowledge and status. Thus, happiness (beyond pleasure) is the only end and therefore the only good.

Question 18

Mill’s proofs of the greatest happiness principle = good (three key proofs)

Answer 18

= Mill claimed that everything we do is to work towards our final goal in life. Mill believed this end goal was happiness as it was the result of all desires…
1) The evidence that happiness is desirable is that people desire it. As happiness is desirable , it is a good thing.
2) As every person desires their own happiness, the general happiness of humanity is desirable and therefore a good thing.
3) Any other end (truth, virtue, money etc) is pursued in order to maximize happiness. So happiness not just good but it is the only good.

Question 19

What are the three fallacies of Mill’s proof

Answer 19

• the fallacy of equivocation
• the naturalistic fallacy
• the composition fallacy

Question 20

fallacy meaning

Answer 20

reasoning that comes to a conclusion without the evidence to support it.

Question 21

The fallacy of equivocation

Answer 21

This is when someone doesn’t keep to the meaning of the same word consistent through their argument. = Mill seems to use the word ‘desirable’ in two ways…1) that people DO desire happiness and 2) that people SHOULD desire happiness . Therefore, it is too ambiguous as it could be used to claim that anything is good (e.g winning a football game may be desirable but isn’t good for everyone).

Question 22

The naturalistic fallacy

Answer 22

G.E Moore said that ‘good’ is a property that cannot be claimed to be equivalent to anything in nature. Pleasure is a natural property to humans. Moore claimed that ‘good’ however is not a natural property and can never be reduced to something natural.

NATURAL = DESIRABLE. (e.g just because a person gets pleasure from killing someone does not mean it is good?)

Question 23

The composition fallacy applied to mill

Answer 23

When one assumes what is true for some parts is true for the whole = Mill states that because happiness is desirable for individuals it must be desirable for humanity. But this doesn’t generally work. (e.g individual paper has different properties (desires) than a whole stack - it will be harder to bend, thus having different desires).// 3+7=10
- too generalisable

eg 3 (odd) + 7(odd) = 10 (even) Therefore the whole is not the same as its parts

Question 24

Mill’s test for higher pleasures (qualitative hedonistic util)

Answer 24

• ask someone who has had experienced BOTH pleasures adequately which of them they prefer.
• The one that is preferred by all or most is the HIGHER pleasure.
• If basic needs are already met, humans will choose pleasure of the mind/intellect.

Question 25

Examples of higher pleasure vs lower pleasure + definitions + quote

Answer 25

Higher -> involves pain, boredom and dissatisfaction but leads to greater quality of pleasure (e.g gym, pregnancy, work) = long term = Socrates

Lower -> does not involve pain, boredom or dissatisfaction but leads to a low quality of pleasure (e.g watching tiktok, fast food and drugs/alcohol) = short term = Pig

“It’s better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a big satisfied”

BoredomPainDissatisfication

Question 26

Who is qualified to judge the comparative value of pleasure?

Answer 26

A competent judge -> someone who has experienced both

Question 27

Criticism of mills test for higher pleasures + mills response

Answer 27

1) Bentham- elitism
=Anyone can be a judge of morality; All people and their p[leasures are equally valid
- Higher pleasures seem to be the kinds of things that mill and other members of the British upper-class liked and could access and aford. and someone with less money might not have the opportunity to be a competent judge as they have not experienced both due to financial needs/less opportunities.

R = it is still OBJECTIVE - if you have not experienced both pleasures you can ask someone (competent judge) that has.

2) Pleasure is no longer the ultimate good
=If something can bring about less pleasure but be more valuable then we no longer seem to be maximising pleasure or treating pleasure as the ultimate good for humans.

R- more utility in the long run for humanity if people seek higher pleasures (e.g to have vaccines we need a pandemic)

Question 28

Smart’s objection to Bentham/ agree with Mill , that pleasure is not equal (non-hedonistic utilitarianism)

Answer 28

• Smart stated that if there is no consideration for the quality of pleasures then as it would be easier to keep sheep happy> humans, maybe we can maximize happiness by increasing the sheep population and keeping just a few humans around to tend to their needs.

= Bentham’s act utilitarianism claimed that all humans’ and animals’ happiness are equal. However, Smart objected this showing that humans are harder to keep happy than sheep when given the same treatment (e.g being fed, given space and kept safe). However, Smart noted that humans require more substantial needs to be kept happy (e.g entertainment). Therefore, the happiness of a sheep compared to a human cannot be equal as humans desire more complex happiness.

Question 29

Smarts’ objection to Bentham (using electrode generator idea)

Answer 29

• Smart proposed that pleasure is not the only goal for humans by using the idea of an electrode generator where a person could replicate all pleasures without experiencing them in reality.
  = even though it may be highly pleasurable we might view the life of an electrode operator as being wasted. This could show that humans value more than hedonism and might find more meaning in less pleasurable existence. ( can you have pleasure without pain? if pleasure was the only emotion being experience surely it loses its value?)

Question 30

Smart’s question on whether pleasure can in fact be negative

Answer 30

-There are three universes.
1)The first one has a content sentient (able to feel pain and pleasure) surrounded by unfeeling beings who are being torchered. The sentient is gaining pleasure from the idea of their pain, even if they cannot experience pain.

2)Secondly, a universe where there is no sentient thus, no pleasure or pain.

3) Or lastly, a sentient who is sad, surrounded by sad unfeeling beings who are being torchered.

= The question is, a utilitarianist would argue the first universe is morally correct as it is the choice which arises the most amount of happiness. However, is this happiness valid if it is gained immorally through the pleasure of pain? = intrinsically wrong

Question 31

Nozick’s experience machine (against Mills idea that pleasure is the only good)

Answer 31

= There is a decision to be made. You can either plug into a machine which will allow you to experience anything you wish, be as happy as you want to be, and feel no pain. However, when you plug in you will not be able to get back into reality and you will be unaware that you are in a machine experience. OR you can simply live in reality, full of pleasure but also pain ( therefore most likely less pleasure than other option) WWYD?

• It seems some people do not want pleasure at all other costs as they won’t plug in. Maybe people are motivated by other considerations, such as having genuine relationships, being in contact with reality, even if there is less pleasure in that.

Question 32

Define preference utilitarianism (non-hedonistic)

Answer 32

Preference utilitarianism argues that the morally right/good action is the action which as a consequence fulfils the greatest amount of interests of the greatest amount of people

Question 33

Does preference utilitarianism avoid the difficulties that Benthams felicific calculus face?

Answer 33

It may well be easier to measure the strength of a preference then to try and predict the quantity of pain/pleasure resulting from an action. In plenty of situations people are able to articulate their preferences and the strength of them.

Question 34

partiality meaning (preference utilitarianism)

Answer 34

If you have partiality you have a preference (being impartial suggests you do not have a preference)

Question 35

impartiality argument against partiality

Answer 35

• selfish to be partial (e.g chosing to give your mates money instead of paying for a dying childs medical bill)
• important with kids
• always focused on need

Question 36

partiality argument against impartiality

Answer 36

• intuitive
• impartiality for all is impossible (robotic = imagine if all parents had to be impartial with their children, and acre for all)
• being a friend means helping each other (choosing them over strangers = shows loyalty)
• max happiness in own area

Question 37

Williams’ concern that utilitarianism undermines an individual’s integrity

Answer 37

We tend to praise people who have integrity (honesty) and stand up for personal principles. The utilitarianist says that all that matters is the consequences of your action, even if the action in itself is something we really feel we should not be doing, or worse, an action that is abhorrent.

EXAMPLE:
-> A group of 20 innocent South American Indians have been chosen at random by the Captain to be killed as a warning to those who might also protest against the government. Jim, an explorer, is told by the Captain that if he kills one of the Indians, the other 19 will be spared. Otherwise, all 20 will be killed.

-> Hedonism: Jim should kill 1 (least amount of pain/most pleasure), should act without integrity, abandoning their identity as a decision-maker . Jim should act in a way that has nothing to do with who he is – simply as utility calculators.

-> People shouldn’t act like this, it is important that people act with integrity.

Question 38

How could a utilitarian argue that a person can keep their integrity and follow utilitarian principles? ( response to williams)

Answer 38

• having integrity has utility = can be a component of pleasure
• standing by ones principles would not outweigh the pain/pleasure of others in a scenario

Question 39

If an assassin tries to kill someone but misses (and the target is unaware) is the act morally neutral? (Issue with act)

Answer 39

• most would argue that no, he is still immoral as it was his INTENT kill
• However, an act utilitarianist would argue that yes, it is morally netural as no pleasure or pain was caused (possibly only guilt)

Question 40

What does it mean for a utilitarian theory to be non-hedonistic? (3 marks)

Answer 40

= In general utilitarian’s base ethical decisions on maximising utility (or benefit). A non-hedonistic utilitarian would claim that it is not pleasure that should be maximised, but instead something other than pleasure, such as maximising the satisfaction of preferences of all morally interested parties.

Question 41

The three moral theories

Answer 41

NORMATIVE THEORIES:
- Utilitarianism
- Kantian deontology
- Aristotelian virtue ethics
= Explore what makes for morally good and bad behaviour

APPLIED ETHICS:
- stealing
- eating meat
- stimulated killing
- telling lies
= specific dilemmas

META-ETHICS:
- moral realism
-moral anti realism
= Focus on moral discussions itself (ie do moral words have meaning)