Utilitarianism

an action is right if it produces the most amount of happiness for those who are affected by it. The action is wrong if there is another action which could be done which would produce more happiness.

consequentialist - rightness or wrongness of an action depends only on its consequences

hedonistic - happiness is the chief good

egalitarian - a belief in equality

It holds that happiness is the chief good. For Bentham, the only thing which is unqualifiedly good is happiness. That means if something is good and not happiness (eg the beauty of something is only good if it leads to happiness) - it is only good in a conditional sense - on the condition that it produces happiness

• pleasure

• the absence of pain

Naturalistic: determined by our biology meaning that everything we do is to avoid pain and gain pleasure.

Bentham’s hedonism is naturalistic because he believes that humans are 1. motivated by pain and pleasure 2. should be motivated by pain and pleasure

an action is right if it maximises happiness

the property in any object whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all this in the present comes to the same thing)

An action is right if it beneficial in the sense that it produces happiness. If something produces more happiness for you, then it is in your interest

Utility - an object’s tendency to produce happiness

a belief in equality - that people should be treated fairly meaning that they have the same opportunities

No one’s happiness should count for more than anyone else’s - everyone’s happiness is worth the same. Eg. the fact that action X produces the same amount of happiness for a brain surgeon as action Y does for an unemployed person, does not make action X better than action Y. If both actions produce the same quantity of happiness, then they are equally moral

It implies that we should apply the utility principle whenever we want to know what the right action is to do - we should apply the utility principle for each possible moral action

Devised by Bentham to determine the quantity of happiness an action produces

1. intensity - the strength of the happiness

2. duration - how long the happiness lasts for

3. certainty - how likely it is for happiness to be produced

4. remoteness

5. fecundity - the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind

6. purity - the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind (ie unhappiness)

7. extent

Bentham’s hedonism is purely quantitive meaning that it only measures the degree of happiness, whilst Mill’s hedonism is quantitive and also qualitative as it also measures the kind of happiness produced. Mill’s hedonism states that there are some pleasures of a higher quality - meaning they are more morally valuable. These are intellectual pleasures that exercise the advanced capacities and faculties of the mind. Mill believed that bodily pleasures were of a lower quality and moral value.

competent judges - those who have experienced and observed both pleasures. The value of a pleasure should not be constituted by the judge’s preference, it should be evidential.

Humans have sophisticated minds and can experience intellectual pleasures as well as bodily ones

No human would want to be an animal and no intelligent person would want to be a fool

‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’

This means Mill believes that you could have an unhappy intelligent person, but at least they have the potential to experience intellectual pleasures, whilst a happy fool can never experience intellectual pleasures

• this is a fallacious ad hominem argument that criticises Mill, rather than his argument

• Mill’s egalitarianism means that everyone should have the opportunity to a good education and no one should be incapable of enjoying intellectual pleasures

Even if it is the case that we should distinguish between higher and lower pleasures, Mill hasn’t given good reasons for believing that the higher pleasures are intellectual. Does it really follow from the supposed fact that only humans have intellects that intellectual pleasures are higher pleasures? Mill makes a speciesist argument - his basis of morality is based on the fact that intellect is only something that humans have.

• it is possible for a non intellectual person to be morally better than an intellectual person

• According to Mill’s philosophy, helping poor people who are starving is morally inferior to helping the rich who want a new opera house as food is a bodily pleasure so morally lower according to Mill, whilst opera is an intellectual pleasure so morally higher according to Mill.

• Mill’s comparison of humans and pigs wrongly implies that it would be more morally worthy to do without all bodily pleasures for the sake of any intellectual pleasure. But it wouldn’t be more morally worthy for any human to sacrifice all bodily pleasures for an intellectual ones. It wouldn’t be more moral for a thirsty person to read philosophy than to drink water. Though perhaps Mill would say that in the circumstances of someone being very thirsty, no pleasure would be created by giving that person philosophy so you should give them water.

Mill accepts that ultimate ends aren’t open to proof so his proof isn’t deductively valid, but it is an argument from experience which shows that the principle is worthy of assent

1. questions about ends are questions about what is desirable

2. Just as the only proof that an object is visible is that people actually see it, the only proof that something is desirable is that people actually desire it evidence - desiring something is only evidence of its desirability - empirical

3. People actually desire their own happiness. Happiness is the only thing that is desirable as an end in itself. All other desirable things are desirable as a means to the end of happiness empirical evidence shows that happiness is the only thing desirable in and of itself

4. The fact that each person desires his own happiness is a reason to believe that the general happiness is desirable

5. Therefore, each person’s happiness is a good and the general happiness is good for all (argument only stands if you are not egoistic)

The link between desiring happiness and happiness being an end in itself (an ultimate good) is open to question:

• if something is desirable, we may say it is ‘good’, but not everything we desire is necessarily morally good eg. some humands desire to steal. Happiness could be desirable without being normatively desirable

Mill tries to define ‘good’ in terms of natural properties such as desire when it cannot be defined naturalistically (or at all). Moore’s ‘open question argument’ says that you can always ask of a naturalistic object (e.g. desire), in terms of which ‘good’ is supposedly defined, whether it (the desire) is good. The point being that it is not a foregone conclusion that all desires are good. You would need to know more about the desire to know whether or not it is good - we desire bad things

eg. her hand is red - red and hand don’t mean the same thing

• why should we accept that the general happiness is good for all on the basis that each individual’s happiness is good for that individual

• mill is guilty of the fallacy of composition -arguing that somethiong is good for a collective because it is true of each of the members of the collective

• eg. just because something applies to each individual it doesnt mean it applies to the group as a whole eg. we have a group of three large people therefore we have a large group

• mill is clear that no one’s happiness is more valuable than anyone else’s - the desirability of happiness is not restricted to one’s own happiness

• happiness is desirable regardless of whose it is

• mill is anti-egoistic

• machine that would simulate any experience you desired, so you think you are actually experiencing it whilst you are in reality in a vegetative state

• if hedonists were right in claiming that our ultimate goal is to maximise pain and pleasure, then we would enter the machine and create an experience that would give us maximum happiness

• but most of us wouldn’t do that

• virtual reality - can simulate experiences - we don’t choose to live like that

• The example is intended to show that what matters to us is not that we feel happy as if we were with our friends but that we feel happy because we really are with our friends.  This is a criticism of classical hedonistic utilitarianism because it undermines the idea that happiness is the chief good.  What we desire is not to feel happy but actually to do and achieve the things which tend to bring us happiness.

• relates right action not to happiness, but to the satisfaction of our preferences

• the right thing to do is not to maximise happiness, but well-being - to satisfy as many of our preferences or desires to the greatest extent

• Your preference to be with your friends is not satisfied if you merely have the nice feelings that you tend to have when you are with your friends. It is satisfied only if you are actually with your friends.

Consider an example suggested by Derek Parfit: an Altruistic Drug Pusher makes people addicted to a certain drug because he knows that he will be able to satisfy their intense desire for the drug, which he will supply at no cost for the rest of their lives. The drug brings no pleasure at all, but also does no harm, as long as the desire for it can be met soon after it begins. According to preference utilitarianism the Altruistic Drug Pusher is benefiting the people he has addicted, but who would want to be benefited in that way?

• Or perhaps you now want revenge on someone who you believe has deliberately cheated you, but if you were fully informed, you would know that your belief is false, and this person’s actions have been misrepresented to you. Assume that you will never discover your mistake, and so if you harm him, you will never regret having done so. If you succeed in harming him, does that make you better off, because your desire has been satisfied?

• response about informed desires

• BUT no respect for people’s choices eg. Maria the religious believer

• wants us to work out whether a particular action in a particular situation maximises happiness. An action which does do that is morally right

• If my neighbour asks me what I think of his new car, should I tell him it is ugly? The act utilitarian will ask: will telling him it is ugly maximise happiness or not? Act utilitarianism is a direct form of utilitarianism – moral decision-making makes direct use of the utility principle.

•  want us to follow an authoritative set of rules which are authoritative because actions in accordance with these rules tend to maximise happiness.  It is because, for example, the rule ‘tell the truth’ tends to raise rather than lower the general happiness that it is an authoritative rule.  Actions which follow these authoritative rules are morally right.  Usually, there is one set of rules for all the people in one society.    The thought being that the most effective way of increasing general happiness is if the general population follows these rules.

• If my neighbour asks me what I think of his new car, should I tell him it is ugly?

• The rule utilitarian will ask: will telling him that it is ugly be most in keeping with the relevant socially accepted moral rule(s)? Perhaps the most relevant rule here is ‘tell the truth’.  The rule utilitarian says this is a rule because past experience shows that happiness tends to be maximised when people tell the truth and do not lie.  Rule utilitarianism is an indirect form of utilitarianism – moral-decision-making makes only indirect use of the utility principle and direct use of moral rules.

• An advantage of rule utilitarianism is that if most people in a society most of the time follow broadly the same set of rules then there is likely to be more coordination.  Act utilitarianism arguably leads to less coordination because everyone is applying the utility principle themselves.  

strong - you should always follow the accepted rules, even if following a rule does not maximise pleasure in a particular occasion

weak - generally follow the rules, but it is fine to break them if that will maximise pleasure

• culturally relativistic - the rules that need to be followed to raise the general happiness in once society may have to differ from those in another society

• strong rule - more deontological than consequentialist

• weak rule - basically act

• Henry West argues that Mill thought that rule utilitarianism was appropriate in some situations (where observing the rules is necessary for general security) and act utilitarianism in others (where there are no moral rules).

• amounts to ‘rule worship’

• point of the rules is to bring about the greatest happiness

• if there is a situation where breaking a rule will lead to more happiness, then what reason do we have for following that rule eg. lying in a particular situation will cause more happiness - it seems pointless to tell the truth if my aim is to max happiness

• whole point of rule is to bring about happiness so there should be an exception to this rule - best course of action from here is for some people to break the rule sometimes when the rule will not lead to maximum happiness

• rule utilitarians could respond by saying we should allow the rule to become the exception in some cases eg. ‘don’t lie’ becomes ‘don’t lie unless telling the truth will hurt someone’s feelings’

• if we keep amending the rules like this then there would be no difference between what an act utilitarian would recommend and a rule utilitarian

• furthermore if we add up all the possible amendments to the rules in order for us to make acting on them maximise happiness, we would end up with just one rule: maximise the greatest happiness

• because there are countless situations in which breaking a rule might lead to greater happiness than following it, no other rule can be certain of maximising happiness

• rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism

Henry West argues that Mill thought that rule utilitarianism was appropriate in some situations (where observing the rules is necessary for general security) and act utilitarianism in others (where there are no moral rules).

• even when following the rules doesn’t max happiness it is still a better theory than act utilitarianism

• 1. morality should be understood as a set of rules - needs to provide guidance over the long term so rather than considering actions individually we need to take in the bigger picture when thinking about right and wrong. since we are to have rules, the aim of these rules should be to max happiness. so actions are right when they follow a rule that maximises happiness overall, even if it doesn’t in a particualr situation

• we don’t need to work out the consequences of each action in turn to see if it is right

• only need to work out which rules cause the greatest happiness, we only need to do this once together

• this is what mill says human beings have done over time, giving us customary moral rules eg. thanking people

• rule utilitarianism gives rules a formal place in the theory of whether an action is right

• rule forbidding eg. torture of children will clearly cause more happiness if followed. So it is wrong to torture children.

• This shows that rule utilitarianism allows for people to have rights (rules), because if people have to follow these rules that leads to the greatest happiness. Rules requiring fairness and justice will produce greater happiness in the long run, and these constraints will prevent the tyranny of the majority

• rule that allows partiality will create more happiness

• moral importance of partial relationships

• still need to consider the general happiness

• eg. in the case of charity you would only need to give as much to charity as would be a ‘fair share’ of the amount needed to help others

• combination respects demands of morality and our natural inclinations

• integrity response similar

• integrity - eg. someone find meaning in life by making money by any means possible without constraints

• still faces the issue of is pleasure the only good?

• can all morality be summed up by rules? isn’t life too complicated? then we would need a diff theory to explain what thre right thing to do is when no rules apply.. rule utilitarian might respond by saying one of the rules is ‘when no other rules reply do that action which maximises happiness’

• rights - not an inherent thing, still no respect for them, only respected in light of the fact that they maximise happiness

• values utility over justice and rights

• eg. you could treat two people unfairly eg. pay a man and a woman differently for doing the same job if it maxes happiness

• It treats liberty and freedom-protecting rights as more conditional on the consequences than most of us think they are. For example, it would be right to violate a tramp’s right to life if killing him pleased the killer and no one else were to find out about the killing. A judge could ignore a woman’s right to a fair trial and send her to prison for life if that would maximise happiness. But aren’t rights generally to be respected regardless of whether doing so negatively affects social utility?

It can lead to ‘tyranny of the majority’.  Like democracy, utilitarianism can result in majorities in society having most or all power and minorities having little or none. More generally, utilitarianism implies that it can be morally right to sacrifice the interests of an individual or minority for the sake of the happiness of the wider community.  Mill himself suggests that we need rights in order to constrain majority decision-making in certain ways.  But that suggestion does not seem to be consistent with utilitarianism, which would support the tyranny of the majority if that was how happiness could be maximised

cannot say something eg. rape is wrong irrespective of the consequences

Regarding killing the tramp: The utilitarian would have to acknowledge that killing the tramp is right if the situation is as described. However, that that conclusion conflicts with our ordinary moral views does not mean that it is wrong: our ordinary moral thinking might need adjusting. But the utilitarian might also reply that there are not many, if any, killers who get pleasure from killing tramps who would not be missed if they were killed. This set of circumstances is far-fetched.

• (1) Utilitarian calculations are impossible at worst and highly imprecise at best. We cannot know all the consequences of our actions, especially when they can have an effect far into the future. (2) What makes it particularly difficult is that we are being asked to predict something as imprecise as how our action will affect other people’s happiness. Jack and Jill cannot really predict that their friendship either definitely will or definitely will not develop into love if they go on holiday together. (3) Moreover, our predictions can quite easily be mistaken given that we are all biased to some extent about what makes people happy or unhappy.

• The calculations may be difficult, but maximum happiness might still be the criterion of a right action.

  -Often we have to consider the happiness of only a small number of people who are directly affected by the action; and because it will have little or no effect on those who are not directly affected by it, they can be ignored.

• impractical when we have to act relatively quickly sometimes

• -Mill: we have inherited from previous generations plenty of knowledge about what raises or lowers happiness and so many of the calculations have already been made for us by our ancestors.

  -If rule utilitarianism is true, then making many moral decisions may not take much time, because often all we will be doing is recalling and applying established rules.

• too demanding

• Its strong egalitarianism means that we should be utterly impartial: you should not treat the happiness of a friend or family member as any more important than that of a stranger because it does not matter who is experiencing the happiness when you make the utilitarian calculation. But personal interests and relationships are a key component of a good human life, and you would be lacking something fundamental if there were none of these types of attachments in your life. Such attachments give our lives meaning and they are part of our identity. There must be something wrong with a theory if it requires you to treat the happiness of your friend as no more important than the happiness of a person you do not know. Partiality is part and parcel of friendship.

  (b) The theory implies that we should never have any time off from maximising happiness. You could not read a book because there is always something else you could do to maximise happiness.

• eg. saving your drowning child vs a stranger

a) We value moral integrity - here that means being true to one’s character and what one values or is committed to.  One problem with utilitarianism is that it might demand an action which goes against one of my firmly held values or strong commitments or fundamental projects.  At its worst, it demands that I do something that I firmly believe to be wrong.  The criticism comes from Bernard Williams, and this is his example.    

Imagine George, who has just completed his PhD in Chemistry and is looking for a job.  He isn’t having much luck, and with only his wife working and small children to look after, the situation is causing a lot of stress  This is having a damaging effect on everyone, but especially the children.  An older chemist says he can get George a job in a laboratory that does research developing chemical weapons.  George is strongly opposed to chemical warfare and so wants to refuse the job.  But his colleague points out that refusing the job will simply leave the vacancy for someone else, someone who will pursue the research with enthusiasm and so develop more chemical weapons faster and more effectively than George will…  (p237, yellow textbook)

Utilitarianism suggests that George should take the job. Williams is arguing that George cannot simply ignore his commitment against chemical warfare, an identity-forming commitment that helps make him the person he is, on the grounds that ignoring it might lead to more happiness. It would be to insist that George should act without integrity. Any deep commitment or fundamental project in our lives might have to be abandoned if we were to follow utilitarianism. It’s saying that utilitarianism leads someone to make a decision that they deem wrong, thus losing their integrity.

act: respond that integrity is central to happiness, doesn’t maximise happiness to require people to act against their integrity. SUrely though, this is not the case in this situation where multiple lives would be saved and his family’s happiness would be maximised so a much greater sum of pain would be avoided if George takes the job at the cost of only his own happiness