Utilitarianism

key info

- Utilitarianism is presented in the Trolley Problem (Philippa Foot) - should you switch the tracks in order to save five people at the expense of one? - Devised by Jeremy Bentham (1758-1832) - known as act utilitarianism. - Developed by John Stuart Mill - known as rule utilitarianism. - Is a teleological, consequential (outcomes, not will or intention), relativist (dependent on the situation) ethical theory. What is good / bad depends solely on the consequences of our actions. Actions have no intrinsic value. - A principle of utility is a measure of usefulness, fittingness for purpose of a particular action. The principle of utility for utilitarianism is 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'. - Hedonistic ethical theory: pleasure or happiness should be equated with good. Pleasure is the ultimate good in life.

Development of Utilitarianism

- first proposed by Bentham in the 18th century and refined by Mill in the 19th century, will Mill's book Utilitarianism (1863) being the most complete statement of the theory. - later ethicists added to the theory and refined the ideas that were present in Bentham's and Mills work - one of the most important was Henry Sidgwick (1837-1901) who published Methods In Ethics (1874) in the year after Mills death - Sidgwick argued for utilitarianism but addressed several flaws in the ideas of Bentham and Mill, including the question of why a person should sacrifice themselves for the sake of society (universalistic hedonism) rather than selfishly seek happiness for themselves or for people they personally care about (psychological hedonism) - Sidgwick adapts Immanuel Kants ethical theory and combines it with utilitarianism. He proposes that since we have no choice about who we are in society (we didnt choose our parents,race,social-class,gender etc) it is rational to prefer a society where everybody's happiness is maximised, not just the happiness of a particular group ^^ this makes universalistic hedonism the best principle of utility and explains why it is rational to sacrifice your own life and happiness for the sake of strangers such as a soldier defending his country in war

pros of results based ethics

- it seems sensible to base ethics on producing happiness and reducing unhappiness - it seems sensible to base ethics on consequences of what we do, since we usually take decisions about what to do by considering what results would be produced - it seems easy to understand as is based on common sense - it is flexible and can take account of any set circumstances, however exceptional

Strengths of Act Utilitarianism

- its pragmatic and focuses on the consequences of an action - for many people 'happiness' is an important part of decision making as it is their main aim in life - theory treats everyone equally regardless of emotional or social attachments - simple to follow the principle of utility; its straightforward - Bentham provided humas with a way to measure happiness through the hedonic calculus - its democratic; greatest good for the greatest number applies to majority of people - consequentialism is natural: we all think of the outcomes when we decide what to do - focuses on human nature: pleasure as everyone wants pleasure and to be happy - maximising happiness and minimising pain is how most people live their lives - act utilitarian's might agree that there are 'rules of thumb' that are the correct course of action most of the time; keeping promises is usually the right thing to do. however, they would break these rules in a heartbeat, and feel no guilt about it, if a particular promise would have bad consequences such as promising to protect the identity of a murderer It has method in its application of the of the hedonic calculus. It is a morally academic approach that seeks the fairest result. The calculus is thorough in its consideration of measuring aspects of pleasure. Democratic - Greatest good for the greatest number applies to majority of people Consequentialism is natural - We all think of the outcomes when we decide what to do Secular - Utilitarianism doesn't rely on specific beliefs about God. In the modern, multicultural society with a range of religious beliefs and a growing number of atheists, a secular theory is most useful It works - If Utilitarianism is properly applied, it works. People criticise it by describing negative consequences of Utilitarianism. However, if there are negative consequences, that just means the theory hasn't been properly applied. 1 . Easy to use - clear criteria and offers a systematic approach to ethics. 2. Utilitarianism cannot be faulted on its morals as it clearly seeks the happiness and fairness for the largest number of people, which has always been an important consideration in the works of government and other major powers, as well as in everyone's everyday life. 3. Designed for global politics unlike Kantian ethics. Also, it considers the consequences of all actions, which is key in building a civilized society. If people were not aware of consequences then there would be no deterrent to commit crime. 4. Also, it encourages a democratic approach to decision making, and minorities are not allowed to dominate. 5. It does not rely on any controversial or unverifiable theological or metaphysical claims or principals, so it is accessible to everyone.

Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism

- utilitarianism seeks to predict the consequences of an action which is impossible and uncertain - some claim Bentham committed the 'naturalistic fallacy' of deriving an ought to an is - utilitarianism fails to identify that we have certain duties or obligations to others - happiness and pleasure is subjective. whereas someone may find happiness in a cake another may find it in murder - using the hedonic calculus is impractical and subjective - calculus does not prioritise or rank aspects of pleasure and so can lead to confusion - punishes minority: minority view is not taken into account and they are sacrificed for the greater good - allows cruel or sadistic pleasures as long as it out weight the pain e.g. if then sadists torture one child their pleasure outweighs the pain of the child making the action right in an act utilitarian eyes - too simplistic: one principle isn't sufficient enough for all the complex ethical decisions out there - doesn't consider motives or intentions - happiness is subjective e.g. Vardy says some would be willing to suffer to lose weight whilst others wouldn't - cannot predict the future -lead to the 'wrong answers' e.g. act utilitarianism seems to approve the executing of an innocent man if this satisfies a mob of rioters or deters other criminals; it seems to approve of doctors killing a healthy patient to use the organs to save several other patient - criticised for undermining trust in society: in a society where everyone was a act utilitarian, promises would have no value and you would never know if anyone was telling you the truth or treating u fairly, because everyone including oneself might turn around and behave antisocially if the calculated this would maximise overall happiness 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. . 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. Wrong - Utilitarianism is just wrong about ethics. Eg. a group of policemen passed around photos of an abused woman for their own enjoyment. When it was exposed, the consequences were very bad. But would it have been right if no one else found out? It wasn't the bad consequences that made it wrong, it was the act itself. It is not clear how the hedonic calculus resolves the problem of assessing the quantity of pleasure. For example, how is it possible to quantify and compare intensity of pleasure with duration of pleasure? Listing elements of pleasure does not resolve the problem of quantifying the pleasure. The calculus does not prioritise or rank aspects of pleasure and so can lead to confusion. Bentham's hedonic calculus could justify immoral acts such as the case of the sadistic guards or gang ****. Can't predict outcomes how do we know what will happen? What if we do a bad thing for a good outcome that doesn't happen? Difficult to calculate - is it really practical to use a 7 stage hedonic calculus? Punishes minority - minority view is not taken into account and they are sacrificed for the greater good Bernard williams - he disagrees with the principle of utility as he argues that we should never be able to justify killing an innocent life as the most 'moral action' in the situation. He uses the example of the man travelling in south America who is asked to kill one person, or all 19 prisoners will be killed. He criticises utilitarianism as it justifies the killing of an innocent life to save the rest and this should never be justified . Difficult to predict consequences e.g. if you plan to hit someone you might predict that they will be upset because 99.9% of the time this is the result however, what if the person turns out to enjoy it and get pleasure out of pain - all you consequences are wrong! 2.Utilitarianism is a demanding theory as something as simple as buying an ice-cream can be deemed immoral because you know that the money could be spent elsewhere in order to get the greatest good for the greatest number. 3. Some critics argue it is too impartial - if a house was on fire and you could only save your mother or the world's best sergeant you would according to the PoU (principle of utility) have to save the sergeant. No room for emotions. John Rawls advocates this criticisms pointing out that it could support a more dictatorial society just because it produces the greatest amount of pleasure. 4.Utilitarianism is subjective - what is moral for one person isn't the same for another implying that no such universal law system can exist. 5. Utilitarianism implies that everyone has a moral faculty (awareness that gives us a sense of moral judgement) and not everyone has this young kids, disables persons etc. This alienates people from the theory. 6.Bentham and Mill both commit a naturalistic fallacy according to G.E.Moore, just because something is desirable and produces a lot of pleasure does not imply that we ought to pursue that action.

Impact of Utilitarianism on political and social reform

1800s: prison reform (better conditions, rehabilitation), Factory Acts (banning children from working), medical practice, abolition of slavery 1833. 20th / 21st centuries: abortion, euthanasia, smoking in public places, death penalty. Utilitarianism provided an important philosophy behind many changes in society that helped address the pain and suffering that was brought about by the Industrial Revolution. It brought in social change through its emphasis on the importance of the majority of the people - people living in urban slums and working in factories - rather than the wealthy minority who were landowners and factory owners. Change also came about through utilitarianism's focus on making life more pleasurable and enjoyable - slaves, prisoners, the poor were recognised as needing to be happing if society were to be moral. This went against the dominant Christian view of the time that poverty was the will of God and therefore shouldn't be changed. Denied that suffering was for a greater purpose.

distinction between happiness and pleasure

Bentham uses the phrases 'pleasure' and 'happiness' interchangeably, but later utilitarian's made a distinction between the two concepts pleasure suggests a physical wellbeing that is immediate and unreflective - e.g. a nice meal happiness is a more long lasting state of affairs and a more reflective one - e.g. a relationship later utilitarian's like John Stuart Mill moved away from Bentham's analysis and argued that the important thing was to give people a life with a sort of overall positive quality to it - happiness - rather then to offer them short lived pleasures or spare them short term pains mill famously illustrates this comparison between philosopher who strives for happiness and a pig who lives for pleasure: 'It is between to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than fool satisfied - John Stuart mill 1863 Mill emphasises the QUALITY of happiness as well as the QUANITY; he argues that there are HIGHER PLEASURES, such as appreciating art, becoming educated which are more valuable than LOWER PLEASURES such as idle entertainment, casual relationships and taking drugs mill argues that satisfaction 'of the intellect, of feeling and imagination, and of moral sentiments' are amongst the higher pleasures. ^ in philosophical terms, mill moves away from hedonism and towards a EUDAMONISTIC ethical theory - eudemonia is the Greek work for happiness

Social and intellectual background

Great scientific and social change happening during the late 1700s / early 1800s. The Enlightenment - was a cultural and intellectual movement in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Some of its key thinkers, John Locke and David Hume, influence Bentham. Both were empiricists which meant they focused on information that was available from the world, rather than what we can know through logic alone to divine revelation. This is reflected in Bentham's focus on empirical human experience and deducing from human behaviour that humans work to achieve happiness. Locke also influenced Bentham on his view that reason was more important than custom and tradition. This can be seen in Bentham's rejection of Christian ethics and traditions. Political revolutions in France and America = demand for democracy and human rights. Industrial revolution in Britain led to poor working and living conditions for many - homelessness, child labour, slum prisons etc. The industrial revolution created great economic development but caused many social problems, e.g. bad working conditions, long hours. There were also problems with alcoholism and prostitution. Bentham's utilitarianism met the needs of working people and improved their lives.

Mill's Rule Utilitarianism

Higher / lower pleasures: Many criticised Bentham's utilitarianism for being impractical and too quantitative (cannot reduce human emotion to a calculus). Mill criticised Bentham by saying his definition of "pleasure" failed to recognise higher levels of human experience. Said happiness was much more complex than what Bentham was making out (we have "more than animal desires"). Mill distinguished between higher and lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are pleasures which help people reach their full intellectual potential, such as art, literature and philosophy. Lower pleasures are pleasures which help people fulfil their basic needs and urges, e.g. sex and drink. Mill states the test for determining whether a pleasure is of a higher quality than another as follow: Pleasure P1 is more desirable than pleasure P2 if: all or almost all people who have had experience of both give a decided preference to P1, irrespective of any feeling that they ought to prefer it. Criticisms of Mill's higher / lower pleasures: •Idealistic to suppose that people will always choose going to the opera over a bucket of chicken •Lower pleasures are far easier to satisfy •Those who are intellectually refined and possess an idealistic temperament are often always the ones who are most likely to succumb to depression •Is it not better to have only those desires which are most easily fulfilled? Mill responds to these criticisms by saying there is a difference between contentment and happiness. They may be less content but they're still happier because they know of a greater happiness which is unavailable to those who are only satisfied by the lower pleasures: 'It is better being a human being unsatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig think otherwise, that is because they know only their own side of the question.' Rule Utilitarianism: Mill said that humans have worked out through trial and error the actions that lead best to human happiness, which are promoted through moral rules. He rejected Bentham's utility calculus. E.g. lying or hitting others nearly always causes unhappiness, therefore we develop the rules 'do not lie' and 'do not hit'. Therefore our actions should be guided by rules that, if everyone followed, would lead to the greatest overall happiness. Strong (rules can never be changed) vs. weak (rules can sometimes be ignored) rule utilitarianism. To ensure those making up the rules did not exercise undue power over the minority, Mill came up with the harm principle.

Ideal Utilitarianism - similar to rule

It is a utilitarian theory that denies the sole object of moral concern is the maximising of pleasure or happiness g.e mores' version of ideal utilitarianism in principa ethica 1903, it is aesthetic experiences and relations of friendships that have intrinsic value and therefore ought to be sought and promoted he argued that 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 3 things that have intrinsic disvalue and should be shunned and prevented. Instead we should act in a way that produces outcomes which are intrinsically good and pure in themselves. some utlitiranisns criticised the idea that utility is the same as pleasure or hedonism, G.E Moore points out that there are malicious pleasures, like spite. Moore proposes that there are non-hedonic goods: things other than pleasure that give value to actions. These are: - friendship - aesthetic enjoyment - acquiring knowledge a utilitarian like Bentham would reply that these experiences are instrumentally good (friendship makes us happy as does art) but Moore argues that these experiences are a different sort of thing from pleasure because they depend on the object of your experience actually existing - friendship can be faked = for Bentham there is no different between the pleasure you get from true friendship or merely believing you have a friend, even though that person secretly despises you or is not what they seem, For MOORE, true friendship has a value of its own - aesthetic enjoyment can be mistaken if your admiring a fake work of art = again this makes no difference on Bentham's view, but Moore argues that it matters that you are enjoying a real mona lisa in the louvre in paris, not a fake printed copy - acquiring knowledge can also be deluded such as fake news on the internet or propaganda from governments. for Bentham believing in comforting lies is better than learning unpleasant truths , but more argues that learning the truth about things has value even if it makes you un happy Strengths: its more specific than classical utilitarianism which judges on pleasure and happiness doesn't justify actions preferred by a majority but what the individual thinks not just based on pleasure its based on value more difficult to manipulate or corrupt the theory eg murder would result in pain and hatred it makes a distinction between real versus delusional pleasures as some people live in a 'fools paradise' so its better if they know the truth about their situation e.g. a person may be ignorant that their partner is cheating IDEAL utilitarianism says its better to know the truth- theory also arguyes that its better to experience things for yourself weaknesses = this is subjective because different people will consider different things as having intrinsic value this theory can also be egoistic and selfish as something personal to yourself will have more intrinsic value than something else outdated theory 1903 value changes depending on the reason dont always get value from friendship whiel the value of pleasure is agreed by everyone, the value of non hedonic goods is much more subjective. Not everyone enjoys art and some people dont seem to need friends in their life the central appeal to utilitarianism is that it reduces ethical decision making to a simple calculation about pleasure, but ideal utilitarianism leads to much more complicated decisions involving unclear list of competing goods however, Ideal utilitarianism can be combined with negative utilitarianism. Negative Ideal Utilitarianism argues that, rather than promote friendships, beauty, knowledge and truth, we should work to reduce or remove hatred, ugliness and ignorance/lie. This is a bit easier to define than normal Ideal utilitarianism and it also forms a counter argument to smart's "benevolent world exploder" who would remove all suffering by killing the human race: this mass killing would not remove ugliness/ignorance and would probably increase it

What is the theory of Utilitarianism?

It is the doctrine (proposed and founded by Jeremy Bentham) that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct. This is known as the principle of utility The theory of Utilitarianism is based on the concept/ principle of utility - meaning usefulness. Utilitarianism thus is a system of morality concerned with what is the most useful thing to do. Utilitarianism however is difficult to define as a single theory as it is more of a family of theories with different variants. Different Utilitarian approaches to morality have emerged each with their own theory of good and community of concerning individuals. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist, normative ethical theory based on the principle of utility which states in doing the greatest good for the greatest number.

compatibility with religious approaches

JB and J.S MILL were hostile to religious morality Bentham argues that an all loving God, if he existed, would surely be a utilitarian ( he would want to make all his creatures as happy as possible ) but since there is excessive suffering in the world, this shows that there is something wrong with the concept of god in Christianity BUT Bentham's conclusion is not the only option = its possible that the coexistence of suffering and a loving god shows that there is something wrong with utilitarianism despite this there are clear connection between utilitarianism and religious ethics. Loving someone involves promoting their happiness and Christianity urges this: "love your neighbour as you love yourself" - Matthew 22:39 "do to others what you would have them do to you" - Matthew 7:12 ^^these sentiments resemble utilitarianisms principle of counting other peoples happiness as equal to your own HOWEVER, Christian ethics also have a focus on THE SANCITY OF LIFE, with each's person's life having infinite value --- this does not allow the sort of trade offs that utilitarianism can make for example , in the TROLLY PROBLEM a utilitarian calculates that 5 lives are with more than the happiness of one, but a Christian might believe that one persons life to be on infinite value and therefore is wrong to kill the person, even in order to save other people . religions like Christianity also recognise some lives as having special moral value, such as the poor or innocent children -- a utilitarian migh see little difference between adding to the happiness of a beggar or a wealthy person, but for a Christian the beggars happiness is more important than the wealthy persons. religious ethics also stresses the motives of the moral agent . for a utilitarian motives are unimportant and only consequences matter, but for a religious believer, god sees and judges you for your motives: "what good will be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" - Matthew 16:26 from a religious perspective, thought and feelings cant be evil even if you never act on them: '' anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" - Matthew 5:58 whereas for a utilitarian thoughts that never get acted upon don't matter since they don't actually contribute to making anyone happy or sad: because of these differences, religious ethics usually oppose utilitarianism and support deontology, natural moral law and virtue ethics

Negative Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham argued, that when faced with a choice, a utilitarian should reduce pain first then try to increase pleasure eg feeding a starving man (reduces pain of hunger) takes priority over throwing a birthday party for a friend (increasing pleasure) this makes sense as rule of thumb: a moral person will try to help someone in distress before maing the lufe of an already happy person happier KARL POPPER (1902-1994) goes beyond this, arguing that reducing unhappiness should always be the sole focus for a utilitarian and that adding to happiness is unimportant ---- This is NEGATIVE UTILITIRANISM '' it adds to the clarity of ethics if we formulate our demands negatively. I.e if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness''-- KARL POPPER (1952) the term negative utilitarianism was coined by sir karl popper. The concept ot negative utilotaranism was foreshadowed earlier in the works of edmun gurney 1847-88 it has obvious affinity with Buddhism in the sense that the aim of this theory is to produce the least amount of suffering for the greatest number of people. We should therefore act to minimise suffering rather than maximise pleasure. Popper states ''in my opinion...human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who I doing well anyway'' 1952 popper who was a fierce defender of democracy against communism and fascism, believes that utilitarianism supports a 'benign dictator" - who takes away peoples freedom in exchange for making them comfortable, wealthy and safe popper rejects the idea of living under a benign dictator, which is a strength of NU. according to NU, our moral duties extend to removing suffering, hunger and hardship, but we have no moral duty to make people happy: that's up to them to do for themselves popper users the term UTOPIANISM to describe the dangerous attempt by rulers to make people happy: "those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but hell" NINIAM SMART proposed a criticism of NU in a 1958 essay in reply to popper. he points out that a "benevolent word exploder" would have a duty to wipe out all humans, because this would wipe all suffering. it will also wipe out all happiness, but happiness is unimportant for NU ---- even without a "benevolent world exploder", it had been pointed that , if everyone were a negative utilitarian, the best action the human race could take would be to commit mass sucide one response to this criticism is to argue that NU should accept other utilities beside preventing suffering, such as NEGATIVE IDEAL UTILITRIANISM which also values friendship, beauty and knowledge, which would be lost if the human races were wiped out. NEGATIVE PREFRENCE UTILITRIANISM would oppose the world exploder because people are averse to dying strengths = tries to reduce suffering which inspiresothers to help reducing pain and suffering is logical as it results in greater happiness if someone is in pain reducing suffering results in happiness and pleasure weaknesses= could lead to mass euthanasia raises questions about what suffering is there is not always a solution for everyone's pain and suffering so it is subjective most people feel that its better to be happy than mediocre most people believe in trade off and are prepared to accept a certain amount of suffering in order to achieve some happiness such as going to the gym to lose weight or spending the weekend revising for good exam results --NU seems to suggest that suffering or boredom can never be justified by the happiness it produces later NU suggests that efforts to add to your own or other peoples happiness are not worthwhile

social political and cultural influences

Jeremy Bentham originally proposed utilitarianism as an attack on the radical idea of human rights - it was never intended to be a mere 'theory': it's always been an ethical viewpoint that demands to be put in action utilitarianism suggests that it is the job if the government to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number - this supports democracy, where the government is elected based on the wishes of the majority of voters utilitarianism is a radical idea - throughout most of human history, rulers have had little interest in doing things that made the majority of people happy. they were largely interested in making themselves happy. the idea posed by utilitarianism that happiness of everyone counts even a peasants counts for as much as the happiness of a lord was not obvious to everyone this is summed up by the american deceleration of independence: 'we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all mean are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservations of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness - thomas Jefferson 1776 utilitarianism was used in the 19th century to justify the abolition of slavery by increasing the happiness of former slaves and in the 2th century to support women's suffrage by increasing te happiness of women however it was also used to oppose these reforms warning that the resulting economic turmoil would make everyone, including former slaves more unhappy or that votes for women would ruin marriages ^in these debates , opposition to abolition and women's suffrage turned out to be mistaken but it shows how utilitarianism can be used to argue either side of most social issues and that calculations about future happiness or unhappiness are full of uncertainty which is why many campaigners prefer to couch their demands for change in terms of RIGHTS rather than utilitarianism the main influence of utilitarianism has been as a justification for punishment. in traditional ethics, punishment is RETRIBUTIVE because the offender deserves it. utilitarianism suggests that the aim of punishment should instead be to reduce further crimes this could be through: - deterrence: other people seeing the punishment, will be deterred from offending - protection: while the criminal is imprisoned, the rest of society is safer - reformation: the offender will be rehabilitated and will no longe carry out crimes retributive punishments focus on corporal punishments or capital punishments whereas utilitarian punishment prefers fines, rehabilitation and community service

JB and the hedonic calculus

Jeremy Bentham was an advocate of hedonism; the theory that the most useful thing to do and therefore the moral thing to do is the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. His Principle of Utility thus promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. Bentham composed a hedonic calculus as a tool for weighing up the consequential pleasure and pain of an action in order to be able to deduce the moral course of action. It attempts to quantify seven different variables of pleasure/pain: Certainty - How certain is it that there will be pain/pleasure? Duration - How long will the sensation last? Extent - How wide are its effects? Intensity - How intense is the resulting pain/pleasure? Remoteness - How near is the resulting pain/pleasure? Richness - Will it lead to further pleasure? Purity - How free from pain is it?

Jermey Bentham

Jeremy Bentham was an advocate of hedonism; the theory that the most useful thing to do and therefore the moral thing to do is the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. His Principle of Utility thus promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. Bentham composed a hedonic calculus as a tool for weighing up the consequential pleasure and pain of an action in order to be able to deduce the moral course of action. It attempts to quantify seven different variables of pleasure/pain: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) stated that naturally we are ruled by two key things - pleasure and pain - two basic instincts. 'Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign 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.' (Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Moral Legislation, 1789) Bentham said that we need to look at the possible things we might do and the various outcomes and calculate how much pleasure and pain they might create, finally choosing the one that best maximises pleasure and minimises pain. His approach is therefore quantitative

evaluating utilitarianism

MAIN STRENGTH of UTILITIRANISM is that it does not use deontological ethics; its flexible, responsive to situations and doesn't commit moral agents to destructive courses of behaviour simply because 'those are the rules', it offers solutions to ethical problems such as the trolley problem and for many people is highly intuitive as it often agrees with our moral feelings that consequences matter and its better to be happy than sad THERE ARE MANY CRITCISMS: PLEASURE IS NOT THE ONLY GOOD = hedonism only focuses on pleasure but many people believe that there are non-hedonic goods liken justice, freedom or right to life. Without these utilitarianism is in danger of supporting Poppers Benign Dictator who offers to make people happy at the cost of taking away their freedom. IDEAL UTILITIRANISM incorporates non-hedonic goods PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY = Bentham's Hedonic calculus seems to be hard to carry out because the future consequences of our behaviour are not known. Its particularly hard to weigh up all possible out comes 'in spur of the moment'. Utilitarian's reply that this criticism is overstated: we go through ;life weighing up likely consequences all the time and not many moral decisions have been taken in a hurry. RULE UTILITARIANS dont have to make 'spur of the moment decisions' SHORT TERM THINKING = Bentham's principle of Certainty and Propinquity prefer actions that deliver happiness in the shirt term rather than uncertain long term happiness. However many problems facing the plane tin the 21st century seem to require long tern thinking. Peter singer admits that PREFRENCE UTILITIRANISM fails to deal with environmental problems because it favours the current generation using the earths resources rather than conserving them for further generations whose wishes we cannot be certain about. WRONG ANSWERS = utilitarianism has no way of taking into account peoples rights or basic dignity ; the whole point is that some peoples interests are sacrificed for the sake of others as can be seen in the ways utilitarian's solve the trolley problem by killing one worker so that five can live. Utilitarianism seems to justify doctors killing patients for their organs and judges punishing the innocent to deter criminals. NEGATIVE UTILITIRANISM is a solution to some of these problems but it invites its own problems such as smarts benevolent world exploder

It is a normative ethical theory

Normative ethical theories are those that prescribe a 'correct' way to act morally. It involves trying to work out what the right thing is to do.

it is a consequentialist/teleological theory

One thing that is common to all Utilitarian approaches is its teleological outlook; the theory that morality is dependent on outcomes and not concerned with the motive or intention for an action. A teleological approach thus argues that the end justifies the means.

preference utilitarianism

R.M HARE developed the theory of preference utilitarianism. He argues that we need to consider out own preferences and those of others: '' equal preferences count equally, whatever their content'' People are happy when they get what they want but this may clash with other preferences. He says that we need to 'stand in someone elses shoes'' and try to imagine what someone else might prefer, establishing that we must treat everyone including ourselves with impartiality. peter singer contributes to preference utilitarianism. He also argues that everyone's preferences must be taken into account. HE also establishes that everyone's interests are given equal value including all animals s well as human beings. Rather than basing a decision on a calculation of pain vs pleasure., its better to do what best interests the greatest number .which is yo minimise suffering rather than maximising pleasure. another type of non-hedonic type of utilitirsnism which proposes that utility should be defined as maximising the satisfaction of preferences; in other words ensuring that as many people as possible get as much of what they want strengths = its more specific than rule or act listens to equal preferences fees empathy for all people offers a solution to smarts "benevolent world exploder" because people prefer not to die has implications for animal right - psychologist debate whether animals of different types of experience suffering or unhappiness, but there can be no doubt that they have preferences -- they prefer not to be killed or eaten and there are lots of them so their preferences might outweigh the preferences of humans to have meat in their diet gets round the problem of defining "happiness" and higher/lower pleasures because it treats all preferences the same. preference for drugs and violent video games are just the same as preferences for nature walks and classical music. however, preferences for antisocial or destructive things go against the wider perspective of society as a whole, so even if you prefer to lie for example you are outnumbered by your parents, workmates, neighbours, teachers and who would prefer you didn't weaknesses = doesn't consider if ones preference is morally wrong animal prefrences are different to humans theres no greatest number if everyone has their own individual preferences it seems to dignify perverse or futile preferences just as much as sophisticated high minded ones - strange hobbies satisfy preferences as much as reading great literature. this is linked to the problem that people do not know what is really in their own best interests, so what they prefer might be in conflict with what they really need -- many people refer to eat sugary junk food and gamble but they would be better off following a healthy diet ans saving money --- however this goes against the central appeal of PU which is that it replaces complicated calculations about happiness with a fairly straightforward analysis of what people want other critics focus on the problem of infinite preferences which overrule everything else such as a religious teetotaller has an infinite preference that people do not drink alcohol --- but what if someone prefers to do that, their preference is stopped by the overruling reference

relativism in ethics

RE is the idea that there is no objective right or wrong: morality is relative to each person and in each situation MORAL RELATIVISM = proposes that each individual has their own sense of ethics which is true for them but not for other people CULTURAL RELATIVISM = proposes hat each community or society has its own moral code which is true for its members and not for outsiders in some ways utilitarianism is a relativist theory, because we as individuals find different things pleasurable, what maximises happiness for one person might not maximise it for another happiness is therefore relative similarly, different cultures take pleasure from different things: bullfighting in Spain, baseball in America, cricket in the UK ON THE OTHER HAND, utilitarianism can be seen as non relativist-- for a utilitarian, it is objectively true that "good" means the greatest happiness for the greatest number and this is true to everyone its not the case that happiness is more important to some but not for others, or that there are cultures which value happiness but others dont Bentham states "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure" -- Bentham means that nature has ultimate utility for all of mankind and that this state of affairs is natural not cultural trend that can be changed UTILITILTARIANS DISGAREE ABOUT HOW 'GREATEST HAPPINESS' IS TO BE DEFINED: IDEAL UTILITIRANISM think that there are other goods that have utility besides happiness, but they think these goods are objectively good for everyone all over the world making it non relativist, while admitting that everyone has their own unique set of preferences that are shaped by the culture they live in PREFRENCE UTILITARIANS think that satisfying preferences has utility -- once again they agree that satisfaction of preferences is objectively good for everyone everywhere while admitting that everyone has their own unique set of preferences that are shaped by the culture they live in AN ACT UTILITARIAN would tend towards cultural relativism -- for example, they would oppose female genital mutilation in the UK because the number of people mad happy by it is small compared to the number of people who are out raged by it --------- however they dont olive by a rule NO FGM and if they found themselves in a country where it was popular such as africa then their personal outrage would count for little against the majority who were made happy by the practise, so they would have to approve of it many philosophers opposes relativism in ethics, because it seems to disallow anyone from criticising anyone else - or at least it disallows people from one culture from criticising people from another culture it stands in contrast to the idea of human rights that cuts across all cultures and imposes a standard everyone is expected to live up to the tendency of some utilitarian's to support relativism counts as a criticism of utilitarianism for many people

Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good, or that "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance". Philosophers Richard Brandt and Brad Hooker are major proponents of such an approach. J.S Mill is considered a rule utilitarianism a rule utilitarian asks: 'what rule would maximise happiness is everyone in the world followed it' -- and then adopts the rule as what Brandt calls a moral code this means that rule utilitarian's act like deontologists except the rules they follow are based on the principle of utility rather than human rights or religious laws for example, the human race would be happier overall if everyone kept their promises, therefore a rule utilitarian follows the moral code --- 'always keep your promises'

STRENGTHS OF RULE UTILITARIANISM

Rules are more objective and can be referred to, instead of considering each situation and its consequences separately. It overcomes W.D. Ross' objection that Act Utilitarianism is counterintuitive i.e. that if lying and telling the truth bring about equally good consequences; they are of equal moral value. Rule Utilitarianism (Mill's version) allows rules that prevent bad things being done to bring about the good, for example, stealing. strengths of RU are that they mirror AU's weaknesses: RU promotes trust in society, because people follow well known moral codes involving telling them the truth and keeping promises most of the moral codes a rule utilitarian follows will be the same as the rules observed by Kantians or proposed by NML but for different reasons RU gets round the problem of people being biased or being unable to perform hedonic calculus quickly and impartially when faced with important decisions A more deontological approach establishes universal standards that can be followed by all, providing clear guidance. Rules are more objective and can be referred to, instead of considering each situation and its consequences separately. Recognises that we have a strong internal conviction that principles other than happiness must be considered Easier to apply than act; clear rules Still allows some flexibility with strong and weak Rules help to get over some of the problems of Act Utilitarianism, particularly the rights of the minority. Rules are more objective and can be referred to, instead of considering each situation and its consequences separately. Mill considers emotions a form of higher pleasure which is a strength because it can make the theory a little less impartial and allow more room for emotions. In the house on fire example (Bentham Weakness 3) Mill could possibly allow you to save your mother arguing your emotions are a higher pleasure and since he gives no explanation of what to do if pleasures clash we could justice the saving of the mother. 2. Mill's idea of creating generalized rules makes the theory more objective and provides us a means to creating universal rules.

what are the key features of utilitarianism?

TELEOLOGICAL/ CONSEQUENTIALIST - One thing that is common to all Utilitarian approaches is its teleological outlook; the theory that morality is dependent on outcomes and not concerned with the motive or intention for an action. A teleological approach thus argues that the end justifies the means. HEDONISTIC - as it is centred around pleasure Normative Ethical theory

Background of Utilitarianism & Summary

The Theory of Utilitarianism comes from its name from the Latin word 'Utilis', meaning 'useful'. It was first developed by Jeremy Bentham, Philosopher and legal theorist of the 18th century. Bentham produced a modern approach of morality which would suit the changing world of the industrial age. This was also the era of enlightenment. Utilitarianism can be regarded as a consequentialist and teleological system of ethics, providing no strict moral rules but judging an action by its consequence or end result. The aforementioned Bentham lived in an era of great social and scientific change and unrest. He therefore, because of his social surroundings developed a theory that stated that right actions are those that produce the most pleasure for everyone affected and wrong actions consequently are those that do not. He coined the phrase 'the greatest good for the greatest number' - which summarises his aim which was to iron out the deep inequalities of his time. Bentham, being a Hedonist, believed that all humans naturally pursued pleasure and conversely tried to avoid pain. To measure this pain and pleasure, Bentham created the 'hedonic calculus', in which happiness was measured with seven different elements, including duration of happiness, the intensity of it and the purity of it. However if applying even one of these factors, let alone all seven, it causes a problem. For example it is impossible to know the duration of the pleasure or pain, because we would all quantify it differently, some are more susceptible to feeling pain, unlike others who are much stronger. We can never predict an accurate duration of the pleasure and a some argue that it is not possible for pleasure to be quantified. If the probable pain of an action out weighs its pleasure then Bentham says that it is morally wrong and visa versa

What is the principle of utility?

The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. early utilitarians Jeremy Bentham defined utility as pleasure. He states that 'nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure' -Bentham's says Nature and not God is responsible for our attraction to pleasure and aversion to pain: Bentham's ideas are thoroughly secular and scientific which reflects the secular society of the 18th century Therefore utilitarianism is based on hedonism as it seeks to maximise pleasure. The Principle of Utility is the very basis of Utilitarianism. It states that something is morally right if it produces pleasure, and morally wrong if it produces pain. As you can see this is the basis of both Act and Rule Utilitarianism: the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain; The difference is the way in which they go about achieving this.

Historical and contemporary application of utilitarianism reasoning

USA's use of nuclear weapons in WWII: •Truman's choice was between dropping the atomic bomb and killing tens of thousands or beginning a lengthy invasion that could see millions on both sides die •Hoped to minimise loss of life and end the war with the minimum amount of pain •Others criticise (e.g. Anscombe), saying it's mass murder - ends don't justify the means Triage: •During major emergencies, e.g. natural disasters, casualties are assessed and priority is given to those who are most severely injured, while assistance is delayed for those with minor injuries or those with injuries so severe that even with treatment they will die. Effective altruism (Singer): •The best off are morally obliged to give up as much as they can to charitable causes until such a point that giving would cause more harm than to not give

Application of utilitarianism- historical ethical situations

Utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham to encourage the reforming work of the enlightenment - reducing the power of religious beliefs and churches over law and politics - promoting democracy and egalitarianism (equality) among people - fostering a rational and scientific outlook Bentham hoped that utilitarianism would promote these things without the revolutions and bloodshed that (he believed) the theory of human rights had encouraged in france and america Bentham hoped that utilitarianism would bring about equality for women and better treatment for animals J.S Mill saw the abolition of slavery as being in line with utilitarian thinking. Like bentham, he promoted the equality of women. However he did not see utilitarianism as opposed to imperialism or colonialism as the british empire dominated whole nations in africa and asia 'For their own good' POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORM important reforms in britain and america abolished slavery and then extended FRANCHISE (right to vote) to more men than woman. These developments were influenced by utilitarian ideas: - Britain abolished slavery in its empire in 1833, in the USA the 13th amendment abolished slavery in 1865 - In Britain, three reform acts in the 19th century extended the franchise to more men besides wealthy landowners: the 1832 reform act gave the vote to hundreds of thousands of hime owners; the 1867 doubled the voting population by including a million worker; the 1884 act tripled the number of voters, which now included most men - the WOMAN SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT campaigned for women to be able to vote which was allowed for some women in 1918 and extended to all british woman in 1928. In the USA the 19th amendment extended franchise to American women in 1919 UTILITARIAN IDEAls about maximising happiness influenced these reforms but utilitarianism was also used to argue against reform FOR EXAMPLE, it was argued that abolishing slavery would increase unhappiness by ruining the economy for everyone, that equality for women would lead to conflict in marriages and that extending the franchise to uneducated men would destroy the 'higher pleasures' of art and culture. most of these fears weren't realises but along with mille support for empire, they show that utilitarianism does not always have positive applications

J.S Mill

Wrote On Liberty in 1859, and wanted absolute freedom of opinion on all subjects. He was an advocate of women's equality and was fond of utilitarianism. Mill went on to develop Benthams theory and he made three alterations. The first alteration was the addition of higher and lower pleasures. He believed that if people continued just to search for pleasures they would tend to choose just lower pleasures because these are easily attainable and it would make Utilitarianism a "Swine philosophy". The higher pleasures were ones of the mind and soul, for example reading, studying and going to the theatre. Whereas the lower pleasures, were pleasures of the body, for example eating, sport and sex. Mill said that if you asked somebody who has experienced both higher and lower pleasures he would say that the higher pleasures are more valuable. He also argued that we should pursue these higher pleasures at the cost of feeling pain. Mill aimed to increase the standard of living so that people were able to feel the higher pleasures such as studying and/or going to the theatre. Secondly Mill introduced the "Theory of Justice", which benefited the individual. Mill believed that we should not cause pain to the individual just to cause pleasure to the majority. For example, bullying a little boy because it gives pleasure to lots of boys is immoral as it creates a tyranny of majority. Mill said that the individual should have freedom to do as he wishes as long as it does not cause pain to others. For example, torturing a suicide bomber could be moral because this person may kill thousands of people in the future. Mills final alteration was the introduction of Rule Utilitarianism. Mill said that Bentham's Utilitarianism wasn't practical as one cannot be expected to measure how much pleasure is produced by using the Hedonic Calculus every time! It's just too difficult. Mill's rule utilitarianism meant that after seeing what an act normally produces, then a rule can be applied. For example, "Adultery" usually causes more pain than pleasure and therefore this makes it immoral to do this. Furthermore, in this type of Utilitarianism there are no exceptions to the rule (unlike Bentham).

Act Utilitarianism

an act utilitarian will abandon all ideas about ethical rules. Instead, they approach each situation afresh and make a decision that will maximise overall happiness for example an act utilitarian would not accept a general rule against breaking promises. Instead they would treat each particular promise as a unique situation and work out whether keeping or breaking that promise would maximise utility/pleasure/happiness act utilitarianism states that a persons acr is morally right if and only if it produces the best possible results through maximising pleasure or happiness

it is based on hedonism

hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the point or purpose of a goof life from the Greek Hedone meaning pleasure or delight. the philosophical idea of hedonism is that the total amount of power should be maximised: this includes everybody's else's not just your own Bentham argues that we are ruled by pleasure and pain: 'Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign 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' From this descriptive claim, he makes his normative claim (how things ought to be). This is the principle of utility: When faced with an ethical decision, we should choose the course of action which maximises pleasure and minimises pain for the greatest number of people.

bentham and right based ethics

in Benthams lifetime the french revolution (1787-1799) shocked europe, at first because the french people executed their aristocratic rulers in the name of HUMAN RIGHTS and later because od the 'terror' that followed when ordinary people were imprisoned, torytured and executed —— Bentham promoted utilitarianism to oppose (what seemed to him to be) the dangerous idea of human rights which he considered to he 'nonsense on stilts' Bentham identified a stark difference between his own consequentialist ethics and ethical theories based on HUMAN RIGHTS such as natural law and Kantian ethics. he was deeply critical for rights based ethics —— this was partly because he didn't think governments could deliver the sort of things that rights based ethics promised people and partly because he saw how people demanding their rights lead to revolution and bloodshed —— bentham believed that utilitarianism could bring about reform and promote human happiness in a gentler way without revolution and conflict in the 21st century, rights based ethics are more popular that utilitarianism due to the establishment of organisations such as the European Court of Human Rights and the U.N declaration of Human Rights. However Bentham's doubts on rights on the best way to bring about reform, especially after western invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in the hope of promoting human rights in those countries should be considered nonetheless, rights have been a very affective tool for helping minorities and minorities are often badly served by utilitarianism — this is because bringing about the 'greatest happiness' tends to mean giving the majority what they want and the unhappiness of an oppressed minority is rejected hence there is failure in bentham's thinking to engage with the importance of justice or fairness: a society that is overall happy is not necessarily one that treats minority groups fairly for example in recent years the rights of transsexuals have received a lot of attention in britain —- this is a very small minority of people, but promoting their rights has caused indignation and even offence in other communities such as traditional Christians —- bentham's utilitarianism would not support unpopular minorities in situations like this

distinction between act and rule

in the 1950s, Richard Brandt drew a distinction between two types of utilitarianism: - act utilitarianism: applying the principle of utility to each individual action - rule utilitarianism: using the principle pf utility to determine ethical rules and then following these because this distinction wasn't noticed until the 1950s, earlier utilitarians like Bentham and Mill tend to veer between the two types But Bentham is normally associated with Act utilitarianism and Mill is associated with Rule Act utilitarianism believes that an action becomes morally right when it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while Rule utilitarianism believes that the moral correctness of an action depends on the correctness of the rules that allows it to achieve the greatest good

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

key scholar for utilitarianism. His contributions include utilitarianism's focus on happiness and link to rule utilitarianism was the son of philosopher James Mill who was one of Bentham's Philosophic Radicals as well as the god son of bentham Mill restates bentham's principle of utility: Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness Mill departs from bentham's ideas in one important way: He argues that pleasure can vary in quality as well as quantity —- this means that there are lower pleasures such as eating, drinking sex and playing video games but also higher pleasures which include friendship, art, reading and conversation Mill argues that if we are interested in ensuring our long term happiness, we will focus on the higher pleasures not the lower pleasures Mill foresees some criticism of utilitarianism and argues against them. Critics complain that it is impossible to calculate all the possible outcomes of every action —- mills teply is that it is not necessary as long experience has thought is that moral rules which he calls 'secondary principles' such as truth telling, promise keeping etc tend to have haply outcomes, so we can follow these principles most of the time —— the principle of utility only has to be used when these second principles conflict or lead to confusion —- e.g. if a utilitarian generally follows the rule of 'keep your promises' but finds they have made the promise to protect a notorious murderer then they can consult the principle of utility which might tell them to break the promise on this occasion Unlike bentham who look 'Pleasure' at face value, Mill understood that in order to be properly happy, people needed to have a certain overall quality of life and that meant living in a certain sort of society he states 'it is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others he distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures such as education, art, theatre etc Mill's Higher pleasures imply the hat a person cannot be truly happy in a consistent way unless they have been educated to their full potential, introduced to art and culture etc However, Mills idea of higher pleasures is subjective - not everyone will agree that appreciating Shakespeare is a higher pleasure whereas playing video games is not similarly, mill would put classical music above pop music as a higher pleasure—- critics see this as a reflection of Mill's own biases rather than an objective difference in the type of pleasure a person gets. in ON LIBERTY (1859) mill applies utilitarianism to politics as the Harm principle: ' the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community , against his will is to prevent harm to others ' this is the idea that people should he left free to live as they please so long as they are not harming anyone else by their actions the harm principle has been hugely influential in the 20th and 21st century, supporting the legislation of divorce and homosexuality as well as decriminalisation of drugs on the grounds that these activities do mot cause harm to others

key scholar - Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

known as the 'father of utilitarianism' he was a lawyer and social reformer who campaigned to improve prison conditions and also for better treatment of animals and equality between the sexes - he was ahead of his time in seeing the implications of utilitarianism for sexual equality and animal rights Bentham introduces utilitarianism in his INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS AND LEGISLATION (1789) in which he worked out the PRINCIPLE OF UTLITY which defines that actions are good if they promote the greatest amount of happiness he identifies happiness with pleasure and the absence of pain 'it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong' - Jeremey Bentham this is also known as the greatest happiness principle Bentham believed that human beings and other animals are fundamentally motivated by pleasure Bentham argues that pleasure and pain 'govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think' - this view is PHSHOLOGICAL EGOISM which is a thesis Bentham learned from the earlier philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) psychological egoism is not a widely accepted theory and is not necessary to agree with Bentham on this to support utilitarianism. in fact later utilitarian's such as J.S Mill and Peter Singer move away from psychological egoism and the focus on pleasure to interpret utilitarianism more about happiness, flourishing ad justice his ideas on psychological egoism are largely rejected and his focus on pleasure/pain as the definition of happiness is seen by critics as narrow and superficial Bentham adopted the term 'utility' from scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776). Hume argues that having a certain sort of moral character (a good personality) has utility because it makes social life more pleasant -- Bentham applies this to thinking about particular actions having pleasant or unpleasant consequences Bentham was a fierce opponent of religion and religious ethics. he rejected the deontological idea that actions could be intrinsically wring. for Bentham actions could only be instrumentally wrong -- wrong because they led to unhappy consequences Bentham was also a supporter of LEGAL REFORM and argued that, because circumstances are always changing and the law has to change to keep up with them Bentham assembled a group pf 'philosophic radicals' to promote social reform in britain without the chaos and suffering brought about by the revolution in france. One of these radicals was James Mill, the father of J.S Mill Jeremy bentham is a key scholar of utilitarianism - his contributions include utilitarianism's focus on pleasure, hedonism and link to act utilitarianism and negative utilitarianism

evaluating utilitarianism - actual vs foreseeable consequences; objections to utilitarianism need to be considered in detail

l jack smart (brother of ninian smart) distinguishes between ACTUAL and FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES should a utilitarian judge actions by their actual consequences? -- the amount of happiness actually created or the consequences the person could foresee at the time (which might be mistaken)? FORESEEABLE CONSEQUECES - allows us to say that a person did the right thing but it turned out badly: their intentions were good. However this seems very similar to the problems of deontology, where a person follows moral rules with good intubations but produces terrible consequences---- utilitarianism is supposed to avoid this ACTUAL CONSEQUENCES - holds people accountable for the consequences of their actions: if you cause suffering, you did the wrong thing and your intentions are irrelevant . however this produces the odd conclusion that we cannot know the mora; character of our actions until after we have done them, possibly a long time after for example: - if you rescue a child from drowning, you might think yiu did a good thing, but if that child grows up to be a murderer or warlord then you actually did a bad thing - if you drive carelessly and kill a pedestrian, you might think its a bad thing, but if you killed a murderer on his way to commit a crime then what you did was actually good by contrast deontology offers people the clear understanding that they are doing the right ot wrong thing at the time they do it

Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism

main weakness is that it isn't really utilitarianism at all: it involves following strict rules like a deontologist, often in situations where there is a clear course of action that would maximise happiness by breaking a rule instead -- a rule utilitarian might see that breaking a promise would make lots of people happier and keeping it would lead to disaster , yet still follow the promise keeping rule --- this seems to go against the original spirit of utilitarianism as a consequentialist ethical theory however Brandt defends utilitarianism by distinguishing between: STRONG RULE UTILITIRANISM - In which moral codes are absolutes and are followed legalistically WEAK RULE UTILITIRANISM - In which the moral codes have many exceptions are followed in a flexible way -- this is Brandt's preferred type and resembles Mill's approach to secondary principles which can be abandoned when they conflict or confuse. Brandt's WRU is criticised by David Lyons (1965) who argues that weak rule utilitarianism always collapses into act utilitarianism -- this means that the exceptions and sub rules multiply so much that people cannot keep track of what to do and have to work things out on a case by case basis, which which case they are acting like act utilitarian's and no longer following ethical riles Sidgewick - "In practice it is hard to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures." This is due to the subjectivity of "pleasure" and the difficulty of defining happiness. Sidgewick also asks how we distinguish between two higher pleasures, e.g. listening to Bach and watching Shakespeare? WD Ross - "Single-factor" moral theories don't work because life is too complex. He argues that Utilitarianism is counter-intuitive. We have "prima facie" duties, i.e. who would I save - my son or a man with the cure to AIDS? - My son because my prima facie duty is to him. Mill's inclusion of higher and lower pleasures means that it is turned into an elitist theory, and, as many of the higher pleasures are enjoyed by richer people. Rule Utilitarianism, particularly strong, abandons the situationalist appeal of the theory and turns it into an absolutist approach. R. M. Hare has pointed out that Strong Rule Utilitarianism has absolutist rules that cannot be broken. This version of Rule Utilitarianism has all the weaknesses of moral absolutism; e.g. not lying could put a person's life in danger if we don't also consider the situation. Henry Sidgwick: how are we supposed to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? Any categorisation would be subjective Focus on rules removes the benefit of situationalism Difficult to know when rules can be broken to achieve greatest happiness if you plan to hit someone you might predict that they will be upset because 99.9% of the time this is the result however, what if the person turns out to enjoy it and get pleasure out of pain - all you consequences are wrong! 2. Utilitarianism is a demanding theory as something as simple as buying an ice-cream can be deemed immoral because you know that the money could be spent elsewhere in order to get the greatest good for the greatest number. 3. Utilitarianism implies that everyone has a moral faculty (awareness that gives us a sense of moral judgement) and not everyone has this young kids, disables persons etc. This alienates people from the theory. 4. Mill makes several elitist claims e.g. for example it is better to a dis-satisfied Socrates than a satisfied pig (comparing not so intelligent people to pigs), claiming that the higher your moral faculty the more difficult to find pleasure (as not so intelligent people are satisfied with almost anything). Yet what Mill fails to acknowledge is if through utilitarian values a pig can be satisfied then this devalues the intellectual ability of all humans. 5. Mill uses non-utilitarian values such as justice (supreme moral good) and from this we can infer that there are more important things than happiness and this inference destroys the foundation of utilitarianism. 6. As mentioned previously, Mill does not discuss what happens if rules/higher pleasure conflict. Adding to the ambiguous nature of utilitarianism. 7. Furthermore, given that the rules are generalized and formulated through experience this means that they are not absolute and can be broken. But it is difficult to see how one would know when an exception could be added and if we keeping using exceptions and don't make Mill's utilitarianism rigid then this some scholars imply collapse it back to act utilitarianism. E.g. the rule tell the truth unless a lie produces more pleasure isn't that essentially Bentham's form. 8. No two moral situations are exactly the same so how can rules based on past different (Albeit similar) circumstances helps us with new situations? 9. Moreover, Mill argues that a competent judge would always pick higher pleasures over lower pleasures yet this is not true for all circumstances e.g. if Mill was somehow stranded in a desert he would not pursuit poetry or imagination he would pursue drinking water - which is a lower pleasure- doesn't this mean he has an infirmity of the mind? 10. Bentham and Mill both commit a naturalistic fallacy according to G.E.Moore, just because something is desirable and produces a lot of pleasure does not imply that we ought to pursue that action.

Political reform - contemporary ethical situations

there are two areas of modern life where utilitarianism still promotes reform : one is ANIMAL RIGHTS where a concern for animal suffering had led to campaigns for vegetarianism and veganism, an end to animal experimentation, banning blood sports and concerns about animals in zoos the second is MILLS HARM PRINCIPLE which promotes the LIBERALISATION of the law (making things legal that used to be banned, based on the argument that no-ones is harmed by doing these things) —- this as led to more relaxed laws on pornography, gambling and recreational drugs as well as access to divorce for ordinary people HOWEVER, the harm principle has also led to some things that used to be legal becoming banned in the interest of public safety and reducing suffering — an obvious example is owning guns but this also includes driving without a seat belt, owning dangerous dogs in scotland and wales but not yet in england, smacking your children In politics, utilitarianism promotes the view that EACH PERSON SHOULD HACE EQUAL POLITICAL IMPORTANCE —- that has been used to criticise the house of lords, which used to include anyone who inherited a title. However this was changed in 1999 so that only 92 'hereditary peers' get to sit in the house of lords; the rest have to be appointed by government. Attempts to change the voting system to proportional representation have not been successful so far

Contemporary ethical situations

utilitarianism had declined in significance in modern politics and legal reform. This is partly because reform is increasingly concerned with promoting the freedoms of minority groups whose small numbers don't have much influence in the hedonic calculus, especially when the majority of the population is unsympathetic to their case. instead, the idea of HUMAN RIGHTS is more commonly used to protect these groups: - homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967 and the Equality act 2010 banned discrimination against LGBT people. Same sex marriage was legalised in 2013 - hate crimes were identified and banned by the Criminal Justice act 2003: as well as racism, this reform band persecuting people from their religion or their subculture such as goths - the uk government is considering legislation to ban islamophobia but this is proving more controversial, due to disagreements in the definition of the term

evaluating utilitarianism - the experience requirement; objections to utilitarianism need to be considered in detail

utilitarianism struggles to evaluate situations where somebody does not experience pain or unhappiness, even though they are clearly being wronged -- this happens when you are hurt without realising it e.g. when someone cheats or cons you or when your deluded e.g. when you think someone loves you but they dont the clearest example of this is the peeping tom who spies on a woman whilst she undresses. the observer (voyeur) gets a lot of pleasure from doing this; ordinarily that would be cancelled out by the intense shame and indignation of his victim, however in this case the victim does not know she is being spied upon and so experiences no unhappiness this leads to the odd conclusion that the observer is doing nothing wrong so long as his victim never finds out --- for many critics this perverse conclusion shows that there is something wrong with utilitarianism BUT NOT WILL ALL TYPES OF UTILITIRANIMS: RULE UTILITIRANISM - would formulate a rule "no peeing toms" because this is a rule, which is everyone followed, would maximise happiness NEGATIVE UTILITIRANISM - would pay no attention to the observers pleasure and only pay attention to reducing unhappiness, which is this case means the woman's possible distress were she finds out counts for more than the observers pleasure PREFRENCE UTILITIRANISM - would acknowledge the observers preference to spy and also the woman's preference not to be spied on along with a similar preference by all women not to be spied upon (and doubtless a preference for this by their families and partners too) which easily outweighs the observers preference

changes to social attitudes - contemporary application

when bentham and mill proposed utilitarian ideals, they were criticised for valuing happiness so highly instead of traditional moral values like justice, mercy, loyalty or freedom —— such criticisms are much less common today: the hedonic basis of utilitarianism has become mainstream for example since 2012, INTERNATIONAL DAY OF HAPPINESS is celebrated annually with a report that measures happiness in 156 countries in 2015 the uk is 15th ahead of germany 17th and the USA 19th but Finland, Denmark and Norway are the happiest nations This concern with maximising happiness can be seen in the growth of WELLBEING as a state that business and schools want to promote in employees and young people there are apps to measure wellbeing and courses for meditation and mindfulness to increase well being in 2014, the uk government began a project to measure the national well being after scientific reports linked happiness to health, long life and more positive social contributions This is linked to increasingly LIBERAL social attitudes, which believe that people should be allowed to do things that make them happy, particularly if those things don't make other people unhappy —- this can be seen in increasing tolerance for recreational drug use, alternative sexual orientations and gender identities that used to be strongly condemned Its not clear whether utilitarianism itself has promoted these social attitudes or whether these attitudes along with utilitarianism are all the result of changes that have been going on since the enlightenment: increasing focus on the individual in society, more leisure time and the decline of religion bringing more of a focus on this life rather than the after life