Utilitarianism

Some utilitarians simply accept that we do not have any rights.

How do some utilitarians respond to the objection regarding utilitarianism and individual liberty and rights?

Yes. Whilst it may be easier to know whether someone's preference has been satisfied (as opposed to having to know how much pleasure someone experiences), we would still have to compare the strength of different people's preferences and so on.

Does preference utilitarianism face the problem of calculation?

Mill considers this in terms of justice. Mill considers what kinds of actions are considered as a violation of justice, including violating someone's legal or moral rights, treating people unequally and breaking a contract or promise. Mill analyses justice as involving actions that relate to individual rights. Duties of justice are 'perfect', we must always fulfil them and have no choice over when or how as someone else has the right that we act morally. There are also 'imperfect' duties, such as giving to charity, in which no specific person can demand it of us and so we have some choice in how we fulfil the obligation (eg giving a lot or a little).

How does Mill respond to the objection regarding utilitarianism and individual liberty and rights?

Using the example of torturing children, a rule forbidding the torture of children would obviously cause more happiness if everyone followed it than a rule allowing torture of children. Additionally, individuals have rights, which are rules, because if people follow these rules (respect people's rights), that leads to the greatest happiness.

How does rule utilitarianism respond to the objection regarding individual liberty and rights?

A rule that allows partiality to our family and friends will create more happiness than a rule that requires us to be impartial all the time. This secures the moral importance of such relationships - they are necessary to happiness. Of course we cannot be completely partial, we still must think of the general happiness. But we only need to act in such a way that if everyone acted like that would promote the general happiness.

How does rule utilitarianism respond to the objection regarding the moral status of particular relationships?

Rule utilitarianism does not require us to work out the consequences of each act in order to see if it is right. Instead, we only need to work out which rules create the greatest happiness, and this only needs to be done once.

How does rule utilitarianism respond to the problem with calculation?

Rule utilitarianism responds that we should never break the rule as we need to trust that others won't break the rules. Following the rules will lead to the greatest happiness in the long run.

How would a rule utilitarian respond to the rule fetishism objection?

The objection points out the fact that we do not view everyone as equal as we value our loved ones more, and it is too demanding and idealistic to expect us be impartial about whose happiness we promote. It also misunderstands the importance of friendship and partiality within relationships; it loses sight of the importance of the individual. Mill responds that it is perfectly fine to just focus on making a few people happy as there are very few opportunities to contribute to the 'general happiness'. We can object that this is not true as there are many charities and opportunities to help others, and also that Mill still hasn't actually answered the objection. Mill could respond that we do not have to give up friendships to promote the 'general happiness' as friendships are central to happiness. We can object that once again he seems to be arguing for rule utilitarianism.

Summarise the objection regarding utilitarianism and the moral status of particular relationships and the responses to it

We can object that utilitarianism fails to recognise the importance of character and motives in morality, and so it fails to consider the concept of people and the moral value they have. Mill responds that motives are important in considering someone's 'worth' as a person, and that morality is concerned with character as actions naturally arise from character. Some people desire to do good and so doing good is part of their happiness. We can object that this view is too idealistic in expecting everybody to be motivated by the 'general happiness'. Mill responds that this isn't what utilitarianism expects, but that children can be educated so that promoting other's happiness becomes part of their happiness. .........

Summarise the objection regarding utilitarianism and the value of motives and character and the responses to it

We can object that utilitarianism doesn't strictly rule out any act as immoral, even though some acts, eg torturing children, are clearly morally wrong even if they produce the greatest happiness. Utilitarianism also does not respect individual rights, eg the right to life, when violating that right would lead to the most happiness. Some utilitarians accept that we have no rights. Mill analyses justice and argues we do have rights because having rights produce the most happiness long term. However in situations where the general happiness conflicts with my rights then there would be no reason to respect my rights. If Mill argues we should still respect someone's rights in such a situation he seems to be defending rule utilitarianism, not act utilitarianism.

Summarise the problem regarding utilitarianism and individual liberty and rights and the responses to it

The problem points out that it is impossible to work out the consequences of all actions, and hence there is a problem with calculation so how do we know which action will produce the most happiness? Bentham replies that the action is right if we can reasonably expect that it will cause the greatest happiness. Mill argued that our inherited moral rules, our 'secondary principles', are a guide to what maximises happiness.

Summarise the problem with calculation and Bentham and Mill's responses to it

1. Is happiness the only thing of value? 2. How should we understand the motive to 'do good'? (eg does a rule utilitarian follow the rules for his own sake or for the general happiness) 3. Can rule utilitarianism recognise the importance of good character? 4. Can rule utilitarianism explain the moral value of friendships? Also, 5. Can morality be summed up in rules? Is this not reductionist? The response is the rule, 'when no other rules apply, do the action that maximises happiness.'

What are some of the objections that rule utilitarianism still faces as a form of utilitarianism and what is rule utilirains response?

We can point out that an important part of moral motivation is a feeling of obligation, eg to not murder, but we do not necessarily feel this same obligation to produce the greatest happiness. Mill believes that we could make pursuing general happiness as an obligation if we formed people's consciences in this way. ....

What does Mill say on conscience?

Bentham can say that this objection misrepresents what utilitarians say. Bentham doesn't say that an action is right if it actually maximises happiness, but rather according to the 'tendency which it appears to have'. An action is right if we can reasonably expect that it will maximise happiness. We don't need to be able to work out the consequences precisely, so the felicific calculus doesn't need to be 'strictly pursued', but rather just needs to be 'kept in view'.

What is Bentham's response to the problem of calculation?

Mill argues that we have rights because having rights produces the greatest happiness over the long term. Our rights protect what is most important to our happiness. However, a problem arises in the situation that the general happiness conflicts with my rights. If my rights are based on the general happiness, then in this situation there would be no reason to respect my rights. Furthermore, if Mill were to argue that we should still respect my rights, then it seems he is defending rule utilitarianism and not act utilitarianism.

What is Mill's argument for why we have the rights we have, and what problems occur from this?

Mill responds that on the whole, there are very few opportunities for any of us to benefit people 'in general'. Therefore, considering and contributing to the happiness of a few people is absolutely fine, and utilitarianism does not require more.

What is Mill's response to the objection regarding utilitarianism and the moral status of particular relationships?

Mill claims that it is correct to argue that utilitarianism does not consider people's motives relevant when deciding if an action is morally right or not. However, this does not mean that utilitarians assume motives have nothing to do with morality. They are relevant in considering someone's 'worth' as a person, along with many other factors. Utilitarianism concludes that a motive or characteristic which tends to produce morally bad actions is itself a bad trait or motive. Mill then expands on this arguing morality is concerned with character as actions naturally arise from character. Having a good personality is one of the 'ingredients' for happiness. The desire to do good is desirable (good) for its own sake. For people who desire to do good because it is good, it is part of their happiness to do this good.

What is Mill's response to the objection regarding utilitarianism and the value of motives and character?

Mill thinks Bentham's response is too demanding as happiness is 'much too complex and indefinite' a standard to apply directly to actions. Mill claims that we don't need to do this because over time and through trial and error, humans have worked out which actions produce the most happiness. These are inherited moral rules, including 'tell the truth', 'don't steal' and 'keep your promises'. Mill calls these 'secondary principles'. Therefore these secondary principles are a guide to what maximises happiness.

What is Mill's solution to the problem of calculation?

The theory that only happiness is good, and the right act is the act that complies with those rules which, if everybody followed them, would lead to the greatest happiness (compared to any other set of rules).

What is rule utilitarianism?

This objection forms as there is no type of action that is ruled out as immoral in principle by act utilitarianism. Some acts, such as torturing children for pleasure, are wrong even if they cause the greatest happiness (eg. if it brings great happiness to the torturers and the child was abandoned and so no one would know). This shows that happiness is not always morally good. Utilitarianism also doesn't respect individual rights, for example, I have the right to life but if by murdering me, four other people could live by taking my organs, utilitarianism would see my murder as the right choice. Therefore, utilitarianism does not respect individual liberty or rights.

What is the objection regarding utilitarianism and individual liberty and rights?

This objection points out the fact that many of the things we do to make people happy are aimed at specific other people, our family and friends. Act utilitarianism, however, argues that in our decisions, we need to consider the greatest happiness that our actions could create, and hence we should spend more time helping those who really need help. This seems too idealistic; expecting people to prioritise strangers over their loved ones seems too demanding. Utilitarianism also seems to miss something morally important with the claim that we should treat everyone equally. To each individual, not everybody is equal and they should not be viewed as equal. It is right and good to show partiality towards loved ones.

What is the objection regarding utilitarianism and the moral status of particular relationships?

We can object that utilitarianism fails to recognise the importance of motives and character in morality. In just considering actions, utilitarianism fails to consider the concept of people and their characters, as our characters have moral value too.

What is the objection regarding utilitarianism and the value of motives and character?

This problem points out that it is not possible to work out the consequences of all actions. It would be too difficult and time-consuming for us to do so, and so the felicific calculus is, in practice, confusing and impractical as we cannot get the relevant information (eg. how long the pleasure/pain will last etc.). Therefore, if calculation is too difficult in this way, there forms a problem on how we know which action will cause the most happiness.

What is the problem act utilitarianism faces with calculation?

Act utilitarians can object that rule utilitarianism leads to 'rule fetishism'. The purpose of rules is to produce the greatest happiness, but if on some occasion breaking a rule would create more happiness then we should break it, for example lying instead of telling the truth when it will produce more happiness.

What objection can act utilitarianism make against rule utilitarianism?

We can object that utilitarianism is too idealistic, expecting everyone to be motivated by the 'general happiness'. Mill responds utilitarianism doesn't expect this, but children should be educated in such a way that promoting other people's happiness becomes part of their happiness.

What objection may be made against Mill's response to the objection regarding utilitarianism and the value of motives and character?

Firstly, we can point out that the claim that there are few opportunities to help and benefit people 'in general' is not true, at least in today's world. There are many charities and opportunities to volunteer, and the news allows us to be more aware of problems happening around the world. Therefore it is perfectly possible to dedicate much of one's time to helping the 'general happiness'. Secondly, Mill's response doesn't actually address the issue that utilitarianism fails to recognise the moral importance of particular relationships. We should see friendships as a way to maximise the general happiness. It would not make loved ones feel happy if you did not value them more than a stranger: utilitarianism loses sights of the importance of the individual. Mill could respond that individual relationships are essential to happiness and so it is not necessary to give them up to promote 'general happiness'. However we can once against argue that as Mill would be promoting rules about living, he seems to be arguing for rule utilitarianism.

What objections can be made against Mill's response to the objection regarding utilitarianism and the moral status of particular relationships?