Teleological Consequentialist Principle of Utility Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism Hedonic Calculus The Greatest Happiness Principle Higher and Lower Order Pleasures
Jeremy Bentham (1748CE – 1832CE)
John Stuart Mill (1806CE – 1873CE)
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation by Jeremy Bentham
Utilitarianism by J.S. Mill
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory that argues that we should use consider the consequences of an action
Francis Hutcheson summaries it nicely as “the greatest happiness principle”
The first version of Utilitarianism was put forward by Jeremy Bentham as a response to the industrial revolution and the problems experienced as result by the working classes
Bentham argued we are motivated by pleasure and so pleasure must be good.
He said we should act in accordance with the Principle of Utility (we should consider what will create the greatest pleasure for the greatest number)
Many people agree with its consequentialist approach
One reason people tend to like Utilitarianism is that it is a consequentialist as opposed to a teleological approach
It avoids situations where you might follow an ethical rule but end up with making everyone unhappy
This flexible approach to ethics seems much more pragmatic than traditional religious ethics
The Hedonic Calculus gives some guidance about how to calculate pleasure
To help calculate future pleasures, Bentham provides the Hedonic Calculus to which some people feel makes the idea of pleasure very clear and more meaningful ▪ Bentham, states when calculating pleasure, we should consider the intensity, duration, certainty, purity and extent of it
This makes his ethical theory non-elitist and more democratic as it treats all people’s pleasures the same
Robert Nozick: Pleasure isn’t the only important thing
We can imagine situations where we have pleasure but not justice and most people would be unhappy with this
Later version of Utilitarianism such as Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism can avoid this problem though
Peter Vardy: Act Utilitarianism values the quantity of pleasure instead of the quality of it
Act Utilitarianism doesn’t distinguish between the quality of pleasure and instead focuses on more.
This might lead us to watching junk TV is better than listening to opera
Peter Vardy: It’s seems to complicated to estimate future pleasure
The Hedonic Calculus seems very complicated and difficult to apply in real situations
A Roald Dahl story describes a doctor saving a pregnant woman only to end with the line: “Your son will be okay Mrs Hitler”.
W.D. Ross: It ignores justice
Ross notes that we have prima facie duties to others that are completely ignored such as saving your own children before a stranger or promoting justice
Some philosophers view pleasure as too vague a concept for ethical decisions as it can be arbitrary and subjective.
Others would debate the ability to predict outcomes.
But how can one predict everything with equal accuracy?
Is pleasure the same as happiness?
Is Bentham’s hedonic calculus and accurate predictor?
Due to some problems of Act Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill put forward a new version with some loose rules
Mill argued that there were higher and lower pleasures and that a smaller higher pleasure was worth more than a lot of a lower pleasure
Furthermore, he argued that there were some loose rules that should be followed in most situations with a few exceptions
Rule Utilitarianism solves some of the problems of Act Utilitarianism
Mill solves two problems with Act Utilitarianism
Firstly, his loose rules can avoid the problem of the Hedonic Calculas being too complicated as instead of working out future pleasure each time, you can follow a simple loose rule
Secondly, higher pleasures could include justice and so this allows the ethical theory to promote justice
It’s hard to distinguish between higher and lower order pleasures
Some people feel that the difference between higher and lower order pleasures are just snobbery and never justified
There is also the problem it seems hard to distinguish what is a higher order pleasure from a lower order pleasure as this just seems to be subjective
Some philosophers Rule Utilitarianism puts its emphasis on the ways that humans have responded well to recurring situations and that it can be an incredibly powerful tool for learning from the past.
Others would argue that Rule Utilitarianism is in danger of becoming deontological and not doing justice to the principle of utility.
Can any pleasure be justified?
Are the ethical teachings of religious traditions just as useful?
“...when happiness is present, we have everything. When it is absent, we do everything to possess it.” (Epicurus)
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure.” (Jeremy Bentham)
“It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.” (Jeremy Bentham)
“[Judge action] ...according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” (J Bentham
“...some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others.” (J. S. Mill)
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied.” (J. S. Mill)
“... no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base.” (J. S. Mill)
“All action is for the sake of some end...” (J. S. Mill)
“To discriminate against beings solely on the account of their species is a form of prejudice.” (P. Singer)
“Producing a new medicine is a lengthy and complex process ... Tests on animals play a vital role.” (The Nuffield Council on Bioethics)
“Such weapons have no legitimate place in our world. Their elimination is both morally right and a practical necessity in protecting humanity.” (Ban Ki-moon)
Section A
Section B
Section C