Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory, where only the consequences of an action matter. This is a strength because humans are forward looking - we tend to think ‘what if …’ in moral situations. Moreover moral choices influenced only by personal preferences may be unreliable if there is no consideration of consequences. However, it is impossible to predict consequences accurately, and Bentham did not specify if we only need to consider immediate or long term consequences. Also it does not give credit to motives - not all actions lead to good consequences, so the attitude with which an action is performed is worthy of credit. Nevertheless, motives may be good or bad, but only consequences have a real effect upon our lives.
Utilitarianism is a hedonistic theory. The principle of utility (guiding principle) is the ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number’. This is a strength because human well-being (happiness) is held to be intrinsically good and therefore actions should be judged according to the effect upon this. Also it encourages a democratic approach to moral decision making, and
stops a dangerous minority being allowed to dominate. However, happiness is subjective, therefore it is too fragile to be useful in judging morality. Also, not everyone values happiness, e.g. Christians value love and justice more. Though arguably achieving these things gives them happiness. Not valuing justice is another weakness - the rights of an individual or group can be
ignored if not in the interest of the majority to respect them.
Bentham said rights were ‘nonsense on stilts’. Nevertheless, having only one rule makes it very easy to use, and as this does not rest on any unverifiable theological claim, i.e. God, it can be adopted by both theist s and atheists.
Bentham created the Hedonic Calculus to measure intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent of happiness of a proposed action is likely to produce. This is a strength because it means we can work out in a mathematical way if an action is likely to result in the ‘greatest happiness’. However, it can justify actions regarded as universally
wrong, e.g. rape, torture, sadism. Also it would be tiresome and time consuming to always use the calculus. But this is not necessarily true – we do weigh up consequences in our head, and continual practice would result in greater speed and adeptness at using it.
Green = AO1 Blue = Strengths Red = Weaknesses
The main perceived weakness of Act Utilitarianism is that it can lead to human rights violations e.g. if a majority gain pleasure from watching a minority suffer (as spectators in the Roman arena did from watching gladiatorial combat), this would be justifiable according to Bentham’s hedonic calculus. John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle was designed to correct this deficiency and protect minorities from physical harm.
For Bentham the sheer quantity of pleasure generated by a hedonic calculation was all that mattered. Again Mill queried this and thought that higher, intellectual pleasures counted for more than mere physical ones. Mill would have disagreed with Bentham that ‘pushpin’ (a mindless pub game) was as good as poetry.
Additionally, Act Utilitarianism is based on a calculation of the predicted consequences of an action. But perhaps this is misguided, as our predictions can turn out to be inaccurate, and there is the additional issue that pleasure is, in the first place, not easy to accurately measure as it is an essentially subjective experience.
For Bentham, pleasure was a motivating factor in human psychology. He therefore thought that it provided a sound basis for an atheistic ethical theory. However, Utilitarian philosophers have generally struggled to justify the ‘greatest number’ aspect of the Utility Principle, as all that Bentham’s insight into human psychology seems to warrant are moral decisions that promote ethical egoism, or individual happiness for me only.
Nozick’s famous ‘pleasure machine’ thought experiment also suggests that human beings are motivated by more than mere pleasure and pain, as almost nobody would choose to remain in his imagined virtual reality generator that guarantees an unending sequence of pleasurable experiences.
Bernard Williams’ famous example of ‘Jim and the Indians’ also demonstrates that although the greatest happiness may result from shooting one Indian rather than all twenty dying, that in taking this path we lose our human dignity, which in turn suggests that the Utility Principle does not provide a suitable foundation for moral decision-making.
Finally, there is an intuitive objection to Act Utilitarianism which arguably helps to highlight a further weakness of this system: imagine that two courses of action produce the same outcome in terms of Bentham’s hedonic calculus but that one of them involves betraying a close friend. Intuitively, this suggests that the exclusive emphasis on outcomes or consequences in Act Utilitarianism may not be desirable.
Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory, where only the consequences of an action matter. This is a weakness, because it is impossible to predict consequences accurately, and Bentham did not specify if we only need to consider immediate or long term consequences. However humans are forward looking - we tend to think ‘what if …’ in moral situations. Moreover moral choices influenced only by personal preferences may be unreliable if there is no consideration of consequences. Consequences have a real effect upon our lives. Nevertheless it does not give credit to motives - not all actions lead to good consequences, so the attitude with which an action is performed is worthy of credit.
Green = AO1 Blue = Strengths Red = Weaknesses