1 Explore the contribution made by Utilitarianism to moral decision making. (8)
Act utilitarianism is a teleological (goal or outcome-oriented), hedonistic ethical theory that was first explained in depth by Jeremy Bentham in his Principles of Morals and Legislation. For Act Utilitarians, only the consequences of our moral decisions matter and the aim is to produce feelings of physical pleasure in as many people as possible who fall within the sphere of the choice we are about to make. Act utilitarianism therefore appeals primarily to Bentham’s famous utility principle, which aims to promote ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’.
More specifically, Act Utilitarians would deploy Bentham’s famous hedonic calculus. Their decision would take into account the purity of the anticipated pleasure, its remoteness (how far away it is in time), its intensity, its certainty, its extent (how many people are affected by the decision), its duration (how long the pleasure might last for), and its fecundity (how likely the anticipated feelings of pleasure are to give rise to further feelings of pleasure).
For example, let’s imagine that a group of act utilitarians are about to order from a set menu in a French restaurant. If that set menu contains foie gras, a delicacy produced from force feeding ducks, the purity of the pleasure experienced by the diners may be contaminated by feelings of guilt resulting from any awareness of the process involved in making foie gras, especially if they are also aware of Bentham’s dictum in relation to animals that the issue when it comes to animals is not whether they can reason but whether they can suffer. Bentham was aware that, like humans, animals are also in possession of nervous systems and are therefore capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.
The extent of the anticipated pleasure may also therefore need to embrace not just humans but animals too. Furthermore, the fecundity of the experience may also be affected by this knowledge. The diners may not wish to return to the same restaurant to repeat the experience if they know that animals suffered considerably in order for this delicacy to be available. The duration of any pleasure may also be short-lived, unless the group of act utilitarians are unaware of the methods used to create foie gras. Finally, Act Utilitarianism takes no account of human rights or the quality of a particular pleasure. Only the quantity of pleasure resulting from a moral decision matters.
Rule utilitarianism (like Act Utilitarianism), is a teleological, hedonistic ethical theory which was developed by the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill in response to the perceived weaknesses of Jeremy Bentham’s version of act utilitarianism. Mill agreed with Bentham that a correct ethical action is one that promotes the Utility Principle i.e. it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However, Mill thought that rules were required to uphold this principle. One such rule was his famous ‘Harm Principle’. According to this principle, we should be allowed as much freedom as possible to pursue happiness and pleasure in life as long as we do not run the risk of physically harming others in doing so. This addresses a weakness of Bentham’s hedonic calculus that would permit the victimization of a minority by a majority if a greater amount of happiness was produced by doing so. In theory, the Harm Principle therefore protects minorities.
Mill also believed that the quality of the pleasure produced by a moral decision counted for more than its quantity. He thought that intellectual or ‘higher’ pleasures were more morally worthy than mere ‘lower’ or physical pleasures. In other words, studying Philosophy was to be preferred to going to the gym. In terms of rules, this would mean that society would be governed by rules that promote higher pleasures e.g. TV channels might be compelled to broadcast more Shakespeare plays and operas at the expense of, say, Strictly Come Dancing.
Mill is also classified as a weak rule utilitarian. This means that exceptions can be made to rules that would ordinarily promote the general happiness if the Utility Principle is upheld by doing so. For example, if a person would starve if they did not steal, then breaking a rule or law in a given society against stealing may be justifiable. This contrasts with Richard Brandt’s later form of rule utilitarianism, which is of a type known as strong rule utilitarianism. For Brandt, once the rules have been decided on (they are first formulated by a group of rule-makers acting rationally) they should not be broken, provided that utility would be maximised if everyone followed them
Bentham’s hedonic calculus is a way of measuring pleasure as an aid to ethical decision making. It is a Teleological argument that assesses the end result by assessing the elements of a particular situation. There are seven elements of the calculus which aim to seek the greatest happiness principle, which is searching for the greatest happiness for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and assessing the best course of action to take. This is based on the idea of utilitarianism. The idea from Bentham is Hedonic, which is from Greek; ‘hedone’ (pleasure), which is the view that pleasure is the chief ‘good’. Bentham suggested that we are motivated by pleasure and pain.
One element of the hedonic calculus is Duration. Bentham suggested that the pleasure gained from a situation and a decision could be measured by the duration; how long it will last for. For example if we were to look at a situation of nuclear war, Bentham would suggest that we would have to consider how long the desired result would last for. If we were to attack another country with nuclear weapons, would the pleasure or positive measures gained be long lasting? The longer lasting the pleasure will be as an end result, the more likely that pleasure will be achieved for the greatest number, and therefore this can help us to assess the ethical dilemma in the right way. This suggests that this element can be useful in assessing an ethical situation.
Another element of the hedonic calculus is extent. Bentham suggested that when we consider an ethical decision, we should consider how widespread it will be. For example, if we look at the common ethical dilemma of a train junction, where one path will lead to the death of 100 innocent people, and the other will lead to the death of you own family members. In this situation, the extent element would suggest that we should save the 100 people, as they are greater in number, and therefore, the extent of the pleasure will be greater if this decision were made. Therefore, we can suggest that the extent element can help us in reaching a conclusion in this situation.
A third element of the calculus is certainty. Bentham suggested that pleasures that resulted from a decision will be better if they are certain to happen. For example, if we were decide if we should torture a captured terrorist to try and get information from it, Bentham suggests that it could be the right course of action if it were certain that this would lead to lives being saved. Therefore Bentham would say that the more certain an outcome is, the more it is the most desirable.
Another element of the calculus is to what extent other pleasures will follow. Bentham would suggest that if the pleasure were a ‘one off’ then it would be less desirable. For example, in a situation of war, if we were going to attack another country to destroy a dictatorship government, then it is likely that other pleasures will follow for the people in that country. For example, better government, more rights, better living conditions etc. Therefore, in this situation we can suggest that a short term period of disruption and pain will lead to long term gain and more elements of pleasure that will continue as a result of this action.
In conclusion we can suggest that the calculus is good at helping us determine the greatest happiness for the greatest number in situations such as those shown above. We can also apply it to contemporary situations when seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Rule utilitarianism (like Act Utilitarianism), is a teleological, hedonistic ethical theory which was developed by the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill in response to the perceived weaknesses of Jeremy Bentham’s version of act utilitarianism. Mill agreed with Bentham that a correct ethical action is one that promotes the Utility Principle i.e. it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However, Mill thought that rules were required to uphold this principle. One such rule was his famous ‘Harm Principle’. According to this principle, we should be allowed as much freedom as possible to pursue happiness and pleasure in life as long as we do not run the risk of physically harming others in doing so. This addresses a weakness of Bentham’s hedonic calculus that would permit the victimization of a minority by a majority if a greater amount of happiness was produced by doing so. In theory, the Harm Principle therefore protects minorities.
Mill also believed that the quality of the pleasure produced by a moral decision counted for more than its quantity. He thought that intellectual or ‘higher’ pleasures were more morally worthy than mere ‘lower’ or physical pleasures. In other words, studying Philosophy was to be preferred to going to the gym. In terms of rules, this would mean that society would be governed by rules that promote higher pleasures e.g. TV channels might be compelled to broadcast more Shakespeare plays and operas at the expense of, say, Strictly Come Dancing.
Mill is also classified as a weak rule utilitarian. This means that exceptions can be made to rules that would ordinarily promote the general happiness if the Utility Principle is upheld by doing so. For example, if a person would starve if they did not steal, then breaking a rule or law in a given society against stealing may be justifiable. This contrasts with Richard Brandt’s later form of rule utilitarianism, which is of a type known as strong rule utilitarianism. For Brandt, once the rules have been decided on (they are first formulated by a group of rule-makers acting rationally) they should not be broken, provided that utility would be maximised if everyone followed them.
1 Explore the role of pleasure within utilitarian theory. (8)
1 Explore what the concepts of utility, pleasure, hedonism and happiness bring to doing ethics. (8 marks)
1 Explore the important ideas of preference Utilitarianism. (8)
1 Explore the important ideas of negative and ideal Utilitarianism. (8)
1 Explore the distinction between ideal and negative utilitarianism.. (8)
1 Explore influences on the emergence of the theory, including social, political and cultural influences (8)
1 Explore the application of the priciple of utility in historical and contemporary ethical, situations of political and social reform . (8)
1 Explore the principle of utility and the concept of relativism in ethics. (8)
1 Explore the contribution of Bentham and Mill to utilitarian theory. (8)
1 Explore the contribution made by utilitarianism to moral decision making. (8)
Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism is a teleological theory. It is based on the observation that all humans seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. From this fact, the obligation to aim at this is derived. It may be summed up in the Greatest Happiness Principle: the greatest happiness (equated by Bentham with pleasure) for the greatest number of people.
It is also consequentialist. There are no absolute and intrinsic values, other than that of maximising pleasure. Apart from happiness, no other quality has intrinsic value. All other qualities are at best instrumentally good. It is the same with generally accepted rules and principles, e.g. telling the truth or keeping promises. Everything depends on whether following such principles would maximise pleasure for the greatest number. If, for instance, breaking a promise to take his wife out to dinner 4Exam practice answers Now Test Yourself answers at www.hoddereducation.co.uk/myrevisionnotes for her birthday means that a doctor can volunteer for an extra shift in A & E, knowing that there has been a major incident nearby with many casualties, a utilitarian would judge it right to break that promise even if he cannot let her know and she sits at home waiting for him.
Moreover, pleasure and pain are measurable. Bentham famously assigned the same value to pushpin (a game played in bars) to poetry. Each decision-making situation should be judged on its own merits. To assist in the decision-making process, Bentham developed the hedonic calculus with its seven criteria: intensity was concerned with the strength of the pleasure to be obtained from the action being considered, certainty with the likelihood that the desired consequence would be achieved, duration with whether the pleasure was short or long term and propinquity with how soon it would be experienced. The criterion of fecundity asked whether the pleasure (or the pain) would be followed by further pleasures (or pains) and purity with whether pleasure might turn to pain or pain to pleasure. Most importantly for Bentham, extent assessed how many people would experience the pleasure or pain. Applying the calculus to von Stauffenberg’s decision to kill Hitler, most of the criteria, particularly intensity and extent, would have supported his decision. In the light of what happened, certainty raises doubts. Utilitarians recognise, however, that in many situations, it is impossible to be absolutely certain of the outcome, so they work on probability.
1 Explore the strengths of the theory and its developments. (8)
1 Explore the weaknesses of the theory and its developments. (8)
1 Explore the weaknesses of utilitarianism. (8)
1 Explore different ideas about some relevant examples of the application of Utilitarianism. (8)
1 Explore the changes in the law and social attitudes vis a vis the theory of Utilitarianism. (8)
1 Explore the compatibility or otherwise with religious approaches of the theory of Utilitarianism. (8)