Utilitarianism

Τeleological theories

CD Broad “hold that rightness or wrongness of an action is always determined by its tendency to produce certain consequences which are intrinsically good or bad”

-Takes a relativist approach, outcome rather than action

-Appeals to common sense, instinctively consider how an act will affect us

Deontological v consequentialist

Teleological theory maintains that the moral judgements are based on an actions consequences

Deontological theory maintains that the rightness of an action does not depend solely on its consequences

>actions have inherent rightness or wrongness

Eg Pacifists armed agression is always wrong

>may consider the motives of an act

Eg duty or good intentions make an action good

>any bad consequences dont detract from the actions goodness

Act utilitarianism

-Βentham

-from a teleological pov what is significant is the consequence

-striving for the greatest happiness for the greatest number- principle of utility

-The consequences of each action should be considered

-Moral relativism (not inherently right or wrong, depends on outcome)

-Utilises hedonic calculus to determine amount of pleasure and pain and correct action

-Consequentialist

-Principle of utility applied directly to individual actions/moral situations.

-Moral rules can be a useful guideline for behaviour but can be violated if doing so would bring about the greatest happiness.

Deontological argument

CD Broad “such and such a kind of action would always be right (or wrong) in such and such circumstances, no matter what its consequence might be”

-The rightness of an action doesn’t depend solely on consequence but on the acts feature

Eg Pacifist act of aggression always wrong

>absolutist approach

-Intentions matter, following duty and such, if intentions are wrong then the act is tainted

Meta-ethical aspects of utilitarianism

• Cognitivist theory: proposes that there are such things as moral truths. Moral statements are either true or false and can be demonstrated as such. This means it is also a form of moral realism.

• Moral naturalism: proposes that moral facts are also natural facts. Some natural property is relevant to our assessment of something as 'good' or 'bad'. We can know about 'good' and 'bad' in the same way we can know about other natural properties e.g. observation.

Moral naturalism

• proposes that moral facts are also natural facts.

• Some natural property is relevant to our assessment of something as 'good' or 'bad'.

• We can know about 'good' and 'bad' in the same way we can know about other natural properties e.g. observation.

Cognitivst theory

• proposes that there are such things as moral truths. Moral statements are either true or false and can be demonstrated as such. This means it is also a form of moral realism.

• Metaethical

Moral naturalism

• Proposes that moral facts are also natural facts. Some natural property is relevant to our assessment of something as 'good' or 'bad'.

• We can know about 'good' and 'bad' in the same way we can know about other natural properties e.g. observation.

• Utilitarian equate goodness with happiness

• Meta-ethical

Psychological hedonism

• the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain

• Bentham believes we are motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain

• 

Ethical hedonism

• the view that only pleasure has moral worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth.

• Bentham believes we should seek pleasure

Types of Hedonsim

• Psychological hedonism: the view that all human action is ultimately motivated by desires for pleasure and the avoidance of pain

• Bentham believes we are motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain

• Ethical hedonism: the view that only pleasure has moral worth or value and only pain or displeasure has disvalue or the opposite of worth.

• Bentham believes we should seek pleasure

• Bentham believes all pleasure is equal in value, concerned with amount of pleasure rather than its kind or quality > quantitive utilitarianism

• “Quantity of pleasures being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”

• If it produces the same amount of pleasure they are equally important

• Eg pleasure of malevolence = senses

Quantitive utilitarianism,

• Bentham believes all pleasure is equal in value, concerned with amount of pleasure rather than its kind or quality > quantitive utilitarianism

• “Quantity of pleasures being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”

• If it produces the same amount of pleasure they are equally important

• Eg pleasure of malevolence = senses

Bentham on hedonism+utilitarianism (what is it, who does it effect)

• Bentham believes all pleasure is equal in value, concerned with amount of pleasure rather than its kind or quality > quantitive utilitarianism

• “Quantity of pleasures being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”

• Eg pleasure of malevolence = senses

• Also follows psychological+ethical hedonism

• For Bentham, the ability to experience pleasure and pain is the basis for something to be considered a moral patient i.e. to be taken into moral consideration when we act).

• included animals as part of his moral consideration because of their capability to experience pleasure and pain

  "The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

• Differs from egoism

  though my pleasure is significant the pains of others are significant “each is to count for one and none for more than one”

Utilitarianism+consequences for Bentham

• Consequentialism - (or teleological)

  utilitarianism suggests that it is the outcomes of an action that makes it right or wrong, not the action itself, nor the intention.

• Bentham thought that the consequences of each moral situation should be considered, rather than the general outcomes of following moral rules.

  This is called act utilitarianism.

• A form of relativism - Bentham's act utilitarianism does not hold that any actions are intrinsically wrong in themselves.

  this is dependent on the outcomes it will have based on the particular situation.

  This is not an absolute meta-ethical relativism - Bentham still believes in moral truths such as 'pleasure is good'.

• Principle of utility - utility means 'usefulness'. In the context of his ethical theory, Bentham intends this to mean that our actions should promote the best outcomes, and the betterment of society as a whole.

  The principle of utility is usually summarised as 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number.'

• Bentham believes all pleasure is equal in value, concerned with amount of pleasure rather than its kind or quality > quantitive utilitarianism

• “Quantity of pleasures being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry”

• Does allow us to scarifiée the pleasure of some for the pleasure of the many

Jonathon Jacobs on utilitarianism

-Utilitarianism supplies a clear answer to the question, ”where is moral value located? or “what do we look to in making moral judgements and decisions?”

> “we are to look to what difference is made by an action (or a practice, or the following of a general rule).” That is, ”we are to look to the consequences of actions or the states of affairs that they bring about.” (State of affairs- way things are)

virtue-centred theorizing value is located in the character of the agent + subsequent action .

Kantian morality, moral value resides in the agent’s volition+duty (rejects consequentialism)

JS Mill, a Utilitarian theorist, endorsed the view that the moral value of actions depends upon what they bring about. It depends upon the

causal difference they make to states of affairs, and he sharply distinguishes this from the

moral evaluation of agents. In regard to evaluating agents, motives matter. But in regard

to evaluating actions, wat matters is what difference they make, not the motive or

character of the agent. Mill never says that the morality of agents is not important but he

clearly distinguishes between that issue and the rightness or wrongness of actions in a

way that neither Aristotle or Kant did so.

A main reason for this is that Mill and other utilitarians were convinced morality has a

claim on us because of how being moral contributes to increasing happiness or welfare.

How could an action or a practice be a right action or practice if it did not increase (rather

than decrease) happiness? How rational is it to act according to principles such that doing

so is an impediment to happiness or actually increases suffering?

An important aspect of this is that utilitarians saw themselves as demystifying morality

and making it eminently practical. They thought that moral theory could be empirical,

objective, and could be freed from controversial theological commitments, unargued

intuitions, and the weight of custom and convention taken as justifications regardless of

whether they are rationally supportable. In fact, Mill opens Utilitarianism by pointing out

how the debate about the highest good and the basic principles of morality has remained

stubbornly unsolved. He points out how there are competing strategies of justification for

them, and he thinks that utilitarian theory can free us from this unsatisfactory situation.

He and other utilitarians believe that the theory supplies a clear and compelling answer to

the questions of (i) were moral value is located, (ii) what has moral value, and (iii) how to

reason about what to do, given the answers to (i) and (ii). Utilitarianism claims to have the

distinctive merit of supplying a systematic and conceptually simple but adequate

approach to understanding morality and moral reasoning. It claims to do this in a way that

has a powerful practical appeal and does not involve any obscure or controversial

presuppositions.

We have already indicated one of its key features, namely that it looks to states of affairs

as the locus of moral value. This is consequentialism, the view that the consequences or

the causal difference made by actions are what we look to in judging the rightness or

wrongness of actions. We have mentioned another of the theory’s key features, its claim

that what matters about states of affairs is whether they constitute an increase or

decrease in happiness or utility. This is hedonism, the view that pleasure is the good. It is

important to note right away that not all consequentialists are hedonists. Jeremy

Bentham, a leading figure in the development of utilitarian theory, famously wrote,

“nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” They, and

they alone have intrinsic value. That has been a central theme for most utilitarian thinkers

but it is not a logical requirement of the theory. While consequentialism is a view about

the structure of moral theory or about where moral value is found, hedonism is a theory

about what is morally valuable, about what is good. The most influential versions of

consequentialism are also hedonist theories but G. E. Moore, for example, was a

consequentialist but not a hedonist. Usually, when people speak of consequentialism they

mean hedonistic utilitarianism, and usually when people speak of utilitarianism they

mean its hedonistic version.

Utilitarianism is also a cognitivist moral theory, because it holds that moral judgements

are literally correct or mistaken (or we could say, “literally true or false”). Judgements are

based upon facts and do not merely express attitudes or feelings. Granted, the facts they

ae concerned with are facts about what promotes utility or what maximizes happiness,

but even though those are facts about the psychological states of subjects, they are (the

utilitarians claims) objective. it is a matter of fact that action A makes more people better

off than action B, and that is what makes action A the objectively right action. (There are

several different cognitivist moral theories and it is an illuminating exercise to compare

them and their conceptions of what makes for the objectivity of moral judgements.)

What motivated utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill to accept and endorse hedonism

was that it seemed to them that pleasure and pleasure alone is what people desire for its

own sake and what is desired for its own sake is the key to what has value. This was

another aspect of the demystification of morality. They thought (and contemporary

utilitarians often agree) that moral value can be explained in empirical, naturalistic terms.

If we analyse human action, they held, we always find that, in the final analysis, what

people aim at is pleasure. Imagine you are asked why you are leaving the meeting early

(“to get to my car”) and why you want to get to your car (“because I need to get to the

dentist and this is a time of day when traffic is heavy”) and why you are going to the

dentist (“to have this impacted tooth worked on”) and why you are having that work

done (“for my dental and overall health”) and why that maters to you (“because I will the

feel better – it contributes to, and is part of, living without pain and having a more

pleasurable existence”). It is not that you undertake each step of the overall action

because you find it pleasurable to do so. Perhaps you would like to remain at the meeting

as you dislike driving in traffic and having heavy dental work done. But the rationality of

the overall action-process is explained with reference to the pleasure of being in good

health. Think of an analogous structure of practical reasoning concerning what course of

study you choose to pursue or how you plan how to spend your time on holiday. Whether

short term or long term, the hedonistic utilitarian argues that the rationality of the action

is anchored in our desire for pleasure for its own sake. Other things are desired as means

to pleasure or because we find them pleasurable. (One pursues pleasure by pursuing this,

that, and the other thing that one finds pleasing.)

For the utilitarians this claim about pleasure is the core of the explanation of human

action and this, also, the core of an account of moral requirements. This is because, given

the significance of pleasure, rational action is action that promotes it and that minimizes

pain. Moreover, the early utilitarians thought that pleasure was measurable, at least to

the extent that we could make accurate empirical judgements about which, of the

available courses of action, would be best. The notion that pleasure or utility or happiness

(the notions often being used largely interchangeably) is measurable may seem quite

implausible. What would be the units of measure? How would we compare one person’s

pleasure to another’s? And so on. Still, in fairness to the utilitarians, it does seem that we

can make a great number of reliable judgements about whether say, there is more utility

in being honest than in being dishonest, in aiding people in distress than in abandoning

them, in educating young people with a breadth of experience rather than confining them

to highly routinized lives within narrow horizons; and the list could go on and on.

Hedonic calculator

INITIAL ACT

Intensity

The stronger, the better, meaning that those pleasures that give an acute and extremely potent rush of pleasure bring instant happiness.

Duration

The longer-lasting, the better, meaning that inevitably the enduring nature of the experience of happiness is a key factor in assessing the quality of the pleasure.

Certainty

The surer that pleasure will result, the better. This is a true 'calculation' of the implications of the pleasure being consistent and, in some cases, more reliable than an alternative. All things being equal, we should go for pleasures which are more certain than less certain.

occurrences of the same pleasure or pleasures, or, alternatively, subsequent and dependent sub-pleasures that may result.

Remoteness

The nearer the pleasure is to you, the better, meaning the present as opposed to those we are looking forward to in the distant future.

KNOCK ON EFFECTS

Fecundity

The more chance the pleasure will be repeated or will result in other pleasures, the better. This considers the additional

Purity

The least amount of pain it involves, the better. Some experiences may not be pure happiness. For Bentham, a consistent experience of pleasure that is far distanced from pain is superior.

Extent

The more people who experience it the better, as shared pleasures enhance the impact of happiness beyond oneself in true keeping with the happiness principle.

Evaluation of Bentham's utilitarianism

1. Pleasure as the only moral value

-Bentham argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good, and therefore the only requirement of moral action is to maximise pleasure.

>based on his view that human behaviour is motivated by the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

>since this is what humans seem to value the most in life, that our only moral obligation is to increase pleasure for all.

Eg Aristotle to Ayn Rand.

-since Bentham argues that only the amount of pleasure matters and not what the source of this pleasure is, he is able to take account of the subjective nature of pleasure.

>What is pleasurable to me might not be pleasurable to you. Bentham's system therefore does not insist that we impose particular ways of life on people or insist that they conform to some particular standard.

>People are free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. While some may gain pleasure from poetry and other intellectual pursuits, some may gain more pleasure from things like food or children's games.

BUT

-Bentham's failure to distinguish between different types of pleasures

>it therefore follows that the happiness of a person getting drunk and clubbing on a Thursday night is morally equal to that produced by a carer doing unpaid social work for the elderly

>Since Bentham makes no distinction between types of pleasure, he is unable to make a distinction between worthwhile or desirable pleasures and those that are not.

-Would a person in a perpetual state of drug-fuelled euphoria really be living a good life?

-Pleasures of malevolence

-Aristotle would argue that this is not true happiness or flourishing, which for him is rational activity in accordance with virtue.

2. Equal moral consideration

-everybody is to count for one, nobody for more than one, meaning that we must consider the pleasure and pain of all people affected by our actions equally.

>offer an advantage over some ethical theories, such as Ethical Egoism, which says we only have to consider our own interests.

fails to explain why my pleasure or interests are any more valuable than another person's.

By insisting that we consider the happiness of all people equally, utilitarianism can provide the basis for a fairer society, and may be said to lead to the more just treatment of others.

-Bentham's inclusion of animals into moral consideration marks a more consistent approach to ethics.

>Other theories may struggle to explain why animals should be excluded from moral consideration solely on the grounds of being animals.

BUT

-equal moral consideration can create huge and unrealistic demands on the individual.

>I would always be morally obligated to do something to improve the wellbeing of another person at any point that they are less fortunate than me.

eg I am obliged to give away all of my wealth until the point I am only marginally better off than those experiencing the most hardship and suffering.

This seems an unrealistic demand to set for people.

-We also have the issue of having to accurately account for what we think might improve the happiness of other people, but since what causes others to experience pleasure can be highly subjective, it seems impossible that we could reasonably consider all people equally.

3. Consequentialist approach

-argues that the morality of an action is to be judged by its outcomes.

When we think about actions that are right or wrong, we often frame it by the effect that it has on others. Typically, good actions are seen as those that help or benefit others, and bad actions are those that harm others.

-This approach is also sometimes considered to be a form of moral relativism.

>recognises that there are no actions that are intrinsically right or wrong, but that the morality of the action is dependent upon the particular situation and the consequences

eg Immanuel Kant axe murderer

many of us would argue that following the rule is not the right thing to do in this situation.

By taking a relativist approach, Bentham's act utilitarianism allows us to assess whether following the rule in this situation would promote the greatest happiness, and if not, argue that the right course of action is to deceive the murderer.

BUT

-Bentham's relativism that there are no actions which are intrinsically wrong or right. It would allow us to steal, to kill, or even to rape if the consequences could be shown to be beneficial overall

>has the logical consequence of allowing what common sense might regard as evil as a good.

-have also raised concerns with Bentham's principle of utility, which proposes that we should aim to produce 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number', arguing that it can lead to injustice in society.

>Bentham's view of the maximisation of happiness could justify injustices like slavery, if the slaves were significantly in the minority and their enslavement would benefit the overall happiness of society.

BUT

-Bentham argued that typically, causing pain or unhappiness to a minority would not result in an equal amount of happiness being produced in the majority

"such is the nature of the receptacle, the quantity of unhappiness it is capable of containing during any given portion of time is greater than the quantity of happiness."

BUT This is the theme of Ursula Le Guin's short story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas', in which the utopian city's perpetual happiness and prosperity depends upon the torture of one young girl. Could a utilitarian possibly argue the happiness produced would not outweigh the pain?

4. The use of the hedonic calculus

-Bentham proposes act utilitarianism. This is the view that one should consider the consequences of each individual moral action or in each moral situation.

>Bentham gives clear guidance on how we can work out what we ought to do through the hedonic calculus.

intensity, duration, remoteness, and certainty of the pleasures and pains produced by the initial act, and the fecundity or purity of these pleasures and pains when thinking about the future consequences.

He also notes that we need to account for all people that might be affected by our action.

BUT

-the hedonic calculus could be seen as overly complex and time-consuming.

>This is a problem if we are faced with a situation where we need to make an immediate decision.

BUT

'It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued previously to every moral judgment'.

>Experience can guide us.

One can use 'rules of thumb' to guide action, but these rules are overridable when abiding by them would conflict with the promotion of the good.

But it is precisely in novel situations where we may need to override our generalised judgements that we must rely on calculation, and therefore where utilitarianism may be of least help.

-The hedonic calculus also relies upon the subjective judgement of the individual to gauge the intensity, duration and remoteness of the pleasures and pains involved.

-we cannot always accurately predict the further consequences of our actions - the fecundity or purity, or even the extent of the pleasures and pains that will result.

> Dan Herzog has therefore proposed that we write off utilitarianism as 'incomprehensible', saying that 'for all its vaunted precision', utilitarianism 'fails to set out a procedure for making choices' and 'cannot tell us what to do'.

-Louis Pojman has called the problem of incommensurability. Bentham's principle of utility requires that we factor in two variables when making our calculations - the total happiness produced and the number of people affected.

>how we decide which of the variables to rank first when they seem to conflict? For example, should I be more concerned about total happiness (the greatest amount) or about highest average (spread

JS Mill Utilitarianism

-Often seen as an attempt to overcome Bentham’s system’s challenges:

• problems with all pleasure being equal> qualitiative approach

• Hedonic calculus flaws+issue of promoting injustice>rule util+harm principle

-Maintains principle of utility

-Argues pleasure as the only intrinsic good- the only desirable end of human behaviour, all others are desired as they contibute to it

-He claims people prefer happiness which employs their highest faculties and this is higher quality than mere content

• Claims higher quality ascertained by if most would chose it even at the risk of discontent

-Responds to Carlyle “a philosophy fit for swine” encouraging people to live like pigs pursuing pleasure by any means possible

• He differentiates happiness (more than base pleasure, Aristolean vibe happiness links to what it means to be human) and content better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied

• It is easier for the pig or the fool to be fully satisfied as their capacities for enjoyment are low, argues it is better to live a life where higher pleasures are accessible

-Differs from Bentham’s act utilitarianism with rule utilitarianism

BUT

-Abandons hedonism

-Makes pleasure harder to calculate

-Problems with qualitative utilitariansim

Evaluating JS Mill’s utilitarianism

Qualitative approach

-neuroscientific support, different pleasures effect brain differently

-Improvement of Bentham’s quantative, able to recognise some pleasures are more worth pursuing, contributing to fulfilment, and experiences of depth and complexity

BUT

Abandons Hedonism

-Claims to take a hedonistic approach (happiness=pleasure and is the only good thing)

BUT his pref for higher pleasures seems to prioritise what gives us less happiness

-Only way to justify this pref is employing things others than happiness: greater artisty or profundity eg Shakespearean tragedy

-Hedonism claims happiness is the only standard

>His theory is inconsistent and wrong

Hard to calculate

-Hedonic calculus was sufficiently complex, the addition of quality complicates it further

-Must now measure quality and quantity > they are incommensurable (cant be compared) how much of a lower pleasure will be able to overcome a small amount of the higher?

-Mill is inclear

Problems judging high and low

-Defines higher as that which most experts with experiance of competing pleasures would prefer even if it gave less pleasure

>team of people with superior and reliable taste

>only qualifications are having been indulgend in flesh v art pleasure and prefering the latter

-Can anyone fully experiance all varieties (party constantly and visit museums)

-Mill admits that due to weakness of will or boredom they sometimes participate in lower

>the ‘experts’ are subject to changing their minds and cant be relied on

>unfalsifiable

-Hauskeller+Schaupp argue his distinction between high and low is unsuccessful failing to prove some pleasures are iherently preferable- most people wouldnt renounce low (sex, chocolate) for high (opera)

Rule utilitarianism

• An action is right if it conforms to a rule that tends to lead to the greatest happiness.

• The correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed.

• Following rules that tend to lead to the greatest good will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances.

• Can be seen as a deontological/teleological hybrid ethical theory:

  Deontological

  • Proposes that there are moral rules that should always be followed regardless of the situation. We have an obligation/duty to act according to these rules.

  Teleological

  • The rules that are proposed are those which tend to lead to the best outcomes if followed.

  • The correctness of the rules is their ability to promote the greatest happiness.

• Relates the principle or utility to rules rather than individual actions- an act is correct if it promotes general happiness

• Considering individual actions is impractical (compares rules to signposts, the rules merely help find greatest happiness)

• There are instances with conflicting duties/rules and only then should you have to revert back to the Greatest Happiness Principle (eg Kant’s murderer at the door)

  • In a moral situation, the actor should examine which rules (secondary principles) in the moral code of their society relate to the given situation.

  • If the secondary principles seem to propose conflicting duties, then and only then) should we invoke the primary principle- the principle of utility - to consider which rule we have a greater duty to follow in this situation: following which rule would lead to the greatest happiness?

• Mill supports rights on the principle of utility (generally happier)

Rule Utilitarianism summary

• Principle of utility used to the evaluate rules rather than individual actions/moral situations.

• Moral rules should be adopted if following them would typically lead to the maximisation of happiness.

• Correct behaviour is that which conforms to these rules.

• Rules that promote the general happiness should not be violated.

• Rules can be assessed periodically and can be modified or abandoned if they no longer promote the greatest happiness.

Hybrid theory

• Can be seen as a deontological/teleological hybrid ethical theory:

  Deontological

  • Proposes that there are moral rules that should always be followed regardless of the situation. We have an obligation/duty to act according to these rules.

  Teleological

  • The rules that are proposed are those which tend to lead to the best outcomes if followed.

  • The correctness of the rules is their ability to promote the greatest happiness.

Harm Principle

-Mill Rule utility

-We have the right to infringe on others in so far as they are causing harm

-Argues people are happier when they can pursue their own happiness UNLESS they are causing harm to others (generally physical)

>Bentham had the issue of justifying anything

Principles in rule utilitarianism

• The primary principle is There are instances with conflicting duties/rules and only then should you have to revert back to the Greatest Happiness Principle (eg Kant’s murderer at the door)

  • In a moral situation, the actor should examine which rules (secondary principles) in the moral code of their society relate to the given situation.

  • If the secondary principles seem to propose conflicting duties, then and only then) should we invoke the primary principle- the principle of utility - to consider which rule we have a greater duty to follow in this situation: following which rule would lead to the greatest happiness?

Act v Rule utilitarianism

-The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism was introduced by Richard Brandt 1950s

-They thus dont fit neatly into the category

-Both are concerned by maximising utility+argue this is how to assess good actions but apply the principle differently (differ on how it is achieved)

Intrinsically good

-Good in and of itself

-Not good because of something else it leads to

-To be pursued for its own sake

Mill’s proof of utility

-His proof of utility claims that just as an object can only be proved as visible if it is seen, or a sound may only be proved as audible if heard

the only evidence for something being desirable is that it is desired and general happiness is desirable as it is desired.

-If individual happiness is good it follows that general happiness is good to the aggregates of all + is desired by all

-Believes the only thing we desire for its own sake is happiness- we desire other things to bring happiness, eg money

BUT

GE Moore JS Mill falls into the fallacy of equivocation

key term or phrase used ambiguously with one meaning in one portion of the argument and another later

>desirable moves from meaning ‘capable of desire’ (audible- capable of being heard) to ‘worthy of being desired’ (thus anything desired is good)

GE Moore on naturalistic fallacy

(Where non-natural terms eg ‘good’ are defined in terms of natural properties eg ‘pleasure’)

-attempts to define goodness in terms of happiness or pleasure fall into this

>no issue in saying “pleasure is good” but the meaning of pleasure and good are not synonymous

GE Moore on fallacy of equivocation

-fallacy of equivocation is to use a key term or phrase in an ambiguous manner

-GE Moore criticises Mill’s use of ‘desirable’ as it is intended to mean ‘worthy of being desired’ but by comparing it to visible which means ‘able to be seen’ it comes to mean ‘able to be desired’- it does not mean that what we desire should be desired

-eg Bentham made space for pleasure from malevolence

-Aquinas + apparent goods, just as we desire it doesn’t mean it is a true good eg desire promiscuity, doesn’t mean its good

Fallacy of composition principle of utility

the fallacy of composition is assuming a subject shares the qualities of it parts

just because happiness is desirable for an individual it does not mean we all desire happiness for all

Have a collection of individuals desiring their only happiness, doesn’t mean individual desires happiness for all

Experience machine

-Nozick’s experience machine explains a scenario in which it was possible for a machine to give you the feeling of any experience and questions whether you would choose to do this for the rest of your life to challenge the idea that happiness is not the only important factor in life

-it shows pleasure is not the only intrinsic pleasure as it is not the case all people would be happy to sacrifice everything for happiness

Pleasure is the sole intrinsic good

IS PLEASURE GOOD:

Bentham+Mill take a hedonistic approach

“There’s two sovreign masters: pleasure and pain”

BUT Naturalistic fallacy

IS ALL PLEASURE GOOD/DESIRED

Proof of utility

Proof of Utility Mill- we know we desire things because we desire them

BUT GE Moore fallacy of equivicotation, Aquinas+ Apparent goods, Bentham pleasure of malevolence

Are there other goods

Mill only desire other things instrumentally

BUT Nozick Experience machine

Justice

-Typically understood as equity+fair treatment

-Giving people what they deserve of are owed

-Respecting individual rights

Eg paying someone more for better work

-For utilitarianism justice might be said to be maximising utility

Does Util justify sacrificing others

-Unlike Egoism it forced you to consider others

-Mill defends rights on the basis of utility

BUT hypothetically if i can argue not having rights would promote utility then I could justify it as they are not natural rights, only justified

BUT could justify to sacrifice the well being of one for the good of the many

Does Utilitarianism promote Justice

Equal moral considerations

• Bentham suggests that everybody's interests must be considered equally: 'Each to count for one and none for more than one.

• We must weigh up the interests of all people that will be effected by our actions and give them equal consideration.

• We cannot prioritise our own wellbeing/happiness over that of others (or at their expense).

• This can encourage people to tackle perceived injustices e.g.
  Peter Singer says that we must consider the condition of the global poor and help them if we are living in relative luxury.
  Why should the happiness we gain from buying new products count more than the pain of those dying of easily preventable causes?

BUT

• equal consideration of interests can sometimes lead to absurd conclusions and unjust demands e.g. every time I have a spare £10, I would not be able to spend this enjoying myself but would be obliged to give it to someone worse off as their pain would need to be given equal importance to my enjoyment.

• Singer's views on global poverty, we would be obliged to keep giving until we have very little left.

• But it does not seem just that we cannot enjoy the fruits of our labour. It also seems to imply that that the global poor in some way have a claim to my money or possessions, but this does not seem fair.

• If I earned it, I should be able to use it as I want.

The Greatest Happiness Principle

• The greatest happiness principle (though typically obliging us to act justly towards others) can sometimes permit or require that we cause pain/harm to an individual or a minority to increase the happiness of the majority.

• It could be seen to permit unjust acts like gang rape or throwing
  Christians to lions to entertain Roman crowds (especially since Bentham accounts for pleasures of malevolence).

• Bentham attempted to address this by noting that our capacity for pain outweighs our capacity for pleasure. He gives the example that if 1001 people caused pain to 1000 to increase their own pleasure, this would not result in maximisation of happiness.

  BUT

• if pleasure is quantifiable then it would be possible at some point to justify causing some pain to an individual or small enough minority to benefit a majority (e.g. 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas' - torturing the one girl for the prosperity of a entire city).

Rule utilitarianism + Justice

• This problem (worrying that at any moment your pain can be justified) can be overcome by rule utilitarianism.

• Though in some cases utility may be best served by sacrificing the wellbeing of the one for the many, generally society is better off if we do not do this.

• Rule utilitarianism could therefore promote justice by telling us that we ought to follow rules that promote the greatest happiness e.g. do not kill, do not steal etc. this would be more likely to achieve justice/just society.

BUT

• it still may be possible to formulate rules to govern a society which could be said to maximise utility but which we would consider unjust e.g. the British economy and the economic wellbeing of its population in the 18th/19th century depended upon the permissibility of slavery and the slave trade in the empire, so this could be justified by even rule utilitarianism.

SO

-Mill's introduction of the 'harm principle' could be said to promote justice.

• The only reason we would be permitted in violating the basic rights and freedoms of others would be to prevent harm to someone else.

• Defends the concept of rights on the basis of utility - generally a society that respects the rights of its citizens is a happier one.

BUT

• the defence of rights on utilitarian is a problem as it could justify removing rights whenever they are deemed not to maximise happiness.

Deont v teleo v virtue ethics

Deontological ethics would claim the consequences dont matter, intentions matter

• The act itself e.g. some actions are always inherently wrong.

• The intention affects the morality of an action - you can do the 'right' thing for the wrong reasons.

• Kant argues the only reason to act is out of duty (your duty not to lie, their duty not to kill)

• Natural law the intention and action must align

Teleological, nothing is right or wrong inherently, consequences are all that matter

• Actions are not inherently right or wrong. The rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent upon the consequences that it has.

• The intention does not make a difference to the morality of the action.

Virtue ethics is cultivating character- can do good but be bad, need to act to cultivate virtue

• Morality is about becoming a good person e.g. developing a virtuous character from which good actions spontaneously flow.

Whether Utilitarianism works in contempary society

-Will they help us live well/ good actions

BUT Util can allow injustice

BUT Bentham capacity for pain always greater + Mill harm principle

-Are they convenient to accept/ does not undermine social order

Rule Util has rules

BUT Act Util cant be trusted, at any second harming someone will be the best option (never know if the doctor will harvest your organs)

-Can they be usable in practice

ACT Hedonic calculus

BUT Complicated, involves fortune telling, hard to quantify

RULE follow rules which history and experience recommend

BUT doesn’t always

-Adaptable to new situations

AFFECTED NOW BY

-Historical + scientific events- perhaps our perspective has shifted

-Globalisation- increasingly complex social relations

everyone’s to count for one and none for more than one- the interests of all, even minorities, must be considered- Util may help us navigate

BUT can justify persecution as long as the pain leads to greater benefit

harm principle (do wtv you want as long as others are not infringed) eg FGM can be intervened, able to draw distinction between valid culturally practices and those which are not

BUT now must consider the impacts to all globally and those with other perspectives eg the way we purchase goods (sweat shops should be supported but if not they’ll be fired- what to do is complex)

-Pluralism+multiculturalism- do we all share the same values

Not all people necessarily share the view of pleasure as good- eg in religion pleasure wouldn’t appear intrinsically good, wouldn’t accept the pleasure of promiscuity

Religious people could differ the lower pleasures for the higher pleasures

Generally seek happiness

-New issues- nuclear weapons

Does Util provide a practical basis for decision making (for both religious believers and non-believers)

YES

-Happiness is considered the sole intrinsic good. >As observed by Bentham, 'mankind has been placed under two sovereign masters'. >All people value happiness for themselves and others, so religious believers can accept the foundational principle of utilitarianism. -The principle of utility is founded upon an observation of the natural world. >It therefore has evidence to support it which can be seen by all that examine it. >It can be observed for example that humans are motivated by pleasure and pain.

No

Utilitarianism falls into the is/ought problem - just because our behaviour is motivated by pleasure does not mean that it should be motivated by pleasure. >Some forms of pleasure are believed by Christians to be sinful e.g. lustful desires, pleasures of malevolence and so on. -Utilitarianism cannot provide a basis for decision-making for religious believers if it makes no distinction between good and bad pleasures. (BUT It could be argued Mill somewhat overcomes this.) -Utilitarianism tries to root moral value in the natural world rather than in God. >For Christians, God must be the source of moral value in order to provide it with some kind of metaphysical foundation. >Divine Command theorist argue that moral principles can only have the weight of moral obligation if they are given as commands by a lawgiver (God). >Simply observing that we like happiness is not enough to make maximising pleasure a moral obligation. (BUT God created the natural world)

Cognitivist theory

• proposes that there are such things as moral truths.

• Moral statements are either true or false and can be demonstrated as such. This means it is also a form of moral realism.

• 

Does Rule Utilitarianism provide a better basis for making moral decisions than Act Utilitarianism?

ACT

It helps us to maximise utility with each decision

-If happiness is the sole intrinsic good then the aim of all of our actions should be to maximise happiness.

-Since act utilitarianism asks us to assess that we bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number with by considering the impact of each moral action we can ensure that we are always acting in a way that will maximise utility.

>Since Bentham has given us a way to work out what actions will lead to the greatest happiness through his hedonic calculus, we can always know which actions are right and which are wrong.

It accounts for situations where following rules does not lead to the best outcome

-There are some circumstances where following a rule or absolute moral principle does not lead to the best consequences i.e. it does not maximise happiness.

> Kant's murderer at the door situation.

While typically being honest might be said to have the most benefit, in this situation it would lead to more pain than pleasure to tell the truth, since it would result in the death of the young boy.

-Absolutist ethical approaches do not help us in these kinds of situations.

>Act utilitarianism accounts for these unique circumstances though act utilitarians like Bentham thought there was nothing wrong with using moral rules as a guideline

>these should be seen as rules of thumb', and when a person can do more good by violating the rule than obeying it, they should violate the rule.

> Many people agree that the situation makes a difference to the morality of the action and act utilitarianism allows us to take this into account.

BUT

Appears to permit (or require) immoral actions

-Act utilitarianism can permit or even require actions that everyone knows are morally wrong.

Eg act utilitarianism would allow a doctor to kill one healthy patient and harvest their organs to save five sick patients waiting for transplants.

but many people would argue that killing is always inherently wrong irrespective of the consequences.

>Aquinas would argue that killing an innocent person can never be right even if done to benefit others because it violates a primary precept of the natural law.

It undermines trust in others

-It can be argued that permitting people to violate widely held moral principles undermines general utility.

>While act utilitarians may criticise rule-based approaches for being too rigid, others may argue that the rigidity of rules is the basis of trust between people within a society.

>if people are always committed in every action to doing whatever brings about the greatest happiness, then we never know if our wellbeing will be sacrificed for the benefit of another.

Eg if we thought that every time we went to the doctor that we could potentially be killed and our organs harvested to help other patients, we would never go to the doctor at all.

>Society can only function if we feel we can depend upon other people to follow basic moral rules on how to treat others, but in an act utilitarian's society this would not be the case.

>Rule utilitarian Richard Brandt a society that sanctioned things like murder of healthy patients would not maximise utility, and this is best ensured by instituting an ideal moral code made up of rules that if followed tend to promote the greatest happiness.

Difficulty with judging the outcomes of individual actions

-Act utilitarianism tells us that we ought to try to bring about the greatest happiness from each of our actions, it might not always be possible to tell or to predict what the outcomes of our actions might be.

>Although it may seem to us at the time that the greatest happiness might be brought about by violating a rule like do not kill or do not steal, we cannot be sure.

>Bentham's hedonic calculus, we would have to be able to predict whether the pleasure we caused was likely to be followed by more pleasure (fecundity) or tainted by future pain (purity), and how many people would be affected.

>it is never possible to have full knowledge of the situation. It is therefore safer and more reliable to stick to well-tested rules.

RULE

It helps us to maximise the utility through general rules

-Rule utilitarianism argues that we can best maximise the general happiness by following rules than by thinking about making our individual actions as beneficial as possible.

Eg If we were trying to maximise road safety, it would be better overall to have specific rules that govern the behaviour of drivers, such as always stop at red lights, do not drive when drunk etc. than a general principle that says 'always drive safely', which would permit people to pass red lights when they thought it was safe.

>Rigid rule-based systems of morality can therefore lead to more overall utility as it will encourage people to act on rules that we know tend to lead to better outcomes if followed, rather than leaving it to the individual judgement of people about how to act in each situation.

Avoids justifying immoral acts

-Once rules are introduced that if followed tend to promote the greatest happiness, these should not be broken.

>This means that even when killing an innocent person would promote the best consequences in a particular situation, it should not be done, because the greatest happiness of society is generally found when we do not permit killing of innocent people at all.

>This can also help to stop injustices occurring, such as the enslavement of a minority for the benefit of a majority.

J.S. Mill introduced the 'harm principle', which suggests the only reason we would be permitted in violating the basic rights and freedoms of others would be to prevent harm to someone else. "To have a right, then, is... to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask why it ought? I can give him no other reason than general utility."

More practical to use

-Instead of having to calculate each individual action in terms of the hedonic calculus, we can just defer to rules that tend to produce the best outcomes.

>This avoids issues of having to try and predict the specific consequences of each act, which may be unknowable, and also saves time having to work through the hedonic calculus.

>Mill notes the benefit of rules to achieving the maximisation of utility when he says: "The proposition that happiness is the end and aim of morality does not mean that no road ought to be laid down to that goal, or that persons going thither should not be advised to take one direction rather than another."

BUT

Leads to 'rule worship'

-If the point of utilitarianism is to maximise happiness amongst the most people, then it seems contradictory to say that we ought to follow rules rigidly even when we know that more good could be brought about by violating that rule.

>The act utilitarian J.J. C. Smart called this 'superstitious rule worship' because he sees it as an irrational deference to rules which has no basis in utilitarian thinking.

This is because utilitarianism is supposed to be a consequentialist approach but the deference to rules can be seen to turn it into more of a deontological approach.

-Act utilitarians recognise that rules can be useful guidelines, but we must be prepared to abandon the rule when better consequences would result.

Collapses into act utilitarianism

-Rule utilitarianism can avoid the problem of rigidity by presenting rules with exceptions rather than absolute rules.

Eg a rule might be do not lie except in special circumstances that justify lying'.

This would allow us to take account of situations like Kant's murderer at the door scenario.

-we must ask what would count as a special circumstance that would permit lying.

>David Lyons claims that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism when we start to ask this question. Stating that there may be exceptions to the rule is equivalent to saying 'follow this rule except when not following it maximises utility, but this is exactly the same as what act utilitarianism instructs us to do. For rule utilitarianism to be more successful than act utilitarianism we have to be able to demonstrate what makes them distinct moral theories.

Can still lead to unjust rules

-It still may be possible to formulate rules to govern a society which could be said to maximise utility but which we would consider unjust.

>What makes people happy or unhappy can vary according to culture and time period.

Eg the British economy was at one time heavily reliant on the slave trade - raw produce such as sugar, tobacco, tea, coffee and cotton all came from slave plantations, and many people not only consumed these products but also relied for their livelihood on their importation and processing.

>It would seem that the maximisation of utility in 18** and 19** century Britain depended on permitting the use of slaves and the slave trade as a rule. But just because such a rule would have maximised utility does not make it right

Whether utilitarianism leads to moral judgements that are consistent with religious values.

YES

-Utilitarianism is just another way of stating core Christian principles

>situation ethics

>Mill argues it is consistent with the golden rule

-Bentham's maxim that 'each is to count for one and none for more than one like commandment to love our neighbour, everyone's interests and wellbeing must be considered equally.

-Utilitarianism often leads us to judgements that are consistent with what Christians feel are their moral duties

e.g. Singer's claim that we are morally obligated to help those living in poverty if we have the means to do so.

-Situation Ethics could be said to follow the ethical reasoning of utilitarianism but applied in a Christian context (maximising love rather than happiness/pleasure).

NO

-Much of Christian ethics could be said to be Deontological/absolutist

>eg never break God given commandments (moral obligations)

>St Paul writes that Christians should not perform evil actions even if good may result.

>Christian ethics seems to judge the action itself as write or wrong, not just the consequences.

-Utilitarianism does not consider the intention of the action, but for many Christians this makes a difference to the morality of the action.

Eg For Mill, it doesnt matter why we save a drowning person as long as we do, but many Christians would argue that performing such an action for a selfish reason like a reward would not make the action moral (e.g. the focus on the interior act in Natural Law).

-Utilitarianism can sometimes lead us to justify actions that Christians would say are morally abhorrent

e.g. Singer's claims that infanticide can sometimes be morally justifiable.

>Utilitarianism does not hold to absolute principles that are often the underpinning of Christian ethics, such as the sanctity of life.

-Utilitarianism can often bee seen as cold and calculating which tries to quantify pleasure and pain and sees people in numerical terms.

>Christianity by contrast holds compassion as a central part of moral-decision making.