Act Utilitarianism: objections: problems of calculation + impartiality + rights + intentions + moral integrity

what are the 3 claims of utilitarianism

1. actions are morally right or wrong depending on their consequences if it maximises happiness for all those involved (consequentialist)

2. happiness is the only good (hedonistic)

3. no one’s happiness counts more than anyone else's'

whats a good thing about act uti

it offers a clear and straightforward way of discovering whats right and wrong

objection 1- problems with calculation (strong)

R: Bentham states that we should calculate the amount of happiness produced by each possible action using the felicific calculus. This is practically difficult and time-consuming to do for EVERY action.

I: Preference utilitarianism could reply and state that it is much better to find out if someone’s preferences have been satisfied by how much pleasure someone experiences.

C: But this still faces a problem of trying to figure out how to definitively know if someone’s preferences have been satisfied and whether this leads to more preferences being satisfied.

I: This misinterprets what uti say, Bentham does not claim that an action is right if it ACTUALLY maximises happiness but rather the ‘tendency which it appears to have’ to maximise happiness. Precise calculation is not needed and so not necessary but rather we can expect that it will maximise happiness.

C: Yet you still have to work out the happiness produced, Mill states that this is still too demanding because Happiness is much too complex and indefinite. Instead, we do not need to do that because, due to trial and error over time, we have gained a general sense of which actions produce the most happiness e.g. secondary principles like don’t steal.

E: Mill solves the problem of calculation as you do not have to consider every action and how much happiness it will produce, we can use our secondary principle and these can always be improved as society progresses.

objection 2- which being’s happiness do we consider and include?

R: It appears that Mill’s distinction between lower and higher pleasures only concerns human activities and preferences for higher pleasure over others so Utilitarianism does not account for the happiness of non-humans.

I: Bentham states that when considering what being’s happiness is included, we must look at whether they can suffer and feel sentience rather than whether they can talk or reason as qualities typically perceived as distinctly human. Happiness is good for all those involved including non-humans and no one’s happiness counts more than the other. Singer further elaborate on this and states that not treating animals equal to humans because they are not humans is speciesism and that is similar to treating a race unequally because they’re not the same race as another which is racism.

C: But there is still a fundamental identity that unites people of different races or genders, and it is that they are human and as humans, they can use language, and reason and distinguish between right and wrong. This shows there is a great difference between animals and humans.

I: These differences, says Singer, are not relevant considering that for a utilitarian, the right action produces more pleasure than suffering, so in this case all that matters is that they have sentience the capacity to feel pleasure and pain.

C: This just intesifies the problem of calculation. It will be much more difficult to compare the happiness of a person with an animal

what is justice

the principle that each person gets their dues, it is fairness so everyone gets their fair share

what 2 ways does the tyranny of the majority manifest itself

1. legislation

2. social opinion

what is the objection of tyranny of the majority against Uti (explain as a 5 marker fully)

Act Utilitarianism states that an action is only right if it maximises happiness for all those involved, no one’s happiness counts more than another and happiness is the only good. The tyranny of the majority objection shows that what the majority want and makes them happy can override the minority’s happiness and this can be an issue. For example, the majority want the death penalty for stealing. Mill states that there are 2 ways this can happen: through legislation (written rules of conduct) and social opinion (shaming). This affects what people think and do as they are restricted by both legislation and social opinion.

explain the solution of indiviual rights and liberty against act uti objection of tyrany of majority (fully like a 5 marker)

moral rights place restrictions on how people can treat each other, for example, the right to life means other people must not kill me and the right to liberty is where I should act however as long as I respect other people’s rights. Mill suggests these rights must be respected even when this does not maximise happiness.

how do act utilitarians see the solution of individual rights and liberty?

clearly torturing and murdering someone is something that violates their moral right to life, people generally see this and would be unhappy so this does not produce the greatest happiness therefore the action is wrong.

is the idea that ‘happiness’ is enough in deciding whether an action is right or wrong really enough?

no, we don’t judge ‘torture’ based on how much happiness or unhappiness it brings to everyone if they all found out, it seems that the action in itself is what makes it wrong.

what does mill say is at the heart of justice

the moral rights of the individual

what are perfect duties + example

we must always fulfil them regardless of when or how, individuals have the right that we fulfill them. E.g. we have a perfect duty to treat everyone equally and impartially under the law

what are imperfect duties + example

are ones not owed to specific individuals so we have some choice in how we fulfil this obligation e.g. we have an imperfect duty to help others

what is a right

the individual has a valid claim on society protects him/her interests, it is concerned with security which is protection from harm

protection of rights serve the…

general happiness over the long term

creating rights is kind of a rule, what is rule utilitarianism

the right action is one that accords with the rules which, if followed, maximises happiness,

what is the problem of partiality and why does this affect utilitarianism

this is where in reality we are partial towards certain people like family and friends and care more about their happiness. This shows that we are not impartial in how we treat everyone else because we are not all equally concerned with the happiness of everyone. This affects utilitarianism because they claim that no one’s happiness counts more than another’s so the happiness of a family member should not count more than a stranger’s happiness.

what is mill’s perfect and imperfect duties?

perfect duties are those we must always fulfil and have no choice over when or how we must fulfill them. Individuals have the right that we all fulfill them. e.g., treating everyone equally under the law

imperfect duties are ones not owed to specific individuals, we have some choice in how we fulfil the obligation. e.g., helping others

duties of justice are…

perfect duties

what is the problem of moral integrity and how this affects utilitarianism (an example and who gave it)

Integrity is acting according to your own values and sticking to them in the face of temptation, so our actions are guided by these values. This is a problem for utilitarianism because it does not consider our moral integrity especially when it conflicts with maximising happiness. An example is given by Williams, where a chemistry specialist, George, is given a job to make chemical weapons and this job can help him and his family but he is opposed to chemical warfare. His refusal to accept this job can result in someone else doing this job. In this case, utilitarianism would tell him to take the job because if not then the consequence of HIS REFUSAL is that someone else can bring significant harm. This treats his values to just be preferences to be counted in the general happiness and in this case, George’s integrity is attacked.

what is the problem of the moral value of intentions and how does that undermine utilitarianism

This states that utilitarianism ignores the moral value of intentions. For example, typically seeing someone who attempted to murder but failed this mission is blameworthy as someone who actually murdered, but someone who did not intend to murder but did so would not be just as blameworthy. For utilitarianism, someone who intended to do it but failed to murder would not be blameworthy because there are no harmful consequences.

How does Mill reply to the problem of moral value of intentions?

Mill states that they are not relevant in deciding whether an action is right or wrong but they are rather morally relevant instead. For example, a good intention tends to produce morally right action, so good intentions are part of a good person’s happiness, mill says it is an ingredient. However, they do not make a different to whether the action is right.