bentham + act utilitatianism

areas of emphasis in making moral judgements

1. Motivation - His view on what drove human beings and what goodness and badness was about 

2. The principle of utility - (usefulness) which is his moral rule. 

3. The hedonic calculus - which is his system for measuring how good or bad a consequence is

utilitarianism

• result or the consequence of an Act is the real measure of of of whether it is good or bad. 

• emphasises Ends over Means. 

• teleological / consequentialist ethical theory. 

theory of motivation

• He argued that human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain and that all humans pursue pleasure and seek to avoid pain. 

• This is a moral fact because pleasure and pain identify what is a good or a bad action 

• He was accused of being a Hedonist because he believed that pleasure is the ultimate motivation 

• For humans the sole good is pleasure and the sole evil is pain. 

• For this reason Bentham’s Utilitarianism is called ‘Hedonic Utilitarianism’. 

• “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters pain and pleasure” 

principle of utility

• The rightness or wrongness of an action is judged by its utility or usefulness to produce pleasure. 

• bc pleasure produces a feeling of happiness it is used interchangeably in the utility principle. 

• the action that produces the most happiness is the most moral. 

• Teleological bc determines the goodness of an action by the end it produces 

greatest good

• good is the maximisation of pleasure. 

• the more pleasure that an action produces the better it is. 

• the larger the number of people that an action produces pleasure for, the better than action is. 

• this theory is democratic because pleasure can’t be for one person alone. 

• when facing a moral dilemma, Bentham argued that one should choose to act in such a way that brings about the maximum possible happiness for the most people. 

• however, the possible consequences of different possible actions must be measured clearly to establish which option generates the most pleasure and the least pain. 

• an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number’ 

hedonistic calculus

• In order to calculate the greatest happiness for the greatest number Bentham devised a system which applies several values. (dicfepp) 

• the hedonic calculus is a quantitative assessment of a situation. 

• it is therefore, concerned with the quantity of pleasure it produces. 

• the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people 

• the quantity of that pleasure is assessed against the Hedonic Calculus. 

• quantitative is the opposite of qualitative which is concerned with quality rather than quantity.  

• duration, intensity, certainty, fecundity, extent, purity, propinquity 

STRENGTH: quantifies pleasure 

• Bentham’s hedonic calculus allows for pleasures to be quantifed and for value to be assigned to pleasure, making it measurable etc 

• Developed by mill -> ranks types of pleasure 

COUNTER to quantification: moore

• Moore argues that pleasure cannot be objectively measured, making Bentham’s hedonic calculus impractical.  

• Moore’s "open question argument" suggests that good cannot simply be defined as pleasure, implying that utilitarianism oversimplifies morality.  

• Additionally, Nozick’s "experience machine" thought experiment challenges the idea that pleasure alone defines a good life, as people value reality beyond mere pleasure. 

WEAKNESS: allows for exploitation

• However, critics such as Robert Nozick and John Rawls argue that utilitarianism can justify morally questionable actions if they produce overall happiness.  

• For example, Rawls’ "veil of ignorance" suggests that justice should be based on fairness rather than aggregate happiness.  

• The "tyranny of the majority" problem highlights how utilitarianism can justify oppression if it benefits the majority, undermining individual rights. 

• Abusive prison guard analogy 

WEAKNESS: kant

• Kant argued that morality is grounded in duty (deontology), not in the consequences of an action. 

• Utilitarianism makes morality dependent on outcomes, which are uncertain and beyond human control. 

• In contrast, Kant’s categorical imperative states that an action is morally right if it can be universalized—applied as a rule for everyone, regardless of the consequences.  

• Utilitarianism, by focusing on maximizing happiness, allows individuals to be sacrificed for the greater good. 

• This violates Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." 

• A clear example is the utilitarian justification for punishing an innocent person if it leads to greater societal happiness—something Kant would consider morally impermissible. 

COUNTER to kant

• Kant’s principle that humans must always be treated as ends is noble, but it does not guarantee actual well-being. 

• J.J.C. Smart argues that utilitarianism, by maximizing happiness and reducing suffering, ultimately enhances human dignity in a tangible way rather than as an abstract principle. 

• Singer extends this by advocating for reducing suffering globally, treating all sentient beings with equal moral concern, while Kant’s approach prioritizes abstract moral duties over real-world suffering. 

• Kantian ethics dismiss consequences, but many argue that this is impractical for real-world moral decision-making. 

• J.S. Mill counters Kant by asserting that morality should consider the outcomes of actions, as rules without regard for consequences can lead to harmful results. 

• Philippa Foot argues that moral rules must be assessed based on their impact on human well-being, making consequentialism more practical than Kantian duty-based ethics. 

• Example: If lying would save innocent lives (e.g., hiding Jews from the Nazis), utilitarianism justifies lying, while Kantian ethics demand telling the truth, which seems morally rigid and counterintuitive. 

STRENGTH: flexibility

teleological nature allows to take sitch into consideration

COUNTER to flexibility: SL

• Should have deontological commandments 

• Revealed scripture 

• bible 

act utilitarianism

• bentham

• This maintains that whenever possible the principle of utility should be directly applied for each individual circumstance.

• When faced with a moral choice a person must decide what action will lead to the greatest good in a particular circumstance.

• If lying will produce the greatest pleasure they should lie.

• If in the next situation telling the truth will produce the greatest pleasure then they should tell the truth

• an action is judged by the utility it produces. The more utility it produces the more moral the action.