Utilitarianism

What is the principle of utility?

Moral system that tells us to maximise pleasure and minimise pain for the maximum number of people.

Define psychological hedonism

Theory that an individual’s actions are only caused by their desire of pleasure and avoidance of pain

What are the factors of the Utility Calculus?

Intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, extent, purity

What are weaknesses of the utility calculus?

• Motives of actions are ignored

• People find different things pleasurable so is impossible to compare actions in terms of how much pleasure they give (solved by preference utilitarianism)

• Different activities bring about different pleasures so is impossible to compare two activities (like comparing apples and oranges for how well they are a fruit). (solved by higher and lower pleasures)

What is Bentham’s utilitarianism?

Act utilitarianism - every action must be judged by the principle of utility

Why could Bentham’s utilitarianism be problematic?

He introduced it to the government rather than the public bc he thought if introduced to the public they would pursue their own individual desires but if he introduced to government they could make laws that would make the public individual desires align with the general pursuit of maximising pleasure. Is problematic because implies Government House Utilitarianism - the idea that utilitarianism is best achieved by the state manipulating the mass

What is an example of Government House Utilitarianism and why does it feel so wrong?

In the book ‘A Brave New World’ by Aldous Huxley, ‘Alphas’ are trained to enjoy ruling and ‘Gammas’ are trained to enjoy manual labour so everyone enjoys their role. Everyone is also given a drug called ‘Somma’ to make tgem even happier’. If this is an example of perfect utilitarianism, then it can’t be good because it disregards human autonomy and freedom.

What are the 3 steps to John Stuart Mill’s proof for utilitarianism?

• Happiness is a good end for each person

• General happiness is a good end for all

• Happiness is the only good end we seek

What are the three criticisms to Mill’s first step to the proof of utilitarianism?

• equivocation - two senses of desirable

• Hume’s Law - the is-ought gap

• Naturalistic Fallacy

Outline the first step of Mill’s proof of utilitarianism

• tge only evidence something is visible is that it can be seen

• So the only evidence that something is desirable is that it is desired

• Each person desires their own happiness

• So each person’s happiness is desirable

What is the equivocation criticism to the first step of Mill’s proof of utilitarianism?

G.E Moore says Mill is guilty of using equivocation (using a term with more than one term misleadingly). Visible means able to be seen but when Mill switches to talking about being desirable he does not mean what is able to be desired but rather what ought to be desired. So ‘the evidence that something is desirable is that it is desired ‘ does not work because everything can be desired but not everything would be classed as desirable. So Mill’s analogy of conparing desirability to visibility does not work because visible does not mean what ought to be desired.

What is the Hume’s Law criticism for Mill’s first step in his proof of utilitarianism?

Is-ought gap. Hume argues moral philosophers always start their argument with what should be the case and end it with what oight to be the case. He says th jump between this is-ought gap always contains a logical error. For example, Mill states that each person’s happiness is desirable and so concludes with happiness is a good end for all but should it be? Is it a good end for criminals to be happy?

What is the naturalistic fallacy if Mill’s first step in his proof of utilitarianism?

G.E Moore argues there are 3 possibilities to the question ‘what is good?’ : good is definable, good is not definable and ther is no such thing as good. The third is discarded as this would discard all of moral philosophy. Moore argues that good can’t be defined because of the open argument. The open argument states that anyone can define good as X and X can be disproved by asking but is X really good? Eg happiness is good but is happiness really good?

What is a counter argument to the naturalistic fallacy criticism to Mill’s proof of Utilitarianism?

Mary WARNOCK says since Mill is an empiricist he is not trying to define good but merely trying to show what is considered to be goid. So using happiness as goid makes sense in his empiricist point of view.

Breakdown the second part of Mill’s proof of utilitarianism

• Since each person’s happiness is desirable, the general happiness of all is desirable to each oerson.

• Each person’s happiness is a good to that oerson

• So the general happiness of all is a good to the aggregate of all people.

What is a criticism of Mill’s second part of the proof of utilitarianism amd what is its counter argument?

Fallacy of the Composition: just because something is applicable for each part of a system it does not mean it is applicable for the whole system eg everyone wants to win the lottery but no one wants everyone to win the lottery. So just because each individual wants to be happy, it doesn’t mean they want everyone to be happy. CA: Mill is an empiricist and based on experience most people want others to be happy so it is reasonable to assume most people desire general happiness.

Breakdown the third step in Mill’s proof of utilitariansim.

• Happiness is one of the ends (goals/reason) of conduct.

• Happiness is one of the criteria for morality

• Other elements (virtue, health, money) can be ends of conduct.

• These othere elements are ends of conduct as they cause happiness.

• So happiness is the sole end of conduct and sole good.

What could be a criticism to the 3rd step in Mill’s proof of utilitarianism?

G.E Moore: naturalistic fallacy: Xbiw good but is X really good?

What are three criticism of act utilitarianism?

• Ignorance of motives or actions: act utilitariansim is an example of consequentialist ethics where only the consequences are judged for morality. So would argue that killing 1 innocent person to save 5 lives is perfectly moral even though it feels wrong.

• Impossible to follow: the utility calculus is too difficult to use because how do you quantify the factors and how do you know which factor is more important. And even if was usy to use, it would be too difficultto use for every single action and woukd make you unhappy to have to check consistently.

• Ignores moral status of particular relationships: some people are more important to us than others but utilitariansim doesn’t allow us to prioritise their happiness eg would argue that a parent should not look after their kids more than they look after other kids.

Who created rule utilitarianism?

John Stuart Mill

What is rule utilitarianism?

The principle of utility is applied to general rules to determine moral rules known as SECOnDARY PRINCIPLES which tend to produce tge greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Si an action is determined right if they follow the secondary rules.

What are advantages of rule utilitarianism?

• supports ideas of human rights because believes rules are necessary to protect humans. Its better to always follow a secondary even if one time breaking it would make more happiness and this is because in the long term it might make more pain. Eg if doctor killed one person to save 5 lives , people would be scared of getting killed to save people so would be more pain.

• Easier to follow

• Allows us to prioritise certain relationships.

What is strong rule utilitarianism?

Theory that you should always follow the secondary principles no matter the outcome eg if a murderer asks where your friend is you should not lie and tell them.

What is a criticism of strong rule utilitarianism?

Is an example of divine command ethics where you always follow the rules. Kind if disregards your autonomy and it means some acts do more bad than good even though this is the contrary to what utilitarianism aims to do.

What is weak rule utilitarianism?

When you follow rule utilitarianism but make certain exceptions for when breaking the rules maximises happiness

What is a weakness of weak rule utilitarianism?

Would have to judge each action to see if following the rule would maximise happiness or not and to see if you would follow the rule and at this point it is basically act utilitariansim and no longer easier to follow.

Who created two tier utilitarianism?

Richard Hare

What is two tier utilitarianism?

Form of rule utilitarianism that states we follow secondary rules most of the time but when two secondary rules clash (eg a murderer asks where your friend is you must choose between do not lie and do not kill), you use act utilitarianism to determine your actions.

What is Mill’s Qualitative Hedonistic Calculus?

Mill argues some pleasures are inherently better than others. He argues the pleasure of the mind (higher pleasures) are more pleasurable than the pleasure of the body (lower pleasures) even if the pleasure of the body feels more pleasurable. He argues that anyone who doesn’t prefer the pleasure of the mind just hasn’t experienced both tyles of pleasures to be able to compare them accurately.

What is a quote by Mill about the qualitative hedonistic calculus?

“It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”

What are two criticisms of Mill’s Qualitative Hedonistic Calculus and their counter arguments?

• Mill could just be thinking of the pleasures he prefers. CA: Mill says there are competent judges who are people that have experienced both higher and lower pleasures and only these judges can say which is better so there is some level of objectivity if they all agree.

• No longer hedonistic utilitarianism when you choose the option that feels less pleasurable simply because it is a higher pleasure. CA: higher pleasure can be more pleasurable in terms of duration, fecundity, purity which are all part of the hedonistic calculus.

How does Mill believe we should act in terms of higher and lower pleasures?

We should try to develop abilities to develop higher pleasures since competent judges have done so and state they are more pleasurable.

What are criticisms to using the qualitative hedonistic calculus in real life?

• Harder to apply in real life bc now have to compare quality and quantity of the pleasure that an action brings. Harder to apply the utility calculus.

• Cultural snobbery: more people experience lower pleasures bc don’t have the resources for higher pleasures. So ‘competent judges’ don’t represent most of society. Most people can’t afford higher pleasures so would be unfair to make decisions that only benefit the privileged.

How is the premise of psychological hedonism questioned?

NOZICK’S pleasure machine: if there was a machine which guaranteed pleasure but you could never leave, would you step in? Most would say no so disproves psychological hedonism because actions weren’t done to gain pleasure and avoid pain. CA: Mill would say it is an example of a lower pleasure CCA: if machine simulated real life, many would still say no.

What are alternative theories to what we pursue rather than psychological hedonism?

• Seek actions, activities and objects: Henry SIDEWICK claimed it is activities and objects we seek because why would we do different activities if there were easier ways of gaining pleasure. Imagine you collect stickers and have just one left to finish your collection, if you were offered an object that would offer tge same amount of pleasure instead you probabky wouldn’t take it because it is the object you seek.

What is non hedonistic utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism which believes we should maximise something other than pleasure.

Who made preference utilitarianism?

Richard Hare

What is preference utilitarianism?

theory that the morally good thing to do is to do what maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of those involved

What are the advantages of preference utilitarianism?

• avoids criticism that utilitarianism leads to social engineering bc takes into consideration what people want

• Much easier to execute bc no need for the utility calculus

What are the differences between classic and preference utilitarianism?

• reasons: preference is more about reducing pain whilst pleasure is more about maximising pleasure

• Preference is more personal: a preference utilitarian would consider what you want for a gift whereas a classic hedonistic utilitarian would get you a gift they think would give you the most happiness

• Preference utilitarianism overcomes counter intuitive puzzles eg if a husband cheats on wife but she never finds out classic would argue this is good whereas preference would argue it is bad.

What are criticisms of preference utilitarianism?

• Preferences from a distance: to what extent do we consider people’s preferences. do we still count them if not involved in situation. Eg dad dies and wants ashes spread on famous monument but this costs a lot so should his preference still be taken into account? Should people from all over tge world have a say on situations happening not in their country?

• how to decide if one preference is stronger than the other

• Bad and crazy preferences: some preferences have bad consequences eg Tas wants to drink wine without knowing its poisoned, Johnny aged 4 wants a 4th lollipop, David is becoming psychotic and wants to punch people. CA: there is a distinction between manifest preference ( preference without all the knowledge of a situation) and true/idealised preference (preference with all the knowledge of a situation). Argue manifest preference can’t have an actual preference and that children and mentally ill are not capable of realising true preferences.

How do you apply utilitarianism to stealing?

• Act: against bc the pain of the victims is almost always more than the happiness of the thief, pain caused by law being broken (public feel unsafe), getting caught causes pain to thief. If stealing for the poor is good if you get away but bad if you get caught.

• Strong rule: bad bc breaks rules and morality comes from these rules, only moral if the law is unjust eg in 1930 Ghandi stole salt from the sea from rhe british bc of the unfair tax.

• Weak rule utilitarianism: mainky wrong except for a few occasions, must consider if it will affect the background happiness (the happiness that comes by feeling safe due to the secondary rules). Must not be blinded by relationshios eg if you were to steal for ypur wife, you would steal for strangers.

How do you apply utilitarianism to eating animals?

• Preference utilitarianism : animals are limited in their rationality and have ni preference so is ok to kill them amd eat them because doesnt go against their preferences

• Hedonistic : eating animals from intensive farming is wrong bc causes pain but eating animals from a welfare farm is ok bc no pain

How do you apply utilitarianism to telling lies?

• Act: causes pain, people don’t like being lied to, don’t like being called a liar, breaks trust, lying is stressful, since lying is embedded in so many negative outcomes the default opinion is to tell the truth unless there are extreme cases.

• Rule: lies cause more harm than good so telling the truth maximises happiness so the rule is to tell the truth , most would be weak for extreme cases

• Preference: most prefer truth but sometimes prefer lies bc ignirance is bliss

How do you apply utilitarianism to simulated killing?

• Positives: entertaining so produces pleasure, fecundity is high for utility calculus: discussing with friends, creates jobs, help motor skills, less harm per hour compared to football.

• Negatives: increases anti social behaviour (but also evidence for the opposite), wasting your time, people disapprove which causes pain.

• Higher and Lower Pleasures: Mill would argue is a lower pleasues bc appeals to our animalistic side CA: higher pleasure bc engages brain

• Rule: Mill strongly believed in secondary principle of liberty which was ‘we should be free to pursue our own pleasures as long as it hurts no one’ so videogames is fine.