HOW SUCCESSFUL IS BENTHAM'S UTILITARIANISM WHEN MAKING MORAL DECISIONS?

INTRO

Utilitarianism - teleological theory of ethics
Action is morally good if the consequences are favourable and cause more pleasure than pain
Relativist because what is right or wrong will depend on the situation.
Bentham’s system of ethics is quantitive as it concerns itself with the number of people satisfied by the action
Bentham’s Utilitarianism - Act utilitarianism

P1 TELEOLOGICAL

Act utilitarianism incorporates the principle of unity, applied to each individual case.
Meaning, lying in some cases is right depending on the circumstances and the calculation of whether the lie will bring out greater happiness or pain
Way of measuring through hedonic calculus - 7 elements
Intensity/duration/certainty/remoteness/livelihood/purity/extend
Modern application: NICE calculus of NHS to evaluate what treatments to spend their money

P1 TELEOLOGICAL STRENGTH

We cannot favour our own interests, or favour the people we know over others.
Singer uses the example of the toddler in the pond - we would sacrifice our expensive shoes to jump in and rescue them

P1 TELEOLOGICAL WEAKNESS

Requires us to predict the future in order to ascertain what the greater good will be. But the future isn’t always clear/evident
EG. saving a child from a burning building for them to turn out to be a terrorist, or saving a painting which could feed 100 children,
Giles Fraser: saving the painting is immoral
William McAskill: Saving the painting has more cultivated sympatht

P1 TELEOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Although it its true that we can, to some extent, predict outcomes,
Cannot always be a coherent outcome or be fully understood.
Furthermore, in accordance w/ hedonic calculus - harm can be formulated so long as the good outweighs it.
What happens in a 49/51 scenario - 10 torturers torturing 1 man.
Disproportionate and vague - morality isnt concerned

P2 COMPARE WITH KANT

Abstract theories - Kant. Use reason to decide on abstract principles (categorical imperatives) - must be adhered to regardless of consequences.
EG. Axe murderer → doesnt seem proportional
Bentham’s utilitarian/practical approach, acceptable to lie (treat others as a means to an end) if it is the most favourable outcome.
Not right/wrong - relativist, relies on circumstance.
Bentham’s principle of quantitive makes it practical/selfless
Only need to scsale how many people the decision will positively effect

P2 COMPARE WITH KANT SUCCESS (COUNTER/COUNTER-COUNTER)

Utilitarianism is progressive, has enabled society to move away from more traditional views - 2014 equality act.
EG. homosexuals can now marry/adopt children - best interest for everyone, harms noone + children deserve to be brought up in loving conditions
Mill claims that most people have the opportunity to help a multitude of people - good to just focus on those in our lives
Peter Singer claim being brought up in a loving environment is the best thing to do - this would not prevent you from helping/alienating those in need - sell expensive shoes to give to families in need

P2 COMPARE WITH KANT FAILURE

Subjective to naturalistic fallacy - maximises the fact that good doesnt equal pleasure. Noziack’s thought experiment - if we use principles good would come from wiring everyone to machines to stimulate good from the brain
Sir Bernard - utilitarians always on their guard. Use/follow unpleasant alternative in comparison to the worst.
Thus… meaning something unpleasant everywhere worse than if noone followed utilitarianism

P2 COMPARE WITH KANT EVALUATION

Allows for flexibility when making moral decisions, Kant’s fixation on duty and the falsification about consequentialism ignored the poor outcomes in favour for duties ie. lying to Nazi’s to protect Jewish family.
However, undermines the morality aspect - is there only pain and pleasure? Furthermore, wouldn’t a strict legalist approach allow for better foundation → telling a child to never drink bleach better than making them calculate it for themselves
Aristotle claimed fallible, emotional responses are still fundamental for moral virtue and decisions

P3 COMPARE WITH MILLS UTILITARIANISM

Mill recognised minority must also be considered - Bentham’s tyranny of majority, everyone should have autonomy
Our rights should be protected by the law
Most instrumental good for man “Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” - UPF’s vs a healthy, sustaining diet

P3 COMPARE WITH MILLS UTILITARIANISM WEAKNESS

Tyranny of the majority - justify the Roman practice of throwing Christians to the lions.
Stronger than Bentham’s, only protects the happiness of others whilst Mill is more interested in individual happiness - certain pleasures have more wirth than others “Pushpin is as good as poetry.”

P3 COMPARE WITH MILLS UTILITARIANISM STRENGTH

Sidgewick - "In practice it is hard to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures." This is due to the subjectivity of "pleasure" and the difficulty of defining happiness. Sidgewick also asks how we distinguish between two higher pleasures, e.g. listening to Bach and watching Shakespeare?
Mill can be accused of intellectual snobbery - majority = happy instead of an elite telling people how they should spend their time

P3 COMPARE WITH MILLS UTILITARIANISM EVALUATION

Bentham is more egalitarian than Mill’s version,
However, it presumes that good = pleasure which is not satisfactory and may not be within our own interests (intrinsically good)
Mill’s utilitarian, however, succeeds as it avoids a tyranny of the majority
EG. China banning opium imports 1813 to protect health, Bentham would be against this because by 1800 1 million people addicted in China.
If universalised, Mill succeeds - no need for egalitarian efforts.

CONCLUSION

Bentham’s system has strengths - flexibility/egalitarian approach.
However, may not be as much as a moral aid due to ambiguity placed upon pleasure and issues predicting consequences,
MILL is better → Bentham allows for exploitation ie. slavery so long as the majority find it pleasureable