OCR A Level Religious Studies Ethics - Utilitarianism

teleological

focuses on consequences an action may have

deontological

rightness/wrongness of an action intrinsic to the act

utilitarianism

comes from Greek word meaning 'usefulness'

hedonism

pursed pleasure and avoided pain

quantity of pleasure

amount of pleasure that can be calculated when making a moral pleasure

quality of pleasure

standard of pleasure

lower pleasures

pleasures of the body e.g. food, sex, sleep

higher pleasures

pleasures of the mind e.g. art, education, spirituality

greatest happiness principle

actions that produce most happiness seen as bestsellers course of action

principle of utility

- everyone should do the thing that produces the most 'useful' end:

- brings most happiness; best course of action; greatest happiness principle

act utilitarianism

- considers consequences of each action

- previous experiences don't always help us moral choices, and each situation different, so has to be calculated afresh

- individualistic: calculation and decision made by the one presented with the situation

- amount of utility should drive judgement about what to do

strengths of act utilitarianism

- aims to max happiness in each situation; creates greatest utility overall

- avoids setting up rules to appeal to all communities

- flexible

weaknesses of act utilitarianism

- time consuming

- could justify anything

- allows things like lying in some situations; makes them appear hedonistic e.g. lying about hiding a Jewish family in Nazi Germany; undermines it democratic intention

rule utilitarianism

- focuses on common good e.g. telling the truth

- considers consequence of past actions to form rule to guide present action

- split into two categories:

- strong rule: always follow rules worked out from past events, despite outcome (deontological)

- weak rule: some rules can be broken if leads to greatest good/ happiness

rule utilitarianism

- accept in some situations for justice might have to cause harm; focus on long term happiness

- rules democratic and considered over long term so moral conduct is more straightforward

- accommodate rules for special circumstances that produce greatest good

Bentham's utilitarianism

- (1748-1832)

- founder of utilitarianism

- happiness supreme ethical value or 'sovereign good'

- pleasure = happiness

- built on hedonism

- could provide basis for society

- 'Its for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as determine what we shall do'

Bentham's utilitarianism

- wherever possible we instinctively try to seek pleasure and avoid pain

- came to this conclusion through the observation of human life (a priori); we respond to our basic needs

- sceptical of claims people about holy lives; that one act according to some divine rule e.g.

you are pretending to give money to a charity to claim that you are selfless but you are simply gaining some other kinds of pleasures

Bentham's utilitarianism: hedonic calculus

- a method of working measuring the balance of pleasure and pain produced by an act, and thus the total value of its consequences

- includes intensity, duration and certainty

- after, can consider best course of action

Bentham's utilitarianism: principle of utility

- 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number'

- balance between pleasure and pain is what should affect our decisions; not unrealistic moral rules

- applies a democratic principle: must consider community and all involved rather than individual

- happiness of many outweighs happiness of few

strengths of Bentham's utilitarianism

- reasonable to link morality with pursuit of happiness and avoidance of pain

- common to consider consequences

- flexible and takes account of every situation

- greatest number important

- balanced and democratic morality that promotes happiness for everyone

- popular theory that's still accepted by many today (e.g. Peter Singer)

weaknesses of of Bentham's utilitarianism

- one motivated by greed might choose a course of action that happens to make the greatest number of people happy; does make them good person? - supports exploitation and abuse of minority groups if it pleases the ruling majority

weaknesses of of Bentham's utilitarianism: hedonic calculus

- many moral decisions don't have predictable or measurable outcomes

- unclear what counts as pleasure

- unpredictable: can't know the future, and things rarely turn out as we think they will; not right to judge an action based on outcomes down to chance

- incalculable: impossible to add up all pain and pleasure

- immeasurable - impossible to decide on a value to give for happiness

Mill's utilitarianism

- follower of Bentham who rejected quantitative approach to pleasure

- hedonist and accepted principle of utility; however, it needed to distinguish between quantities of sensual pleasure and important quality pleasures

- one desires own happiness -> aims for this -> everyone aims at happiness of everyone

- "it is better to be a human being satisfied then a pig dissatisfied"

Mill's utilitarianism: higher and lower pleasures

- lower pleasures e.g. drinking, eating, sex: provide powerful gratification but if we overindulge they can bring pain

- higher pleasures e.g. intellectual, aesthetic, social enjoyment: superior to lower pleasures, people always agree on them and

value them higher and it engages parts of the brain that distinguish us from animals

- "some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others"

Critic: Kant

- should be based on duty and obligation, if not can be swayed by emotion

- denial of rules toxic and priorities person rather than general happiness

- 2nd form categorical imperative insists priority of ends over means, but here morally wrong action can bring about happiness

- good should always be good of person

Critic: Barth

- hedonic calculus hard to apply due to our corrupt nature

- listing elements of pleasure doesn't quantify it

- we should follow divine revelation and Bible instead

Critic: Ross

- doesn't have proper understanding of duty and obligation and seems to ignore it

- rule of duty important and advocated that prima facie duties are more acceptable

Critic: Augustine

- pleasure can be dangerous, as humans fallen creatures controlled by lust

- humans selfish - ones pleasure can result on another pain

Critic: Aquinas

- should be based on universal laws (primary precepts), that help to guide people

Critic: Popper

- humans have duty to end pain rather than focus on pleasure

- could cause us to act selfishly

Critic: Macintyre

- justifies horrendous acts for pleasure of many

- society that is willing to sacrifice justice, fairness, equality, right e.g. will face problems

Critic: Rawls

- too impersonal and doesn't consider rights of the individuals in its attempt to look for the 'greater good'

- conflicts with universal beliefs of fairness and justice

- those who make sacrifice wont always reap rewards

Supporter: Sidgwick

- modern approach to utilitarianism

- balance of pleasure over pain the ultimate goal

- disagrees with higher and lower pleasures; how can we distinguish between the two?

- decision making intuitive; we make self-evident judgements about what we ought to do

- concerned with justice and thought in the future humans be more empathetic

- must act according to just laws

Supporter: Williams

- can be followed by theists and atheists; rational

- main goal of maximising pleasure and minimising pain reasonable

- straightforward to apply

- concerns of different groups weighed up against each other and accommodated

Supporter: Singer

- supports utilitarianism, but rejects hedonism

- preference utilitarianism: actions right or wrong according to how they fit the preferences of all involved, which are equal

- we prefer outcomes overall, despite lacking instant personal satisfaction

- best to act in greatest number and min pain rather than max pleasure

Supporter: Moore

we should always seek greatest balance of the ideal good

strengths

- concerns of different groups and weighed against one another

- if you follow rules and are faced with a dilemma with only option to breaks the rules, then you cannot act morally

- focuses on the many rather than the few

weaknesses

- relies on guesses about the future

- offers no reason to prohibit an action, but surely some acts can never be justified e.g. torturing children; need some rules that can never be broken

- unfairness and injustice towards minorities e.g. maybe a community would be happier if a small migrant group was forced out, but this isn't fair