Utilitarianism

R.F. Ethics

Act Utilitarianism (Bentham)

18th-century quantitative, teleological, consequentialist theory: the right action is whatever produces the greatest pleasure for the greatest number.

Bentham context

Enlightenment + Industrial Revolution; society changing, religion/monarchy weakening; rich–poor divide growing.

Human motivation (Bentham)

Humans seek pleasure and avoid pain; survival + happiness are natural goals.

Bentham’s book

“An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.”

Bentham Chapter 1 – Motives

Actions judged by consequences; think about outcome first.

Bentham Chapter 2 – Principle of Utility

Usefulness determines right/wrong.

Bentham Chapter 3 – Hedonic calculus

Method to measure pleasure/pain: Purity, Remoteness, Richness, Intensity, Certainty, Extent, Duration (P.R.R.I.C.E.D).

Strength of Act Utilitarianism

Simple, democratic, universal; based on real human psychology; clear decision guide.

Weakness of Act Utilitarianism

Too slow/complex in real emergencies; can justify injustice (e.g. scapegoating); no rights protection.

Trolley problem (critique)

Shows you can’t calculate outcomes in urgent decisions.

Justice issue

Utilitarianism can justify harming one innocent person to benefit many.

Mill’s response to Bentham

Introduces Rule Utilitarianism to protect rights.

Bernard Williams (critique)

Utilitarianism ignores personal integrity (e.g. “Jim and the Indians”).

R. Bowie (critique)

“It’s difficult to quantify pleasure.”

RULE UTILITARIANISM – JOHN STUART MILL

Follow rules that generally maximise happiness.

Mill’s improvement

Introduced higher vs. lower pleasures; quality > quantity.

Higher vs lower pleasures

Intellectual pleasures superior to physical ones. "Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."

Strong Rule Utilitarianism

Moral rules should never be broken.

Weak Rule Utilitarianism

Rules can be broken if greater happiness results.

Tyranny of the majority

Majority desires shouldn’t violate minority rights.

Intrinsic goods (Mill)

Truth, love, justice are valuable in themselves.

Strengths of Rule Utilitarianism

Protects rights; values qualitative happiness; offers stability.

Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism

Higher/lower pleasures subjective; rule conflicts.

Critics of Mill

Williams: integrity still ignored. Mel Thompson: “Straightforward and based on clear principles.”

NEGATIVE UTILITARIANISM – KARL POPPER

Aim to minimise suffering rather than maximise pleasure.

Popper’s concern

Avoids utopianism (forcing ‘happiness’ leads to oppression).

Strengths of Negative Utilitarianism

Realistic focus on reducing suffering; ethically cautious.

Weaknesses of Negative Utilitarianism

Could justify killing to remove suffering; hard to balance suffering vs happiness.

PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM – PETER SINGER

Right action = satisfies the preferences of all involved parties.

Why created

Fixes problems of ideal Utilitarianism; focuses on informed preferences.

Applications

Animal rights, bioethics, global poverty.

Strengths

Inclusive; flexible; modern; respects individual choice.

Weaknesses

Bad/immoral preferences exist; hard to compare preferences; assumes rationality.

Critics

Kantian: morality should come from duty; Tyler & Read: secular appeal.

IDEAL UTILITARIANISM – G.E. MOORE

Maximise good, not just pleasure; includes intrinsic goods like friendship, beauty, knowledge.

Non-natural good

“Good” cannot be reduced to pleasure (naturalistic fallacy).

Example

Exams don’t bring pleasure but have moral worth.

Strengths

Values more than happiness; elevates moral + aesthetic goods.

Weaknesses

“Good” is vague; not practical; no clear decision system; hard to compare intrinsic goods.

Critics

Williams: “How does one measure love and truth?”

GENERAL KEY WORDS

Democratic → Equal consideration of each person’s happiness.

Flexible → Can apply across cultures.

Rational + secular → Based on reason, not religion.

Outcome-focused → Morality judged by consequences.

GENERAL WEAKNESSES OF UTILITARIANISM

Predictability → Consequences uncertain.
Justice problem → Can justify immoral actions.
Demandingness → Requires too much calculation.
Neglect of motive → Intentions don’t matter.
Measurement problem → Pleasure is subjective.
Integrity problem (Williams) → Ignores personal convictions.