Moral Philosophy - Normative ethical theories (utilitarianism)

Morality

Ideas of good / bad, how things should / should not be done

Ethikos

How something is done

Do ethics have to be moral?

No

Do ethics and morals have to align?

No

What is an example of ethics and morals not aligning?

Knowing that you should complete homework on time but not doing it.

What is normative ethics?

How to determine if an action is good or bad

What is applied ethics?

Are specific issues / actions good or bad

What is meta ethics?

What is the meaning of moral language and what is the nature of moral properties?

What is an example of normative ethics?

What makes an action good or bad?

What is an example of applied ethics?

Should I kill this lamb for dinner?

What is an example of meta ethics?

Is morality just a human invention?

What are three approaches of normative ethics?

Teleological, deontological, character based

What is teleological ethics?

Consequentialist, good / bad depending on the outcome (utilitarianism)

What is deontological ethics?

Duty / rule based, good / bad depending on intention to follow duty / rule (Kant)

What is character based ethics?

Based on the attributes of the person + how they habitually behave (Aristotle)

What are absolutist ethics?

Things are either right or wrong, this is fixed, context / circumstance is irrelevant.

What are relativist ethics?

Morality is relative to other factors, e.g. circumstance / context

Moral agent(s)

Actor

Moral patient(s)

Those affected

Moral act

Action being done

Utility

Usefulness, any object or action is useful only in so much that it helps achieve a specific goal

What is needed before determining if an action is useful / has utility?

Goals / ends

Psychological hedonism

Not a moral theory, a descriptive theory of human motivation. The individual's potential pleasure and avoidance of pain are the aims of the individual's actions.

Hedonism

A moral theory that claims that for each individual pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the right thing to do.

Hedonistic (or classic) utilitarianism

A moral theory that claims the right action is one that increases the general happiness (not individual).

What is utility in hedonistic utilitarianism?

Happiness and pleasure

Principle of Utility

The greatest good for the greatest number

What is the Principle of Utility in hedonistic utilitarianism?

The greatest happiness for the greatest number

Is utilitarianism a consequentialist theory?

Yes

Is Bentham's utilitarianism quantitative or qualitative?

Quantitative

What is the only intrinsic good for Bentham?

Happiness / pleasure, everything else can be instrumentally good

Is utilitarianism teleological or deontological?

Teleological

Is Bentham's utilitarianism act based or rule based?

Act based

What does Bentham say about following rules?

Rules should not be followed dogmatically, only if they serve to increase human happiness.

According to Bentham should we be partial or impartial?

Impartial - each person affected must have equal consideration

What did Bentham devise a hedonic calculus for?

To measure overall 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an action.

What are the 7 criteria for Bentham's hedonic calculus?

Duration, Intensity, Propinquity, Extent, Certainty, Purity, Fecundity

Duration

How does it last?

Intensity

How intense is it?

Propinquity

How near / remote (future happiness or near happiness)?

Extent

How widely does it cover (how many patients)?

Certainty

How probable is it?

Purity

How free from pain is it?

Fecundity

Does it lead to further pleasure?

What is the first criticism of Bentham?

Too much emphasis on consequences.

What is the 'too much emphasis on consequences' criticism of Bentham?

We can't always know what is going to happen / what the consequences will be. This makes it hard to make decisions in the moment. When do you stop evaluating the consequences?

What is Bentham's response to the criticism of 'too much emphasis on consequences'?

You can use experience to evaluate consequences. You just have to use the information that you have to decide what would be best. In reality most situations are typical of 'general classes of acts' (acts of the same thing have similar outcomes).

What is the second criticism of Bentham?

It ignores motives, rules and duties.

What is the 'it ignores motives, rules and duties' criticism of Bentham?

Society would be very unorganised (without rules / duties). For example, people wouldn't trust others.

What is Bentham's response to the criticism of 'it ignores motives, rules and duties'?

The motives, rules and duties are only useful if they serve the primary principle of utility. You can't know what people's motives are.

What is the third criticism of Bentham?

Ignores the rights of minorities / tyranny of the masses.

What is Bentham's response to the criticism of 'tyranny of the masses'?

Rights of the minority cannot be considered over the rights of the majority, this would be an even greater injustice. The accusation that the hedonic calculus would justify actions like gang rape is to misunderstand the calculus. The unhappiness of the victim would outweigh the small happiness of the actors. It would affect others too - families, witnesses.

What is an objection to Bentham's response to the criticism of 'tyranny of the masses'?

Murder of the permanently unhappy homeless man

What is the fourth criticism of Bentham?

Cannot bridge 'is-ought' gap.

What is the 'cannot bridge 'is-ought' gap' criticism of Bentham?

We cannot go from 'happiness is what all humans desire' to 'you ought to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number'. Judgements of reasoning tell us what is the case. Judgements of value tell us what should (ought to) be the case. These are two completely different kinds of statements. We cannot infer how something should be based on how it is. Just because people do seek to maximise happiness doesn't mean they should (that it is good). Humes law - you cannot derive an ought from an is.

What is Bentham's response to the criticism of 'cannot bridge 'is-ought' gap'?

People universally want happiness. Happiness is a universal desire, that is enough to say we should seek it. Mill's proof

What is the fifth criticism of Bentham?

Happiness cannot be calculated

What is the 'happiness cannot be calculated' criticism of Bentham?

\-It is subjective.

\-It is hard to predict the outcome of actions.

\-Who / what counts as a patient?

\-At what point do we stop evaluating the extent?

\-Issues with quantity (is it better to make one person very happy or 5 people a little happier).

\-Is it possible to be impartial - inherent bias - only happiness we know is our own. So we may not accurately estimate the happiness of others.

What is Bentham's response to the criticism of 'happiness cannot be calculated'?

We do seem to calculate the general desirability of ends when considering actions.

What is the sixth criticism of Bentham?

Quantity vs quality

What is Bentham's response to the criticism of 'quantity vs quality'?

The calculus does actually allow for this by considering fecundity. Mental pleasures have more fecundity (still talking about quantity).

What does rule utilitarianism say about actions being right?

An action is right when it complies with those rules which, if everybody followed them, would lead to the greatest happiness (compared to any other set of rules). It is not the consequences of the individual act that matter, but the consequences of everyone following the rules that govern the action. Actions are right when they follow a rule that maximises happiness overall - even if the action itself doesn't maximise happiness in this particular situation.

What does Mill call the principle of utility?

Primary principle

What does Mill call rules that maximises happiness overall?

Secondary principles

What are examples of secondary principles?

Don't infringe on the rights of others, don't lie or deceive, don't cause injury to others.

What is weak rule utilitarianism?

Breaking a rule sometimes or modifying rules.

What is an issue with weak rule utilitarianism?

It collapses into act utilitarianism.

Why does weak rule utilitarianism collapse into act utilitarianism?

Whatever would lead the act utilitarian to break a rule would lead the rule utilitarian to modify the rule. Thus an adequate rule utilitarianism would be extensionally equivalent to an act utilitarianism.

What is the first advantage of rule over act utilitarianism?

Psychologically morality needs to be a set of rules.

What is the second advantage of rule over act utilitarianism?

Rule overcomes key issues with act.

What is the third advantage of rule over act utilitarianism?

More practical - you don't have to calculate every act. But you have to make rules and bend rules so it may not be more practical.

What is the fourth advantage of rule over act utilitarianism?

Many unjust acts are ruled out (torture of children).

What is the fifth advantage of rule over act utilitarianism?

It would allow the creation of a rule that allows us to act with integrity even when this conflicts with an act that might maximise happiness. But should happiness be prioritised or integrity?

What is the sixth advantage of rule over act utilitarianism?

It would allow for partiality as long as we still consider the general happiness. But maybe we should be impartial?

What is the seventh advantage of rule over act utilitarianism?

It can recognise the importance of intention (e.g. murder vs self defence). But is utilitarianism meant to be teleological - inconsistent?

What does Mill say about higher and lower pleasures?

People who are familiar with pleasure of higher faculties would prefer these pleasures to lower purely physical pleasures and would not for any amount of their lower pleasures relinquish their higher pleasures. This therefore shows that they are superior in quality and intrinsically more desirable.

What does Mill say about being a human dissatisfied?

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

Who are competent assessor for Mill?

People who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures.

How does Mill say that we can know that higher pleasures are better than lower pleasures?

Have competent assessors identify those which they prefer. Check that they aren't thinking of quantity. Would they still choose that over any amount of the less preferable?

What are lower pleasures?

Physical pleasures / pleasures of the body

What are higher pleasures?

Pleasures of the mind

What is the first issue with Mill's higher and lower pleasures distinction?

If some pleasures are somehow better even if they give less pleasure does this make sense as a hedonistic utilitarianism? Surely we are no longer seeking to maximise pleasure. Is it pleasure we should try to maximise or something else? We must consider whether pleasure is in fact the only intrinsic good.

What is the second issue with Mill's higher and lower pleasure distinction?

When the lower pleasure is felt by millions of people and the higher pleasure by only a few we are left wondering whether 'higher pleasures' really just means the things that Mill and his friends like to do. (new soap opera vs philosophy programme)

What is the first stage of Mill's proof?

Happiness is good

Can you prove if something is good or not?

No but you can provide rational argument.

What is the 'happiness is good' stage of Mill's proof?

We should aim to do what is good. Good is an end, the purpose of an action. Happiness is a purpose of an action.
1. The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible is that people actually see it. Similarly, the sole evidence that something is desirable is that people do actually desire it.
2. No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person desires their own happiness.
3. Each person takes their own happiness to be good, and so, adding each person's happiness to that of others, the happiness of everyone, the general happiness, is good for people in general.

What is equivocation?

Using one word with two meanings, this can be problematic as it can make an argument invalid.

What does Moore argue about Mill equivocating on the word 'desirable' in part one of his proof?

Worthy of being desired - anything desirable in this sense is good. Capable of being desired - what people desire. It seems that Mill is linking what is desirable to what people desire, but what people actually desire is not the same as what is worthy of desire (good).

What is a response to Moore's argument about Mill equivocating?

What people desire is what it is to be desirable (good). Unless people in general desire what is not worth desiring, this looks like good evidence that happiness is desirable. If we look at what people agree upon in what they desire, we will find evidence of what is worth desiring. Everyone wants happiness, so it is reasonable to infer that happiness is desirable (good).

What is fallacy of composition?

Attributing some feature of the members of a collection to the collection itself, i.e. just because something is true of all the parts doesn't make it true of the whole.

What is the fallacy of composition issue with part one of Mill's proof?

Just because everyone desires their own happiness (individual) doesn't mean everybody desires everybody's happiness (general). Just because I want to win the lottery doesn't mean I want everyone to win the lottery. Mill assumes impartiality - if happiness is good, then morality is the general happiness.

What is the aggregate?

The sum of something

What is the aggregate happiness issue with part one of Mill's proof?

Mill claims general happiness is desirable to the aggregate of people. But the aggregate of people is not the kind of thing that can have desires.

What is Mill's response to the aggregate happiness issue with part one of his proof?

He is not claiming that some entity called the 'aggregate of people' desires the general good, rather that if each of us thinks of happiness as good, then from an impartial point of view, overall general happiness is the good.

What is an example of an external mean?

Getting up early to catch a flight in order to have a good holidy. It is external to the good holiday.

What is an example of a constitutive mean?

Lying on the beach in the sun in order to have a good holiday. It is done to have a good holiday but also constitues part of what it is to have a good holiday.

What is the second stage of Mill's proof?

Only happiness is good / happiness is the only good

What is the 'only happiness is good' part of Mill's proof?

Everything of value derives its value from happiness rather than being desirable in themselves. It is not possible to desire something that you do not think is a pleasure.

What is Mill's proof of the greatest happiness principle in summary?

1. The only proof that something is desirable is that people desire it.
2. Each person desires their own happiness.
3. Therefore each person's happiness is desirable.
4. The general happiness is desirable.
5. Each person's happiness is good to them.
6. The general happiness is good to the aggregate of all people.
7. All our other values constitute what makes us happy - we only value them because they contribute to our happiness.
8. Therefore happiness is not only good, it is the only good.

What philosophers is preference utilitarianism associated with?

Peter Singer and R.M. Hare