AQA A level Philosophy - Utilitarianism

What is meant by utility? (3)

•Utility comes from the latin 'utilis' which means useful.

•We work out whether an object or action has usefulness by looking at what it results in (consequences).

•Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics based upon calculating the utility of actions to discern their moral worth.

Explain...action...utility (5)

•Utility means usefulness. Bentham said the principle of utility judges actions on their ability to benefit or harm others. Actions which increase pleasure and reduce pain for all those concerned are good. Actions which reduce pleasure and increase pain are bad. Pleasure and pain are observable and therefore the right way to judge an action. The consequences of actions tell us whether pleasure or pain is maximised. AKA 'The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people'.

What is meant by maximising utility? (3)

If we are trying to maximise utility, we are trying to affect as many people as possible with the usefulness / benefit of our decisions. This has been turned into what is famously known as the 'principle of utility':

'The greatest good for the greatest number of people'

According to utilitarianism we need to look ahead to see what the results of our actions might be in order to work this out. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory: what makes an action right or wrong is the consequences.

What is meant by maximising utility? (5)

1) If we are trying to maximise utility, we are trying to affect as many people as possible with the usefulness / benefit of our decisions. This has been turned into what is famously known as the 'principle of utility':

'The greatest good for the greatest number of people'.

2) According to utilitarianism we need to look ahead to see what the results of our actions might be in order to work this out. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory: what makes an action right or wrong is the consequences. Sometimes it is called a teleological theory too as it focuses on the end result of an action (from the Ancient Greek word telos).

3) For consequentialists there is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about any action; what makes it right or wrong is the consequences. This makes actions instrumental as they can be an instrument for good or bad but there is nothing good or bad about them in themselves. According to hedonistic utilitarians, good and bad consequences are measured by the pleasure / happiness and pain / unhappiness that they bring.

4) The Trolley Problem is an example of maximising utility.

A runaway trolley heads down the tracks towards five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. A person is standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track, with one person on. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto the other track.

5) For Utilitarianism, the good thing to do would be to divert the trolley to the other track and kill one person instead of five as this would produce the most happiness and the least pain in this situation.

Describe Bentham's quantitative hedonistic utilitarianism (his utility calculus) (5)

1) Bentham put forward the 'principle of utility', also known as the 'greatest happiness principle'. It is

'that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question'.

2) So, Bentham claims that in judging actions to be morally right or wrong, we should only take into account the total amount of happiness that the action may produce. Likewise, in our own actions, we should aim to produce the greatest happiness we can.

By happiness Bentham means pleasure because pleasure is and empirically observable.

3) His is a hedonist theory - from the Greek word for pleasure, "hedone" which holds that pleasure is the ultimate good in life. So, if we increase pleasure and decrease pain, we are maximising utility. If we increase pain and decrease pleasure, we are minimising utility.

Therefore, maximising pleasure is morally good and maximising pain is morally bad.

4) Bentham argued that we can measure pleasures and pains and add them up on a single scale by a process he called the 'utility calculus' (it is also known as the felicity or hedonic calculus). Bentham thought that pleasure and pains were quantities and that these quantities could be measured empirically.

5) The items in the calculus, which Bentham says need to be taken into account are (DR PRICE):

1.) Intensity of the pleasure / pain

2.) Duration

3.) Certainty

4.) Remoteness

5.) Richness (fecundity) - tendency of that pleasure/pain to produce other pleasure/ pains.

6.) Purity

7.) The extent of the pleasure / pain

Describe How to use Bentham's Hedonic calculus in a moral situation (5)

Bentham's utility calculus is used to choose between two courses of action. For each possibility, you add up all of the pleasure/pain, and then you do whichever action leads to the most pleasure/least pain.

Step 1) Determine the amount of pleasure and pain brought to the person most directly affected by your action. To do this, Bentham measures 4 things:

1.) Intensity of the pleasure / pain

2.) Duration

3.) Certainty

4.) Remoteness

Step 2) Examine the effects of the pleasure and pain

5.) Richness (fecundity) - tendency of that pleasure/pain to produce other pleasure/ pains

6.) Purity

Step 3) This step comes only when we are considering the effects on other individuals

7.) The extent of the pleasure / pain

Step 4) You then calculate the total utility by using 1-7 to count up the amount of pleasure units and pain units an action causes.

Step 5) If you have a range of actions available you must repeat steps 1-4 for all of these actions and then chose the one which produces the most pleasure and the least pain.

Higher and Lower Pleasures (Mill) (5)

•Higher pleasures are mental: thought, feeling and imagination

•Higher pleasures can be measured in terms of their quality using competent judges

•A competent judge is someone with experience of both pleasures who prefers one over the other even though it is harder to gain and has less quantity

•'Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied'.

•Lower pleasures are physical: affecting the senses

•Lower pleasures are measured in terms of their quantity using the hedonic calculus

•The hedonic calculus adds up pleasures and pains as amounts and if the pleasures outweigh the pains the action is good

•'Measure of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry'.

Describe Mill's Competent Judges (5)

1) Competent judges are how we can tell if a type of pleasure is more valuable (quality) than another.

2) If everyone (or almost everyone) who has experience of two types of pleasure prefers one type to the other, then the type that they prefer is more valuable.

3) To ensure that they are considering the quality and not quantity of the pleasure, we should add another condition.

4) A pleasure is higher only if people who have experience of both types of pleasure prefer one even if having that pleasure brings more pain with it, or again, even if they would choose it over a greater quantity of the other type of pleasure.

5) Mill argues that, as long as our physical needs are met, people will prefer the pleasures of thought, feeling and imagination to pleasures of the body and the senses, even though our 'higher' capacities also mean we can experience terrible pain, boredom and dissatisfaction.

Describe Mill's 'proof' of the greatest happiness principle (5)

(1 Premise) if you see something, this proves that it is visible.

(2 Premise) Similarly, desiring something proves that it is desirable.

Mill is making an assumption that what is true of vision is also true of desire.

(3 Premise) The only thing that each person truly desires is happiness.

(4 Premise) The only thing that is truly desirable for a person is his or her own happiness.

Mill is making an assumption that pursuing one's own happiness will contribute to the greater happiness for everyone

Mill is also assuming that because people do desire happiness then they ought to desire happiness.

(5 Conclusion) Therefore, each person should perform the actions that promote the greatest happiness.

Describe Mill's 'proof' of the greatest happiness principle (12)

If you see something, this proves that it is visible. Similarly, desiring something proves that it is desirable.

Mill is making an assumption that what is true of vision is also true of desire. What we should aim at is what is desirable. So what Mill wants to show, first, is that happiness is desirable, and second, that only happiness is desirable.

Mill argues that to desire something is to find it pleasant. It is impossible to desire something that you don't think is a pleasure. As pleasure is happiness, we only desire happiness, and happiness is the only good.

So, The only thing that is truly desirable for a person is his or her own happiness.

Mill is making an assumption that pursuing one's own happiness will contribute to the greater happiness for everyone

Mill is also assuming that because people do desire happiness then they ought to desire happiness.

Therefore, each person should perform the actions that promote the greatest happiness.

Describe Act Utilitarianism (5)

1) Act utilitarians state that the principle of utility must be applied to every individual moral action.

2) When faced with a moral choice I must calculate which will lead to the greatest happiness in that situation.

3) For example: if I'm in a situation in which lying would produce the greatest happiness then I should lie. If, in the next situation, lying brings about less happiness than telling the truth, then I should tell the truth.

4) You cannot use the judgement from a previous dilemma to apply to a new one.

5) You must calculate afresh whether in this situation the action produces more pleasure than pain.

Describe Rule Utilitarianism (5)

1) This version of utilitarianism hold that wisdom and experience tells us what actions tend to produce more happiness than pain.

2) For example: 'as a rule' telling the truth brings more happiness than telling lies.

3) The actions which generally provide the most happiness are then turned into moral rules that must be followed.

4) Even if a particular act of harming another person might bring about an increase in total pleasure on a single occasion, that act may not be condoned by the set of rules that best promotes total pleasure overall. As such, the action would not be morally permitted.

5) There are two forms of rule utilitarianism: strong rule utilitarianism: moral rules, based on previous experience that they promote happiness, must always be followed regardless if the immediate consequences in front of me.

Weak rule utilitarianism: moral rules, based on previous experience that they promote happiness, must usually be obeyed but can be ignored in circumstances where more happiness would be produced by breaking the rule.

Briefly explain the difference between act and rule utilitarianism (5)

The key difference between act and rule utilitarianism is as follows:

1) Act utilitarians apply the principle of utility directly to the evaluation of individual actions.

2) Rule utilitarians apply the principle of utility directly to the evaluation of rules and then evaluate individual actions by seeing if they obey or disobey those rules.

3) Rule utilitarianism observes that those actions which produce the most happiness are turned into general rules of behaviour. Once a rule has been established further calculation of consequences is not needed as the rule itself brings good consequences.

4) However, in act utilitarianism, you cannot use the judgement from a previous dilemma to apply to a new one. You must calculate afresh whether in this situation the action produces more pleasure than pain.

5) When faced with a moral choice I must calculate which will lead to the greatest happiness in that situation.

Describe Preference Utilitarianism (non-hedonistic utilitarianism) (5)

1) Preference utilitarianism argues that what we should maximise is not pleasure, but the satisfaction of people's preferences. The satisfaction of many of these preferences will bring us pleasure, but many will not. For instance, if people more strongly prefer not to suffer pain than to be brought pleasure, then that would explain the thought that it is more important not to cause harm.

2) We can also argue that people have preferences about what happens after their death, e.g. to their possessions, and it is important to satisfy these as well, even though this cannot bring them any pleasure.

3) Preference utilitarianism allows our preferences to be taken into consideration even if we ourselves are not directly affected by the experience. We may not want a huge dam to be built even if it is not affecting us. Our preferences could be added to those villagers who are affected making a majority of people who want the villagers' homes to be saved.

4) Even if no people or animals were harmed in the building of the dam we might still prefer that an area of outstanding natural beauty was not destroyed despite it causing no harm to any living creature directly. Preference utilitarianism is therefore useful when making moral decisions about the environment.

5) We can also appeal to preferences to explain Mill's claims about higher and lower pleasures. He defends the distinction in terms of what the 'competent judges' prefer.

Describe Preference Utilitarianism (non-hedonistic utilitarianism) (12)

Preference utilitarians define the good as that which produces the best consequences.

They measure the consequences not in pleasure, but in terms of whether people's preferences are satisfied. It is therefore not a hedonistic theory.

An example:

Suppose Peter secretly spread rumours behind John's back and thereby destroyed john's reputation.

But further suppose that John never finds out about this and experiences no pain as a result.

As the act does not hurt John, it is not a wrong action. The 'experience requirement' has not been met for it to count as wrong.

Preference utilitarianism rejects the experience requirement. Since John has a preference / desire for a good reputation, spreading rumours would be wrong even if he never experienced ill effects.

Preference utilitarianism argues that what we should maximise is not pleasure, but the satisfaction of people's preferences. The satisfaction of many of these preferences will bring us pleasure, but many will not. For instance, if people more strongly prefer not to suffer pain than to be brought pleasure, then that would explain the thought that it is more important not to cause harm.

We can also argue that people have preferences about what happens after their death, e.g. to their possessions, and it is important to satisfy these as well, even though this cannot bring them any pleasure. Preference utilitarianism allows our preferences to be taken into consideration even if we ourselves are not directly affected by the experience.

Describe the strength of utilitarianism that it is flexible and not legalistic (5)

1) It is important to take the situation and the foreseeable consequences into account when deciding on the morality of an action.

2) Blind obedience to moral rules is wrong for two reasons:

3) We abandon moral responsibility for our actions and are behaving like 'moral children' by simply following rules without question.

4) Refusal to consider the consequences of our actions can lead to terrible outcomes. By considering the consequences, we realise that acting according to rules is not always the moral thing to do. 5)There are many occasions when we could consider it right to break a 'moral' rule in order to gain a better moral outcome

Describe the strength of utilitarianism that it is democratic and universal (5)

1) Democratic: Democracy is seen by many politicians and philosophers as the most moral and progressive way of making decisions for a group of people.

2) A democratic decision, based upon the majority of people is seen as fair and just.

3) Often we cannot please all of the people all of the time so a compromise has to be made and it seems reasonable to try and please the majority rather than the minority. This is often how political decisions are made.

4) Universal:

Most people will agree that happiness is good and unhappiness is bad. Therefore to base a moral theory on what most people would consider good / bad is an advantage.

5) Religious believers may have their own views on moral goodness/badness but this would not necessarily be shared by others if they were of a different religion or an atheist whereas with utilitarianism there is a universal agreement that people seek pleasure / happiness and will avoid pain / unhappiness.

Describe the issue of Utilitarianism: Whether pleasure is the only good (Nozick's experience machine) (5)

1) In his famous "The Experience Machine" thought experiment, Robert Nozick describes a machine which allows one to experience anything they desire to, such as writing a novel, making a friend, skydiving, etc.

2) While being in one of these machines, an individual would pick an episode for say two years. Once hooked up, one would forget that they were plugged in and simply "live" the experience.

3) After two years, the experience will end and they will exit the tank; if they desire, they may then pick a new experience for another length of time, and the cycle will repeat. It might be a little upsetting when one wakes from the experience, but surely ten minutes of distress is worth a lifetime of bliss.

4) Nozick thought that people would not choose to abandon reality for a life of pure pleasure. He argued that people place some inherent value in being connected to reality.

5) If people would choose not to go into the machine this suggests they value something other than pleasure. Therefore, pleasure cannot be the only good as we clearly find a life of complete pleasure insufficient for a good life.

Describe Tyranny of the majority (5)

1) It seems fair that the majority point of view should be favoured so that we give the most people happiness.

2) However, this thinking can lead to a corresponding weakness; is it fair that the majority get their way all of the time so that the minority always lose out?

3)For example, imagine a country has a small slave population who desire their own freedom. The majority of people benefit greatly from the work of the slaves and don't want to give them their freedom.

4) From the point of view of Bentham's hedonistic utilitarianism and preference utilitarianism the majority view is always seen as good.

5) Therefore minorities will continue to be oppressed.

Describe the problem of utilitarianism: individual liberty and rights (5)

1) In act utilitarianism, no type of action is ruled out, in principle, as immoral.

2) For example: suppose a group of sadistic prison guards only find and torture a prisoner with no living relatives and no friends. Only the prisoner suffers pain (no one else knows about their activities) and the guards derive a great deal of happiness. So more happiness is produced by torturing the prisoner than not.

3) So, if torturing a person produces the greatest happiness, then it is right to torture an innocent person. Therefore, it is morally right according to act utilitarianism.

4) The example shows that happiness (or satisfying people's preferences) is not always morally good. For example, the happiness the sadistic guards get from hurting the prisoner is morally bad. The fact that the guards are made happy by what they do doesn't make their action better at all, but worse. So there must be some other standard than happiness for what is morally good.

5) We can appeal to that fact that I have a right that other people don't kill me (the right to life) and I have a right to act as I choose as long as this respects other people's rights (the right to liberty). One purpose of rights is to protect individual freedom and interests, even when violating that freedom would produce some greater good.

6) For example, my right to life means that no one should kill me to take my organs, even if doing so could save the lives of four other people who need, respectively, a heart, lungs, kidneys and a liver. Act utilitarianism doesn't respect individual rights or liberty, because it doesn't recognise any restrictions on actions that create the greatest happiness.

Describe the problem of utilitarianism: individual liberty and rights (12)

In act utilitarianism, no type of action is ruled out, in principle, as immoral. For example: if torturing a person produces the greatest happiness, then it is right to torture an innocent person. Suppose a group of sadistic prison guards only find and torture a prisoner with no living relatives and no friends. Only the prisoner suffers pain (no one else knows about their activities) and the guards derive a great deal of happiness. So more happiness is produced by torturing the prisoner than not, so it is morally right according to act utilitarianism.

We can point out that the example shows that happiness (or satisfying people's preferences) is not always morally good. For example, the happiness the sadistic guards get from hurting the prisoner is morally bad. The fact that the guards are made happy by what they do doesn't make their action better at all, but worse. So there must be some other standard than happiness for what is morally good.

We can appeal to moral rights, understood in terms of restrictions placed on how people can treat each other. For instance, I have a right that other people don't kill me (the right to life). I also have a right to act as I choose as long as this respects other people's rights (the right to liberty). One of the purposes of rights is to protect individual freedom and interests, even when violating that freedom would produce some greater good. For example, my right to life means that no one should kill me to take my organs, even if doing so could save the lives of four other people who need, respectively, a heart, lungs, kidneys and a liver. Act utilitarianism doesn't respect individual rights or liberty, because it doesn't recognise any restrictions on actions that create the greatest happiness.

Describe the issue of utilitarianism : Whether utilitarianism ignores both the moral integrity and the intentions of the individual (character and motives) [Bentham] (5)

1) Utilitarians such as Bentham often pride themselves on their common-sense approach to ethical decision-making, but it can be argued that by excluding motive and character entirely from the picture they offer an at best incomplete, and at worst, perverse, account of morality.

2) Certainly it is possible to find actions which produce pleasure in abundance and cause little pain but which we will still find ethically dubious.

3) As a consequentialist theory, act utilitarianism concerns itself only with the expected outcome of an ethical decision. It has no interest in why a person chose to do such and such a thing, or whether that person is considered good or bad by their peers.

4) The problem is that by strictly focusing on consequences, utilitarianism does not capture the richness of our ethical lives. It is true that we often judge how good or bad an idea was by the results it produces, but is also true that we can forgive someone who has caused harm but 'meant well' or judge a person negatively for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

5) For example, the failed assassin - tries to kill someone but misses and hits someone else who tries to take the person's life, accidentally saving them. He saved a life, so he did a good thing according to act utilitarianism.

Describe the issue of utilitarianism : Whether utilitarianism ignores both the moral integrity and the intentions of the individual (character and motives) [Mill] (5)

1) Mill does consider the importance of character, because the kind of actions we are and are not prepared to do arise out of the kind of person we are.

2) He claims that any person who is capable of understanding what happiness is must have a good character.

3) He also claims that doing good is one of a few things which is in and of itself good. This is because those who have the desire to do good get pleasure from doing so.

4) Mill is here showing the moral relevance of a person's character and motives (because what motivates us to do things is a part of our character). If a person lacks a good character, they are less likely to increase the general well-being and more likely to increase the amount of suffering in the world.

5) So, while in one instance a person with ulterior motives may perform a good act, that same person may at another time disregard morality entirely.

Describe the issues around partiality for utilitarianism (5)

1) Moral status of particular relationships

Certain people - namely, friends and family - are more important to us than others, but act utilitarianism is concerned only with the greatest good for the greatest number.

2) There are no grounds, then, to justify acting to maximise their happiness over some random person on the street.

3) This means, for example: That if you spend £10 buying a birthday present for your mum, which makes her happy but someone, a stranger, starving in another country would have been made happier with the money, then it was morally wrong to buy your mum a birthday present instead of giving the £10 to the stranger.

4) If we sincerely followed act utilitarianism we would never be morally permitted to spend time and money with our loved ones.

5) This objection can be used to show that act utilitarianism is too idealistic and doesn't work in practice.

6) You could argue that certain relationships have a unique moral status and that act utilitarianism forces us to ignore these moral obligations.

Describe the problems with calculations for utilitarianism (5)

1) For act utilitarianism, how can we know that the consequences of an action maximises pleasure? Surely, this will be too difficult and too time-consuming for us to do.

2) For Bentham's felicific calculus, in practice, we just can't get the relevant information (how intense each affected person's pleasure or pain will be, how long it will last, what other pleasures or pains it might cause in turn, etc.).

3) Also, some pleasures seem too abstract to quantify as well: how can we measure the pleasure of a child growing into an adult?

4) Additionally, consequences happen in the future, which we cannot know. Utilitarianism is asking us to judge on something we cannot control and cannot know for sure.

5) With hindsight we can tell if our action produced more pleasure than pain but by which time it would be too late.

6) Also, should we calculate for the greatest average or greatest total happiness?

7) For example: equal tax for all - everyone mildly happy; or unequal tax - the minority get taxed less than others and are VERY happy while the rest are slightly happy

Describe the problems with calculations for utilitarianism (12)

For act utilitarianism is it possible to work out the consequences of an action for human happiness? How can we know or work out the consequences of an action, to discover whether it maximises happiness or not? Surely this will be too difficult and too time-consuming for us to do.

For Bentham's felicific calculus, in practice, we just can't get the relevant information (how intense each affected person's pleasure or pain will be, how long it will last, what other pleasures or pains it might cause in turn, etc.). Also, some pleasures seem too abstract to quantify as well: how can we measure the pleasure of a child growing into an adult?

Additionally, consequences happen in the future, which we cannot know. Utilitarianism is asking us to judge on something we cannot control and cannot know for sure. With hindsight we can tell if our action produced more pleasure than pain but by which time it would be too late. Making a utilitarian decision is therefore a guess and you can only hope that your predicted outcome occurs.

Also, should we calculate for the greatest average or greatest total happiness?

Should you perform actions which produce the greatest average happiness for all?

Equal tax for all - everyone mildly happy or should you perform actions which give the greatest total happiness?

Unequal tax - the minority get taxed less than others and are VERY happy while the rest are slightly happy.