Assess the various types of utilitarianism + give your analysis of each (20 marks) [4 sides]

Utilitarianism = a normative ethical theory (The reasoned construction of moral principles that are concerned with theories outlining the most basic goods, virtues or principles or right.) It tries to get a fundamental principle of what is right and wrong

Principle of utility = An action is judged good or bad according to the results achieved

Include Jeremy Bentham: quotes, hedonism, hedonic calculus etc

Quotes: “That property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness.” - Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham = Principle of utility, everyone has an equal right to happiness & hedonic calculus

Act utilitarianism = what is right is based on assessing the results of particular actions

Rule utilitarianism = Takes into account the general benefit of people following general rules

Strong rule utilitarianism = Holds that one should never break a role that is established on utilitarianism principles

Weak rule utilitarianism = There may be situations when the assessment of the rules of a particular act may take precedence over the general rule

Preference utilitarianism = Judges moral actions depending on whether they fit in with an individual preference

Negative utilitarianism = mentioned by Popper who says it is better to minimise suffering than it is to minimise pleasure

Ideal utilitarianism = Aesthetic experiences + relations of friendship that have intrinsic value, bad things should be prevented

INTRO

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which attempts to get a fundamental principle of what is right and wrong. Within utilitarianism, there are several sub-divisions including rule utilitarianism (weak & strong), act utilitarianism, preference utilitarianism, negative utilitarianism and ideal utilitarianism; all of which I will be covering in this essay.

RULE UTILITARIANISM

Rule utilitarianism takes into account the general benefits that result from people following the general rules that apply to them. For example, everyone following the same speed limit on the road, regardless of their circumstances will prevent unnecessary accidents from occurring. This then leads to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people as no one is an exception to these rules. This theory further develops into two areas, weak and strong utilitarianism. Weak rule utilitarianism is when there may be situations when the assessment of the rules of a particular act may take priority over the general rule. An example of this is an emergency services vehicle going over the speed limit to save someone else’s life. Strong rule utilitarianism is when regardless of the situation, the individual should never break the rules that have been previously set in place. For example, speeding for your reasons. Some strengths of rule utilitarianism include that it avoids the need for the hedonic calculus with the simple, singular principle that individuals should always be encouraged to follow the previously established rules which allows the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Another strength is that it emphasises the importance of protecting individuals in society through the moral system that prioritises fairness for everyone. This can then prevent violations/personal sacrifices that may occur in act utilitarianism. In contrast, one weakness of rule utilitarianism is the argument that it is subjective. The contrast between weak and strong rule utilitarianism can be used to people’s advantage to justify their wrong acts. This also proposes the question of who would be a suitable judge of what is the most suitable action for a situation? This also leads to a subjective answer, regardless of how qualified the person may be and will always result in inconsistency. In conclusion, rule utilitarianism is a strong argument as it can be universally applied to everyone and does not exclude certain people. It focuses on equality between everyone to provide the most even amount of happiness between others.

ACT UTILITARIANISM

Act utilitarianism is doing what is right based on assessing the results of particular actions. This can also be defined as doing the best thing to ensure the best outcome possible. For example, if a doctor can save 5 people by killing one healthy person using their healthy organs, act utilitarianism implies the doctor should kill one person to save the 5 people. This shows that act utilitarianism focuses on helping the most amount of people regardless of the situation. One strength of act utilitarianism is that it focuses on the outcome of the situation and aims to get the best result for the greatest number of people. This ensures that the most amount of people get the most amount of happiness, even if it is at the detriment of others as it focuses on the happiness for the most amount of people. Another strength of act utilitarianism is that it uses the hedonic calculus (created by Jeremy Bentham) to measure the aspects of pleasure. The hedonic calculus is a method of measuring happiness and deciding whether the action would be considered right or wrong. This principle leads to the individual’s greatest happiness whilst also focusing on the happiness of the majority. A weakness of act utilitarianism is that it is not possible to quantify someone’s happiness to make sure that the action is right or wrong. The listing of the elements of pleasure does not change the fact that pleasure is not quantifiable. Another weakness is that the hedonic calculus can become a reason to justify immoral acts. For example, murder can increase the pleasure of the murderer but has a long-term negative effect on the victim’s loved ones. In conclusion, act utilitarianism proposes a strong argument as it focuses on a general amount of people and not just a select few which increases the general amount of happiness for people which is more beneficial than increasing the happiness of just one person alone.

PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM

Preference utilitarianism focuses on judging moral actions based on if they fit with an individual’s preference. This can also be defined as doing the action that is best for the individual’s interest & the best outcome for themselves. This version focuses on the people affected by the action instead of the pleasure as a result of it. For example, if an individual’s friends all preferred to eat cookies instead of cake, it would be morally better for the individual not to share with them. This shows that the action is what is in the individual’s best interest regarding their friend’s personal preferences. A strength of preference utilitarianism is that it does not require any calculations to figure out the morally best thing to do. Instead, it focuses more on what they think is best for themselves and their happiness. If everyone focuses on their happiness, it will result in more people being happy at once as everyone has different ideas of what makes them happy so seeking personal happiness is more logically possible. Another strength of preference utilitarianism is that it is flexible. As it focuses on individual happiness, it can be applied to the wide range of desires/preferences of individuals which also allows the accommodation of varying moral judgements and cultures. This allows the theory to be applied to several different contexts and scenarios. In contrast, a weakness of preference utilitarianism is that certain personal preferences can lead to immorality. Focusing only on what is best for that individual can lead to the abandonment of other important values such as fairness and the rights of others. For example, certain individuals may have a preference for the cruelty of others which proposes several moral issues/concerns. Another weakness is that it is highly subjective. Preference utilitarianism heavily relies on preferences which do not evaluate the moral outcomes/value of actions. This can then lead to a lack of agreement or disputes as to what the most morally correct action would be in a situation as people can have varying opinions. In conclusion, preference utilitarianism proposes a somewhat weak argument as it is primarily based on it being subjective. This means that the argument can be applied differently to different people and break down the argument further.

NEGATIVE UTILITARIANISM

Negative Utilitarianism was mentioned by theologist mentioned by Popper who says it is better to minimise the total amount of suffering than it is to maximise pleasure. He also mentions that the aim of public policy should be to remove all avoidable/unnecessary misery. This ideology focuses on the suffering aspect of people’s emotions instead of happiness and aims to reduce the suffering of people and how much individuals apply to others. For example, negative utilitarianism suggests that all human beings on Earth could be killed and replaced with people who collectively had more positive + pleasurable experiences as a whole instead of a general negative experience which would decrease the chances of the rest of the population. A strength of negative utilitarianism is that it is better to reduce pain than to increase pleasure by the same amount. This can also be argued as being easier to reduce the amount of pain than to increase the amount of pleasure as it can be completed from a simple action, or removing something harmful from the individual that may affect the amount of happiness that they are receiving. Another strength of negative utilitarianism is that we do not need a great amount of pleasure to survive or to live well we just need to ensure that we minimise the amount of suffering we experience as much as possible. This links in with my previous strength that it is easier to remove harm than it is to increase happiness, simply because we do not require a large amount of happiness to survive. It is also more likely to do more harm to have a small amount of suffering than a small amount of happiness. In contrast to this, one weakness of negative utilitarianism is that it does not appear plausible to consider pleasure morally invaluable. As a society, individuals are constantly seeking what will give them the highest amount of pleasure + many different ways to obtain this. If it was not morally/socially valuable, fewer people would spend their lifetime searching for ways to discover how to get their own. This is why it is considered strongly that pleasure is morally/socially valuable because people value moments of pleasure, regardless of how small or little it may be. Another weakness of negative utilitarianism is that it overlooks the fact that suffering can be beneficial to individuals. Without suffering, it is less likely that people would appreciate the happiness that they receive after this suffering. To value and appreciate happiness & pleasure, suffering is necessary in an individual’s life. In conclusion, negative utilitarianism proposes a strong argument that reducing suffering is a much easier way of increasing total happiness in an individual. Although suffering is needed, reducing the amount of suffering still has an overall beneficial effect on people.

IDEAL UTILITARIANISM

Ideal utilitarianism is choosing the most desirable action with the highest pleasure or satisfaction as an output. This means that the result of the action is not only for the highest amount of happiness but for the greatest satisfaction of the individual. For example, if an individual was choosing an ice cream for themselves, they would choose the flavour that would bring them the most amount of pleasure + satisfaction. This theology does not only focus on the amount of pleasure an individual may receive but also the beauty and friendship that is involved in that action itself. A strength of ideal utilitarianism is that simply choosing to omit something negative from an individual’s life can be intrinsically good in itself. This will then result in the individual doing what is best for themselves and what will result in the most amount of pleasure and reduce the overall suffering for them. In contrast to this, a weakness of ideal utilitarianism is that an ideal scenario for an individual is subjective. What may be ideal for one person will not be for someone else. This means that the action for one person can be ideal but for others will be the least preferred result which can result in an overall decrease in pleasure and happiness. In conclusion, ideal utilitarianism proposes a somewhat strong argument that considers factors other than pleasure and happiness. However, there are loopholes within the argument that can then break down the argument further.

In conclusion, utilitarianism has many aspects within the ethical theory itself which can be applied to various scenarios. This makes the theory better suited for a variety number of people, even with varying cultures and beliefs. It focuses on the general idea of increasing the general happiness/pleasure of others through the means of choosing the best action suited for that general situation.