Hedonic Calculus and Utilitarianism: Objections and Responses
Revisiting Utilitarianism's Core Principles
We previously discussed calculating right and wrong according to utilitarian theory: the goal is to increase overall happiness (net sum of pleasure over pain) for everyone involved in an action, not just the individual agent.
Bentham's Hedonic Calculus: Quantifying Pleasure and Pain
Jeremy Bentham introduced the Hedonic Calculus as a framework to systematically evaluate pleasures and pains when making ethical decisions.
This calculator comprises seven distinct characteristics:
Intensity: How strong or powerful will the pleasure or pain be?
Duration: How long will the pleasure or pain last?
Certainty/Uncertainty: How probable is it that the pleasure or pain will actually occur? For example, consider the certainty of Friday night plans turning out as desired versus unexpectedly failing.
Propinquity/Remoteness: How near or far in time is the pleasure or pain? Is there an immediate gratification or a need to endure short-term pain for long-term pleasure?
Fecundity: How likely is the pleasure to be followed by further pleasures of the same kind?
Purity: How likely is the pleasure not to be followed by pains (or pain not followed by pleasures)? This assesses how unmixed the experience is.
Extent (Bentham's Crucial Addition): This element addresses how many people are affected by the action and will experience the pleasure or pain. It expands the focus beyond individual hedonism to encompass the collective good, which is central to utilitarianism. Bentham emphasized this by adding it specifically, contrasting it with the first six elements which focus solely on the agent's experience.
Problematic Aspects and Utilitarian Responses to the Hedonic Calculus
Problem 1: Impracticality of Constant Calculation
Criticism: Performing a detailed calculus for every single action is time-consuming and often unfeasible, especially in urgent situations (e.g., needing to save a drowning person without time for extensive deliberation).
Bentham's Response: He argued that the calculus merely formalizes a rational decision-making process that humans naturally engage in subconsciously. While not expected to be a formal checklist for every action, it highlights the factors agents already consider, making it fundamentally practical and aligned with human nature.
Problem 2: Challenges in Measurement (Ordinal vs. Cardinal)
Ordinal Measurement: Involves ranking items (e.g., best to worst movies). It's easy but doesn't allow for mathematical operations like summing or averaging, which are necessary for utilitarian calculations.
Cardinal Measurement: Involves assigning numerical values (e.g., a or scale for movie ratings). This is preferred by utilitarians because it allows for addition, subtraction, and averaging of pleasure/pain units to determine the greatest net sum.
The Problematic Issue: Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility
Subjectivity: Numerical ratings are highly subjective and influenced by individual experiences, backgrounds, and expectations (e.g., a person's first movie experience versus an avid cinephile's rating; consistent ice cream consumption vs. a long hiatus affecting pleasure ratings).
Trustworthiness: Ratings can be untrustworthy due to factors like dishonesty or a desire to be pleasant (e.g., students rating peers, potentially giving inflated scores out of kindness or deflated scores out of dislike, regardless of objective performance).
**Utilitarian