Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism
Bentham’s major work: The Principles of
Morals and Legislation (1789)
divided into three sections:
1. Motivation of human beings and
the concept of good and bad
“Nature has placed mankind
under the governance of two
sovereign masters, pain and
pleasure. It is for them alone
to point out what we shall do,
as well as to determine what
we shall do.”
2. Principle of Utility – The greatest good for the greatest number.
The most useful course of action is
trying to maximise pleasure and minimize pain.
In a given situation, one must examine the consequential pain/pleasure
resultant for all concerned.
3. Hedonic Calculus – The Hedonic Calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure
generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It considers
several factors:
a. Intensity
b. Duration
c. Certainty or uncertainty
d. Nearness or remoteness
e. Consequences
f. Purity
g. Extent
If the probable pain of an action out weighs its pleasure then Bentham says that it is
morally wrong.
Weaknesses of Bentham’s utilitarianism
Swine Ethic: If 10 rapists were to rape the same woman, then using the Hedonic
Calculus, their pleasure could outweigh the woman’s pain. Therefore, it would become
justifiable. This is called the Swine Ethic.
Measurement: Consequences are not measurable because we do not know how far the
consequences will reach. When do we stop?
Minorities: There is no protection for the minorities.
Pig Philosophy: Bentham counts all pleasures as equal – e.g. couch potato or Mozart.
AS Ethics 1 1 Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism
Mill preferred quality/happiness to Bentham’s quantity/pleasure
based Utilitarianism:
To Mill, Bentham’s focus of morality on pleasure alone
seemed rather base.
Mill replaced pleasure with ‘happiness’: “the greatest
happiness for the greatest number” – so he moved away
from mere quantity to the quality of happiness as well.
Mill defined happiness
as something which is
cultural and spiritual
rather than just
physical and
distinguished between
lower pleasures and
higher pleasures. He
famously wrote:
Although he believed that the wellbeing of the individual was of primary concern,
happiness is best achieved when it is subject to the rules that protect the common
good.
Weaknesses of Mill’s utilitarianism
• Sidgewick – “In practice it is hard to distinguish between higher and lower
pleasures.” This is due to the subjectivity of “pleasure”
• WD Ross – “Single-factor” moral theories don’t work because life is too complex.
We have “prima facie” duties: i.e. who would I save – my son or a man with the
cure to AIDS? – My son because my prima facie duty is to him.
• RM Hare – you would still have to tell the truth to a mad axe man. It would still
be possible to justify slavery – minority rights not protected.
Comparing Bentham and Mill
Bentham Mill
“the greatest good [pleasure] for the “the greatest happiness for the
greatest number” greatest number”
Focussed on the individual alone We should protect the common good
Hedonic Calculus (quantitative pleasure) Higher/lower pleasures (qualitative)
Atheistic
AS Ethics 1 2 Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism Rule Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism uses the outcome Rule utilitarians believe that rules should be
of an action to assess whether it is formed using utilitarian principles for the
right or wrong. Thus, there are no benefit of society. Strong utilitarians believe
necessary moral rules except one, that these derived rules should never be
that we should always seek the disobeyed. However, weak utilitarians say
greatest happiness for the greatest that although there should be generally
number in all situations. accepted rules or guidelines, they should not
Act utilitarianism is linked to always be adhered to indefinitely.
Bentham’s form of utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is commonly linked with Mill.
Weakness of Act utilitarianism Weakness of rule utilitarianism
Difficult to predict consequences It is difficult to predict the
No defence for the minorities consequences
Difficulty in defining pleasure No defence for the minorities
There is potential to justify any act Difficulty in defining what
It is impractical to say that we constitutes happiness
should calculate the morality of
each choice
Summary Summary
Teleological – it is aiming towards a Deontological – rules take priority.
maximisation of pleasure for the majority. Relative – what is right/wrong is
It has an end aim or goal. established as the maximisation of pleasure
Relative – no notion of absolute for the particular community/society which
right/wrong, no external source of truth. it operates within.
Nothing in itself is right or wrong. Consequential – the overall consequences
Consequential – the consequences of an act determine its rightness/wrongness.
alone determine its rightness/wrongness.
Strengths of Utilitarianism Weaknesses of Utilitarianism
Supports the notion that human Difficult to predict consequences
wellbeing is generally good Does not protect the minorities
Supports Jesus’ call to treat The theory disregards motivation and
others as you would have them goodwill
treat you Says that the majority is always right (e.g.
Consequences affect life, not Nazis in WWII)
motives The single criterion for morality is far too
Encourages democracy simplistic. Morality cannot rely on pleasure
and happiness alone – life is too complex.
AS Ethics 1 3 Utilitarianism
Appendix: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong
solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other
actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes
into account the interests of others.
Bentham's Principle of Utility:
(1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life,
(2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e,
consequences,
(3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and
(4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure').
In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY,
DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also includes its
"fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice
versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT.
John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by
emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to
utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction
between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness
Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most
amount of people (this is its "extent").
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL
RULES. The former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called "rule-
utilitarianism."
Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in
a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the
best results (or the least amount of bad results).
• Criticisms of this view point to the difficulty of attaining a full knowledge and
certainly of the consequences of our actions.
• It is possible to justify immoral acts using AU: Suppose you could end a regional
war by torturing children whose fathers are enemy soliders, thus revealing the
hide outs of the fathers.
Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules
of conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at
the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which
promises were binding. Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those
rules.
• Some criticisms of this position point out that if the Rules take into account
more and more exceptions, RU collapses into AU.
• More genearl criticisms of this view argue that it is possible to generate "unjust
rules" according to the principle of utility. For example, slavery in Greece might
be right if it led to an overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense
of some mistreated individuals.
AS Ethics 1 4 Utilitarianism
