B.
Teleological Ethics
Motto of Utilitarianism:
Learning outcome: “Greatest happiness for the
a) To appreciate and use the greatest number of people.”
framework of teleological ethics
in evaluating moral dilemmas,
b) to consider pragmatism as a
Also known as Consequentialism,
way of assessing an ethical
Teleological ethics is derived from the
problem, and
Greek word telos, or end, since the end
c) to use practical ethics in
result of the action is the sole
defining the consequences of our
determining factor of its morality. The
human actions.
goodness of an act is based on the end or
consequence (telos);
It is common for us to determine our moral responsibility by weighing the
consequences of our actions. According to consequentialist normative theories,
correct moral conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit analysis of an action's
consequences. In consequentialism, an action is morally right if the consequences
of that action are more favorable than unfavorable.
Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the
good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the
total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good
consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad
consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper.
Consequentialist theories became popular in the 18th century by
philosophers who wanted a quick way to morally assess an action by appealing to
experience, rather than by appealing to gut intuitions or long lists of questionable
duties. In fact, the most attractive feature of consequentialism is that it appeals to
publicly observable consequences of actions. Most versions of consequentialism
are more precisely formulated than the general principle above. In particular,
competing consequentialist theories specify which consequences for affected
groups of people are relevant.
1. Ethical Egoism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent performing
the action.
2. Ethical Altruism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent.
3. Utilitarianism: an action is morally right if the consequences of that
action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone.
Utilitarianism developed in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. Its main
proponents were Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806
– 1873). The philosophy of utilitarianism is anchored on the doctrine that “the only
motives of human actions are pleasure and pain, the former prompting us to
perform an act, the latter compelling us to avoid an action.” A utilitarian’s only
motive of action is pain and pleasure, “seek good and avoid pain.” There are two
kinds of utilitarianism. First, act utilitarianism is the position that an action is
moral if it produces the greatest happiness for the most people. Second, rule
utilitarianism is the ethical position that we should act so that the rule
governing our actions produce the greatest happiness for the most people.
JEREMY BENTHAM: For Bentham, a person is selfish and acts to fulfill
his/her happiness. Man acts to gain pleasure or to avoid pain. Man is selfish and
will not act unless to procure his own pleasure. Pleasure is equated with happiness
and the first principle of ethics is the right and desirable goal of human action as
happiness, that is, pleasure and avoidance of pain.
It, therefore, follows that the rightness or wrongness of an action has to be
judged by its consequences and by the ability of the act to produce pleasure or
remove pain. An action that produces a mixture of pleasure and pain has to be
judged according to the quantity of pleasure or pain. Whichever is greater will
determine moral character of the action. He calls the property of any act that
produces pleasure or happiness “utility”, hence, utilitarianism. In developing his
calculus, Bentham distinguishes act utilitarianism from rule utilitarianism.
Jeremy Bentham presented one of the earliest fully developed systems of
utilitarianism. Two features of his theory are noteworthy. First, Bentham proposed
that we tally the consequences of each action we perform and thereby determine
on a case by case basis whether an action is morally right or wrong. This aspect of
Bentham’s theory is known as act-utilitarianism. Second, Bentham also
proposed that we tally the pleasure and pain which results from our actions. For
Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences that matter in determining
whether our conduct is moral. This aspect of Bentham’s theory is known as
hedonistic utilitarianism. Critics point out limitations in both of these aspects.
First criticism, according to act-utilitarianism, it would be morally wrong to
waste time on leisure activities such as watching television, since our time could be
spent in ways that produced a greater social benefit, such as charity work. But
prohibiting leisure activities doesn’t seem reasonable. More significantly,
according to act-utilitarianism, specific acts of torture or slavery would be morally
permissible if the social benefit of these actions outweighed the
disbenefit.
A revised version of utilitarianism called rule-
utilitarianism addresses these problems. According to rule-
utilitarianism, a behavioural code or rule is morally right if the
consequences of adopting that rule are more favourable than
unfavourable to everyone. Unlike act utilitarianism, which weighs the
consequences of each particular action, rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test only
for the morality of moral rules, such as “stealing is wrong.” Adopting a rule against
theft clearly has more favourable consequences than unfavourable consequences
for everyone. The same is true for moral rules against lying or murdering. Rule-
utilitarianism, then, offers a three-tiered method for judging conduct. A particular
action, such as stealing a neighbour’s car, is judged wrong since it violates a moral
rule against theft. In turn, the rule against theft is morally binding because
adopting this rule produces favourable consequences for everyone. John Stuart
Mill’s version of utilitarianism is rule-oriented.
Second criticism, according to hedonistic utilitarianism, pleasurable
consequences are the only factors that matter, morally speaking. This, though,
seems too restrictive since it ignores other morally significant consequences that
are not necessarily pleasing or painful. For example, acts which foster loyalty and
friendship are valued, yet they are not always pleasing. In response to this problem,
G.E. Moore proposed ideal utilitarianism, which involves tallying any
consequence that we intuitively recognize as good or bad (and not simply as
pleasurable or painful). Also, R.M. Hare proposed preference utilitarianism,
which involves tallying any consequence that fulfils our preferences.
Hedonism is a philosophy on pleasure. “Hedone” in Greek means
“pleasure” as the norm of action. There are two proponents of hedonism namely,
Aristippus and Epicurus: For Aristippus, happiness is based on sensual pleasure.
Sensual pleasure as motive of life – short term pleasure; motto: “drink and be
merry for tomorrow you will die.” For Epicurus, happiness is based on rational
pleasure. Intellectual pleasure is longer in effect such as tranquility of the soul like
friendship and education. In sum, an act is neither theoretical, legalistic nor
experimental; instead, it is only valuable with practical and pleasure value. The
counterargument: Practical ethics leads to hedonistic tendencies, relativistic, no
universality and can be ambiguous or even antinomian; it lacks rational
discernment.
Bentham is credited with founding the
doctrine of utilitarianism. In brief, Bentham argued
that “action is right if it will produce the greatest
happiness for the greatest number.” He believed
that by calculating pleasures and pains, one can tell
which action is right and which is wrong. In
concrete, Bentham’s principle of utility translates
itself into what he called a “felicific calculus,” that is,
a “happiness calculator, or counter” which is a way
of balancing the pros and cons of an envisaged act.
Pleasure and pain then is reducible to quantifiable units and the morally good act
is the net effect or outcome of maximum pleasure minus minimum pain.
The emphasis of J. Bentham is the Quantity of Pleasure which are
quantified as follows using the Modified Pleasure Calculus. There are Seven
Variables of Pleasure Calculus: 1) Intensity: How intense is the Pleasure and
Pain? 2) Duration: How does Pleasure and Pain last? 3) Certainty: What is the
probability of Pleasure and Pain to occur? 4) Propinquity: How far off in the
future is Pleasure and Pain? 5) Fecundity: What is the probability that Pleasure
and Pain will lead to another Pleasure and Pain? 6) Purity: How sure is Pleasure
or Pain truly experienced? And 7) Extent: How many persons are affected by
Pleasure and Pain?
For instance, wealth is proved or quantified by having a huge amount of
money. Intelligence is proved or quantified by highest correct answers in an exam.
A product is quantified by the largest amount ne can get or accumulate. A
quantitative research is proved to be valid by analyzing data through numbers.
Application of the felicific calculus.
For example, if one is invited to attend a dance party and birthday party that
will happen on the same day at the same time, then one may use the felicific
calculus to measure the pleasure and pain from the two alternatives of action. The
intensity element will ask the variability of the stronger pleasure and the lesser
pain one may derive from attending a dance party or a birthday party. Maybe the
pleasure that is taken in the birthday party is more intense because the foods
prepared by the celebrant, are more delicious; but one should also take into
account the side effects of fatty foods into one’s blood pressure. In duration, it
asks the length of time of pleasure or pain one may derive from the two alternatives.
Maybe, the dance party will have a longer pleasure because it may end in a longer
time. But one should also take into account the length of pain one may experience
in a dance party because it is possible that nobody will dance with him/her until
the end of the program.
In certainty or the “sureness” of pleasure, it asks the probability of the
occurrence of pleasure and pain because it is not always a good option to choose
from uncertainty. The element of propinquity deals with the circumstances of
“nearness” and “remoteness” of pleasure and pain to be achieved. This can be
illustrated with the case of an employee who is granted a one-month vacation leave
on the following fiscal year with the full benefits and complete allowances from the
company. If the employee accepts the offer, what month will the s/he spends
his/her vacation? What month will s/he select? The rule of propinquity demands
that the opportunity should be taken in the nearest time possible because one may
not have the access of pleasure as s/he pleases when other circumstances will occur.
Hence, the first month of the year should be selected. This is also true in applying
a job. Also, to be considered is fecundity, or the capacity to engender further
pleasure; and purity, or the relative absence of any admixture of painful
countereffects. Finally, extent, or the number of people affected is considered.
Extent brings into balance the happiness of other people involved, hence, the more,
the merrier.
Further, if more than one of the elements are involved in an action, all the
other amounts of pleasure and pain must be accounted for. One is therefore
reminded that even a seemingly innocuous act might turn out to have “systemic”
effects (to the environment, or to conditions elsewhere, etc.).
JOHN STUART MILL: Mill defended the Bentham’s doctrine of
“Greatest happiness for greatest number of people.” He accepted the greatest
happiness principle of Bentham and agreed with him that man seeks pleasure and
avoids pain, and that happiness is the goal of human life, which is identified with
pleasure. JS Mill adds a qualitative dimension to Bentham’s purely quantitative
one. Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle is still hedonistic, since it “…holds that
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill asserts that by ‘happiness’ is
intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by ‘unhappiness,’ pain, and the
privation of pleasure.” But Mill’s version modifies Bentham’s utilitarianism. Mill
observes that “It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize the
fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than
others. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have
experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral
obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”
Mill differentiates the pleasures of animals with those of humans; of those
who are intelligent with those who are ignorant: “…it is an unquestionable fact that
those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and
enjoying, both, do give a marked preference to the manner of existence which
employs the higher faculties [….] Few human creatures would consent to be
changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a
beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no
instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience
would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the
dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs.”
Mill would assert that character formation is necessary in the cultivation of
high quality pleasures: “Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the
general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only
benefitted by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is
concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit.” Moreover, subordinate rules
are what we would normally call “common sense morality”.
Mill identifies the main deficiency of people who are “not happy”: “Next to
selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is want of mental
cultivation. A cultivated mind…finds sources of inexhaustible interest in all that
surrounds it; in the object of nature, the achievements of art, the imaginations of
poetry, the incidents of history, the ways of mankind past and present, and their
prospects in the future.” For Mill, therefore, the “greatest” in “greatest happiness
principle” does not just refer to the quantity of happiness (or pleasure) but also to
a higher quality or kind of happiness (or pleasure) that everyone affected,
regardless of status, could experience as the consequences of the action in question.
Applied to the body politic, utilitarianism and its objective of “the greatest
happiness for the greatest number” should be the goal of all laws and the ultimate
criterion of all institution. Thus, he maintained that pleasures do not only differ
“quantitatively” but also “qualitatively.”
The emphasis of J.S. Mill is the Quality of Pleasure and pleasure differs
qualitatively. His Motto is, “A good man would rather be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” “A person would rather 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.” And aside from the qualitative classification of
pleasure, Mill stresses on the social character of happiness. One has to seek the
greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. The end of moral action is
not merely one’s own happiness but the greatest amount of happiness for all.
Quality is important in terms of durability,
elegance, and longevity of anything important. For
instance, qualifying an intellectual capacity is based not on
numbers but on justification of intelligence through
creativity and innovativeness. Qualifying a product
means the inherent value or worth of such product – a
quality of time, of peace and of tranquility, of
enjoyment. A qualitative research deals with analysis
based on worth and value of the experiences in proving
validity.
This picture depicts that an old man who
has lived a long life and enjoying music in
old age, signifies happiness.
