AS Ethics: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
· A normative theory:
1) a theory of the right (what makes an act the right one?)
2) a theory of the good (what does moral goodness/value consist in?)
· A consequentialist theory:
o All Utilitarians agree that consequences are morally important:
o Q: what makes an act the right one?
o A: that it produces good consequences (utility)
o So actions are judged in light of their consequences (hence Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory)
o Such a forward-looking theory is a teleological theory.
o Consequentialism contrasts with Deontological ethical theories (eg Kant) judge an action’s morality on the basis of DUTY - broadly speaking on the basis of the agent’s intention.
o Consequentialists do not care about intentions, they only care about the consequences.
· A relativistic theory
o You will not find a Utilitarian saying something like ‘killing is always wrong’ because there may be a killing that produces good consequences, and so are therefore right.
o The moral value of an act is relative to its consequences.
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the classical forms of Utilitarianism from Bentham and Mill
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the Principle of Utility
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the differences between the Utilitarianism of Bentham and of Mill
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the Hedonic Calculus, higher and lower pleasures, quantity v. quality
Bentham’s theory
· An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number
· This is called The Principle of Utility
· So what ought we do? Maximise utility!
· But now we need to know what the ‘good’ (utility) is ...
· By utility is meant that property of any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness, (all this in the present case comes to the same thing) or (what comes again to the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered (from An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789)
· So this means … pleasure is the only moral good
· Why did Bentham believe this? Well, he thought we are motivated by pleasure & pain: ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure ...’
· And that we are only motivated by these: ‘ ... It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.’
· Bentham thought that only pleasure and pain are, respectively, intrinsically valuable and intrinsically disvaluable
· Monism (in ethics) is that there is only one kind of thing that has value. Most Utilitarians are monists about ethical value.
· The Principle of Utility: An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number
· This is also called The Greatest Happiness Principle
· Bentham thought that society = collection of individuals
· And that each individual pursues happiness, so a good society is one that allows for its members to achieve happiness: ‘... if that party [whose interest is considered] be the community in general, the happiness of the community: if a particular individual, then the happiness of that individual.’ (Bentham) This idea is sometimes known as Welfarism.
· An obvious question ... How do we work out the ‘greatest good’?
· Bentham’s answer – we use the Hedonic Calculus
· Seven factors (dimensions) to weigh up to work out which act is the right one in virtue of producing ‘the greatest good’ (sometimes called the felicific calculus).
· the mnemonic DR PRICE ...
o Duration - How long the pleasure will last
o Reproduction - How probable the pleasure will give rise to more pleasure (Also called fecundity)
o Purity - How pure the pleasure is such that it is not likely to be followed by pain
o Remoteness - How soon the pleasure will occur (Also called propinquity (time distance)
o Intensity - How strong will the pleasure be
o Certainty - How likely/probable the pleasure will occur
o Extent - How many people are affected by the pleasure
· ‘Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure; Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure. Such pleasures seek if private be thy end: If it be public, wide let them extend. Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view: If pains must come, let them extend to few.’
Mill’s theory
· Mill thought there were certain problems with Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism,
In response, he developed:
1. a modified theory of the right
2. a modified theory of the good
3. the Harm Principle
4. a role for rules
· Mill’s Theory of the Right is subtly different from Bentham’s.
· He wrote: ‘The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.’
· So this give us: A right action is one that falls under a rule the acceptance of which would maximise the good/utility (Right actions tend to promote the good)
• Mill agrees with Bentham that pleasure (happiness) is the good
• Disagrees that it is quantity that matters, but rather the quality
• This requires a way to distinguish between the ‘better’ and ‘worse’ pleasures: not all pleasures should have an equal status
• This leads to the distinction between higher and lower pleasures
• So this means … Higher pleasure is the only moral good
• Mill’s theory is a qualitative account. (Bentham’s is a quantitative account.)
• Higher pleasures include: cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures
• Lower pleasures include: physical pleasures
• An Ideal Judge (an expert) will be able to distinguish between the two.
• Mill wrote: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are 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.”
• Mill’s Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill)
• In general, society benefits from the adherence to rules (more pleasure). So Mill’s theory = Rule Utilitarianism
• e.g. not telling lies. The existence of the rule ‘do not tell lies’ creates a better society - secures the greatest happiness for the greatest number. However, there are occasions when the best thing to do will be to break the rule. (We will return to this issue ... )
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
• Developed by Bentham
• Moral value found in the actual consequences of individual acts
• Requires a case by case application of the Hedonic Calculus
Rule Utilitarianism
• Developed by Mill
• Moral value found in the consequences that are usually/generally produced by acts of this kind.
• e.g., telling lies. The consequence of telling lies generally causes more pain than pleasure (say), so the rule tells you that you should not tell lies in this case.
• Does not requires a case by case application of the Hedonic Calculus
Strong vs Weak Rule Utilitarianism
· Strong R.U. - never break the rules
· Weak R.U. (Mill) - break the rules if there is a benefit to society in this case
· Weak R.U. (others) - break the rules if this act will definitely satisfy the Greatest Happiness Principle (even though acts of this kind usually do not)
Problems with Strong Rule Utilitarianism
· Strong R.U. - never break the rules
1. Loses the flexibility which is a strength of Act Utilitarianism
2. It is counterintuitive to prohibit an act that would maximise the good just because of a rule.
Problems with Weak Rule Utilitarianism
· Weak R.U. - the rules can sometimes be broken
1. Collapses back into Act Utilitarianism, since how do you know if this act is one for which the rules should be broken?
• Brad Hooker’s response: the value of the rules is in their acceptance rather than people’s compliance with them.
Candidates should be able to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer.
Other theories of the Good
· The story so far ...
o Bentham’s theory of the good: pleasure
o Mill’s theory of the good: higher pleasure
· Both these are based in hedonism (psychological egoism), and are monistic theories (pleasure = the only intrinsically valuable thing)
· There are other theories on the market that aim for the maximisation of states other than pleasure ...
Peter Singer’s Preference Utilitarianism
· The good = satisfaction of preferences
· The bad = frustration of preferences
· Preference is not a sensation (eg pleasure), but rather a state of affairs (eg having a friend, or achieving a goal).
· So we should maximise the satisfaction of the preferences of the individuals involved.
· An action is right if it maximises satisfied preferences (This is called The Principle of Utility)
· Satisfied preferences are the only moral good
· Singer’s theory is not a version of hedonism
Candidates should be able to discuss critically these issues and their strengths and weaknesses.
Strengths of Bentham’s theory
Philosophers have found many strengths in Bentham’s theory - leading some of them to think that he has uncovered some fundamental truths about morality. We shall consider four strengths:
1) Everyone counts for one - so the theory is egalitarian, democratic and impartial.
2) Pre-theoretically, it seems intuitive (natural) to think that we judge the morality of an act by looking at its consequences.
3) The theory is flexible as it rejects hard and fast rules/laws.
4) Provides a practical way for solving moral dilemmas in real life (eg triage, or the NHS).
Criticisms of Bentham’s theory
As with many of the theories we will encounter, there tend to more weaknesses than strengths! However, this does not mean that you have to reject the theory as false - there may be a way to counter the criticisms. Philosophical evaluation is not a simple additive process (2 strengths & 5 weakness so the theory fails).
1. Problem of Incommensurability: The hedonic calculus doesn’t explain how to weigh the quantity of my pleasure against the quantity of your pleasure or pain - how can we compare dimensions such as intensity? Look: my pleasure is really really intense, so outweighs your pain, which is clearly only very mild.
2. Problem of Predicting the Consequences: How do we know - in advance - that an act will produce good consequences? In other words, the teleological nature of the theory means that moral judgements are only speculative (the bad consequences might be just around the corner). **Dennet’s Three Mile Island criticism**
• RESPONSE: The Probability of good consequences is built in to the Hedonic Calculus (Certainty). Definite knowledge of the future is not required.
3. Hedonism is false: Bentham’s view of human psychology is not true. Pursuit of pleasure & avoidance of pain are not the only reasons (motivations) for acting.
4. Nozick’s Pleasure Machine: If hedonism were true, it would be rational to plug yourself into a machine that guaranteed to maximise your pleasure and minimize your pain (by running a pre-programmed simulation). Surely it is not rational to plug yourself in? (Watch The Matrix) What this shows is that MONISM is not true - there are other values: friendship, love, honour etc. and we ought to pursue these too.
5. Bentham’s theory gives value to the pleasure of a sadist (who gets pleasure from causing others pain). If the sadist’s pleasure is greater than the pain of the victim (according to the Hedonic Calculus), then the act of torture is right .
· RESPONSE: J.S. Mill develops a theory that avoids this consequence of Bentham’s theory
6. The Problem of the majority: Bentham’s theory allows for the persecution of a minority if the majority benefit. This is expressed as Utilitarianism’s lack of respect for the concept of justice. Bentham makes matters worse by describing human rights as ‘nonsense on stilts’.
· RESPONSE: Mill develops a theory that avoids this consequence of Bentham’s theory
7. The Impracticality of the Hedonic Calculus: Bentham’s theory requires that the Hedonic Calculus must be used every time one acts (to ensure that the right act is performed). This is why the theory = Act Utilitarianism. This is impractical
· RESPONSE: This could be a strength, since each situation is likely to be different, so means that Utilitarianism is a relativistic theory. Mill develops a theory that avoids this consequence of Bentham’s theory.
Strengths of Mill’s theory
Pre-theoretically, it seems intuitive (natural) to think that we judge the morality of an act by looking at its consequences
Provides some improvements over Bentham’s theory ...
1. The ‘Sadist’ objection to Bentham’s theory is avoided. The sadist only receives physical (lower) pleasure, therefore does not count positively.
· However ... Mill’s theory loses the egalitarian strength of Bentham’s. Thus Mill’s account is elitist. Would everyone who has seen both Eastenders and La Traviata agree that the latter produces a ‘better’ kind of pleasure?
2. The ‘problem of the majority’ objection to Bentham’s theory is avoided. (Bentham has no place for justice). The Harm Principle prevents the majority from running roughshod over the minority, so restoring the concept of Justice
3. The ‘Impracticality’ objection to Bentham’s theory is avoided. We can make empirical generalisations from past experience to guide our actions.
· However ... Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism loses the flexibility of Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism. We look at the place of rules in Utilitarianism later ...
Criticisms of Mill’s theory
As with many of the theories we will encounter, there tend to more weaknesses than strengths! However, this does not mean that you have to reject the theory as false - there may be a way to counter the criticisms. Philosophical evaluation is not a simple additive process (2 strengths & 5 weaknesses so the theory fails).
1. Problem of incommensurability: How can I weigh the quality of my pleasure against the quality of your pleasure? Cf. criticism of Bentham viz weighing quantities of pleasure.