Ethics - Utilitarianism

• Jeremy Bentham
• Claim of utilitarianism is to provide a single principle to resolve the dilemmas of moral life.

'Create all the happiness you are able to create: remove all the misery you are able to remove' - 
Jeremy Bentham

• Intensity - How strong is the pleasure?
• Duration - How long does the pleasure last?
• Certainty - How likely is the pleasure to occur?
• Propinquity - How soon will the pleasure occur?
• Fecundity - How probalbe that pleasure will follow?
• Purity - How unlikely is it that the pleasure will cause pain?
• Extent - How many people are effected?
• Bentham spent years creating the hedonic calculus, but he could never make the system work - this is because there are far too many variable to take into consideration, and on top of this it it impossible to predict the outcomes of the future. 
• Say someone decides to eat 10 chocolates, this would equal to 10 points of pleasure, then if they ate 20 chocolates it would be 20 points of pleasure, then the same for 100, however many people would know that eating 100 chocolates would make you feel sick. 
• For Bentham, it was a mistake to distinguish types of pleasure. 
• John Stuart Mill was unahppy about a narrow hedonism, concerned that there are higher and lower pleasures: in his essay, utilitarianism, he writes: 'it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisifed than a fool satisfied'.

• Utilitarian seek good over evil, and the good might be something other than pleasure.
• Different utilitarians have different ideas on what is good. Mill talks of 'happiness' rather than 'pleasure'.
• Good should be for what is really good, not just bodily pleasures or what someone takes to be preferred outcomes. 
• G. E. Moores Principia Ethica, to the growth of ideal utilitarian, which argues thatone should always seek the greatest balanceof ideally good.
• Bentham taight that utilitarianism should aim for 'the greatest good for the greatest number'

• The view that for each act we should determine which outcome leads to the geater general good, on a case-by-case basis, this is why wee are tempted to use the hedonic calculus to help us.
• One of the problems with such an approch is that often people do not have sufficient time or information to make the necessary calculation. 
• Some do not have the intellectual capacity, even if the information were available. 
• You cant tell a child to use the hedonic calculus to figure out whether it is a good idea to put their finger in plug socket, it is much more effective to just tell them not to do it and set rules. 

• Endorsed by John Stuart Mill
• This argues that we should always follow the rule that will lead to the greatest balance of good over evil.
• In the case of liberty, Mill argues that his general principle of liberty, if alwasy followed, leads to the greatest general happiness, even though some people will go off the rails and will damage themselves.
• The needs of general good outweigh my individual issues with - for instance - drink ordrugs.
• The problem with it is that it seems to place preservation of the rule above individual need. 
• In the case of Mills theory of liberty, he is reluctant to prevent individual harm, simply because the rule of maximising liberty should be adhered to for thegreatest general happiness.
• Wars object to Mills line of reasoning, his argument is that if we restrict freedom in these matters, the entire principle of liberty is at risk.
• We know that by creating some rules to keep the general liberty will have some unfortunate outcomes.
• Say there was a rule against lying. A woman was being chased by a murderer, she runs into a shop for refuge, the murderer asks the shop keeper where she is, the shop keeper knows where the woman is, does she lie to save the woman? or does she follow the rules and tell the truth?

• Peter Singer
• Says the think through the issues rationally.
• For Singer, we need to apply strictly and unemotionally the principles of utilitarianism.
• in his view, it is imprtant to recognise that utilitarianism must have a universal quality, weighing the needs and preferences of others as much as my own: 'in accepting that ethical judgements must be made from a universal point of view' 
• Singer rejects classic hedonistic accunts, arguing that we should opt for preference utilitarianism 
• No longer is the aim the maximisation of pleasure over pain, but rather the general satisfaction of preferences. 
• He argues that we should do what on balance furthers the preferences of those affected. 

• Its meant to be a moral theory but can include evil, so therefore it doesnt seem to be good.
• the evil permitted may be needlessly great in ways that are counter-intuitive.
• How capable are we of calculating outcomes?
• We need sufficient intellectual ability to make appropriate decisions.
• It can become difficult to work out whether someone has committed a good act.
• Morality entails more than doing the right thing.
• The absence of rights is an issue for anyone who believes that there are natural rights. (individuals interferring with happiness)
• Sir Bernard Williams - preventing something unpleasant may involve doing something unpleasant and this goes against the idea of creating happiness