Utilitarianism

• In nature things and actions either cause pleasure or pain
• Pleasure is good and pain is bad
• The utility of an action or thing is to be judged solely on whether it maximises pleasure
• An action or thing should either directly or indirectly lead to the pleasure or happiness of the maximal number of people in society
• All human beings prefer pleasure to pain and this preference is built into nature's laws

• Is regarded as the father of classical utilitarianism
• Developed an ethical theory based in individualism - each human being is free to create their own morality based on nature rather than God
  • Rejected morality based on divine authority (Divine Command theory)
  • called himself a non-theist; rejected the term atheist as he thought it was impossible for any human being to know whether God exists or not
  • Believed that the only basis for ethics is nature
    • Never attempted to expain what he meant by nature- assumed no explanation was required
• Developed the idea that morality is the maximization of pleasure in society
  • "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure" (Jeremy Bentham, 1823)
• Believed that it is fundamental to prefer pleasure to pain
  • Pleasure and pain are not just physical sensations, they are also the psychological state that comes from feeling pain or pleasure
  • One could argue that some people prefer feeling pain, but Bentham would reply that such people do not see pain as pain but rather as pleasure
    • e.g. the hermit who suffers hardship by living in a cave all his life but regards suffering as a stepping stone to the pleasure of a heavenly reward - for the hermit, the physical pain is psychological pleasure

• Bentham created seven basic tests for calculating whether an action will maximize pleasure and minimize pain:
  • Purity of the sensation (it is not followed by sensations of pain)
  • Remoteness or nearness of the sensation
  • Intensity of the sensation
  • Certainty of the sensation
  • Extent of the sensation (the number of people affected)
  • Duration of the sensation
  • Fecundity of the sensation (the chance it will produce other pleasurable experiences)

• He views all pleasures as being of equal value
  • People are either happy or they are not - there is no such thing as higher or lower pleasures
• Bentham rejects the idea of human rights (he calls them 'nonsense upon stilts')
  • It would be wrong to allow the rights of an individual or group to frustrate actions that might lead to the general happiness of society
• His theory has the logical consequence of allowing what common sense might regard as evil as a good
  • e.g: slavery (Ironic- Bentham supported William Wilberforce and others in their opposition to slavery/the slave trade)
• Bentham's theory is based on an eighteenth-century concept of nature - outdated?
• Commits the naturalistic fallacy
  • Just because in nature people prefer pleasure to pain it does not follow that people ought to do that which is preferred
• Bentham's theory requires a great deal of knowledge to make a decision - not always possible?
• Bentham's theory requires a great deal of time - not possible for everyone
• There is a lack of humanity in Bentham's Ultilitarianism?
  • e.g. the panopticon (Mill)
• Robert Nozick criticises Bentham's hedonism: do pleasurable experiences lead to human contentment? e.g. the matrix

• Rejected the simplistic view of pleasure that the Benthamites put forward
  • His early affection for Bentham turned into contempt - he wrote that Bentham remained 'a child all his life' and that his views were both infantile and cold
• Mill wanted to improve utilitarianism - he rejected the idea of the individual's application of the Hedonic calculus and put forward the idea that what each individual wants, in terms of happiness, is what all human beings truly desire for themsleves and for others
  • This creates what Mill called the 'aggregate of individual happiness'.
  • Bentham's Hedonic calculus is replaced by the 'logic of practice':
    • judge vs legislator

4 main points:

• Mill rejected Bentham's simplistic view of the causes of human happiness
  • e.g. could have wealth & a loving family but be unhappy because of a dictatorship - happiness is causally complex
• Mill developed basic principles that must be upheld to ensure that the conditions for happiness are met - most important = liberty
  • 3 elements of liberty:
    • a limit to the power of society over an individual
    • freedom of thought and speech
    • the right to be an individual
• Principle of universalizability:
  • Overall individual happiness is better for society than the suppression of minorities
  • The combined total of individual happiness creates 'the greates good of the greatest number'
• Individual happiness goes hand in hand with human equality (Mill was a leading campaigner for women's rights and universal suffrage)

• Mill rejects the idea that all pleasures are the same

Higher Pleasures

• Human progress is key: hgher pleasures make people happy because they are progressive
• It can be inferred that higher pleasures include things such as philosophical insight, educational development, self-improvement, empathy towards others, listening to music, generosity and reading

Lower Pleasures

• Lower pleasures include eating a meal, drinking, sexual intercourse, etc.
• They make the individual happy but but the pleasure gained does nothing for the person's progressive nature
• Mill writes that lower pleasures are 'worthy only of swine'
  • "It is better to be a human being dissasfied than a pig satisfied, better to 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 ow side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides."

• Mill has a very optimistic view of human nature and believes in individual autonomy - these views are in marked contrast to the ideas of contemporary scientist Richard Dawkins, who asserts that human behaviour is heavily determined by our genes
• Mill's higher and lower pleasures are meaningless terms - people either get pleasure from something or they don't
• Progress could be made by lower pleasures also?
• There is an arrogance in Mill's ideas of higher and lower pleasures
  • His comment that lower pleasures are 'worthy only of swine' suggests intellectual arrogance
• Mill rejected the simplicity of Bentham's argument but produced a view of utilitarianism that is too complex
  • the complexity of Mill's utilitarianism means that the morality or otherwise of various issues cannot be easily or quickly resolved
  • The original purpose of utilitarianism - to answer questions about what is good and right in a particular situation - is no longer possible

Similarities

• Belief in the pain/pleasure calculus as inbuilt in human nature
• Belief that happiness is the highest goal of human beings
• Belief that human society exists to create happiness
• Belief in human progress
• Rejection of religion and the Divine Command theory
• Rejection of concept of a priori moral truths

Differences

• Bentham: It is the quantity of happiness that is important
  • Mill: It is the quality of happiness that is important
• Bentham: All pleasures are of the same value
  • Mill: There are higher and lower pleasures
• Bentham: Focused on the individual
  • Mill: Emphasis on the aggregate of individual happiness
• Bentham: System of Hedonic Calculus based on experience
  • Mill: System based on the application of logic to practical situations
• Bentham: Considered human rights to be nonsense
  • Mill: Believed that without individual liberty society's happiness is not possible

• The value of an act is the amount it increases general utility or happiness
  • An action is right if, and only if, it promotes happiness
  • An action is right if, and only if, it causes pleasure and the absence of pain
  • An action is right if its utility is greater than nought
  • An action is right if, when compared to available alternatives, it maximizes utility

Henry Sidgwick

• What is good?
  • Hedonism (the pursuit of pleasure)
  • The dream of a better tomorrow is part of human nature
• What is right?
  • A sort of 'common sense intuition'
  • Rules are framed by a common-sense understanding of what is right or wrong, e.g. the maxims 'never lie' or 'never steal' - Sidgwick argues that if you look closely at these rules/maxims they are really utilitarian values, as the have a basis in hedonism
• Moral rules are rules of thumb, useful indicators that in certain circumstances can be set aside
  • This means that the same action can be seen as both moral and immoral
  • This creates a problem: how is it possible to know in advance whether an action will have a net benefit or defecit?
  • Sidgwick's response: an act may be moral and immoral at different times - when making a moral decision, you must respond to the immadiate consequences of your actions; it is not possible to be certain about the long-term effects of ewhat you decide.

Strengths of Act Utilitarianism:

• It allows exceptions to a particular rule or law if the exception appears to maximise human welfare
• It takes into account the lack of knowledge that may exist when coming to a moral decision
  • (objectively right vs subjectively right acts - objectively right = an act that turns out to be right on the basis of night benefit, subjectively right = what you decide to do on the basis of the information you have at the time)

Limits of Act Utilitarianism

• It is possible for an Act Utilitarian to decide to do one thing in a particular situation and the opposite a few hours later - moral inconsistency?
  • Sidgwick countered this by introducing the 'principle of justice' - in considering any action the individual has to take account of not only whether the deed has a net benefit but also whether what will be done is just to all the parties concerned.
    • New problem: what is special about justice?

• Moral laws must be obeyed
  • these rules are selected on the basis of whether they will maximise general good or welfare in society

Basic assumptions of Rule Utilitarianism:

• General moral rules exist in order to achieve benefit for the majority of people in society
• Rules prevent the selfish use of utiliration principles or a subjective notion of what constitutes happiness/pleasure
  • Rules ensure that the motive of an action is not guided by self-interest or delusion
• Rule Utilitarians take into account the consequences of actions and not only rhe good likely to be produced by a single moral decision

Criticisms

• How is it possible to universalize the concept of general benefit or happiness?
• How is it possible to create particular moral rules that maximise happiness or social benefit throughout the world?
  • e.g. can the right to personal property always be justified in a world of starving millions?
• Do not moral laws often conflict?
• Future benefits of any action are unpredictable

• Based on the belief that what is morally right is not actions that maximise human welfare,  but one that maximises the preferences that individual human beings make in life
  • "In deciding what is good and what is bad for an individual, the ultimate criterion can only be his own wants and his own preferences" (John C. Harsanyi)
• Singer: Human's desire for a good life is inbuilt into the evolutionary process and transcends societies
  • Individual preferences relate to the need for a good life

Manifest and True prefereces

• Manifest preference: what you prefer, which is nased on immediate desires and needs
• True preference: one a person would accept if they were 'fully informed, reflective, and vividly aware of the consequences of satisfying their preferences' (Singer)

Trade-offs

• All ethical decisions are based on 'trade-offs dependent on empirical calculations' (Singer)
  • Trade-offs have to be made for the general welfare - some preferences have to be rejected or deferred so that the general good is maintained

• Who decides whether a preference is manifest or true? - paternalistic feature of Preference Utilitarianism?
• Preferences are not static things
  • Preference is a consequence of what is available rather than what people really prefer/want
• Human beings do not live a life of preferences

Strengths

• A simple idea - possible for everyone to use
• Answers the question of why human beings should be good by stating that it is in the individual's self-interest to do so
• Supports the idea of human welfare and can be used in a variety of areas of life
• Takes into account the consequences of any action or moral principle
• Does on rely on what many see as out-of-date religious bases for morality
• Morality for a democratic age - based on 'the greatest good of the greatest number'
• Takes into account other sentient beings besides humans including animals

Weaknesses

• It is based on an outdated concept of nature and commits the naturalistic fallacy
• It is concerned with the greatest number and therfore ignores the plight of minority groups
• It does not take into account people's intentions
• It ignores the notion of doing something out of a sense of duty
• It ignores the importance of love and relationships in morality
• It ignores the idea of self-sacrifice as a moral virtue yet, at the same time, it tolerates the sacrifice of individuals for the common good
• It focuses on supposed consequences that are hard to predict because of the limitations of human knowledge