5. What Utilitarianism Is
Rightness and Focus
Mill's view of utilitarianism
'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.'
This shows that Mill believes rightness and wrongness are quantifiable and can be traded off. E.g. An
action is still right if it tends to produce more happiness than it does the reverse of happiness, even
if it tends to produce a lot of the reverse.
Why does Mill focus on actions rather than, say, character?
Mill argues that one should have the character that results in the performing of actions leads to the
GPH
Actualism and Probabilism
The rash doctor:
You have a serious medical condition
There are two possible treatments
1. 1% chance of survival with a welfare level of 50
2. 100% chance of survival with a welfare level of 25
If the doctor chooses 1 and succeeds she has done nothing wrong
If she chooses 2 but would have succeeded with 1 she has acted wrongly
This is actualism - the right action overall is the one what will actually produce the greatest balance
of pleasure over pain
The alternative would be probabilism which takes probabilities into account
The welfare levels are multiplied by their probability of outcome
E.g. 50*0.01=0.05
25*1.00=25
In this instance the right choice would therefore be the safe treatment
Mill does not seem to choose between the two but he does stress the significance of intention
The doctor did not know whether she would be successful, therefore although she was objectively
right, one could criticise her intentions through subjective rightness (the maximization of expected
overall happiness)
With actualism, we would never know what to choose as we would never know the full
consequences of our action
E.g. The butterfly effect
However probabilism would mean that this possibility could be quantified as insignificant due to its
minute probability, furthermore unexpected good consequences and unexpected bad consequences
cancel each other out
Acts and Rules
, Act utilitarianism - the right act is the one that maximizes happiness
This is a direct moral philosophy
Rule utilitarianism - whether an action is right or wrong doesn't depend directly on whether it
maximizes happiness, rather on a set of rules derived from the greatest happiness principle
This is an indirect moral philosophy
J.O Urmson interpretation of Mill:
Rules
A. A particular action is justified as being right by showing that it is in accord with some
moral rule. It is shown to be wrong by showing that it transgresses some moral rule.
B. A moral rule is shown to be correct be showing that the recognition of the rule
promotes the ultimate end
E.g. Breaking a promise IN ORDER to maximise overall happiness - act utilitarianism would say its
right, rule utilitarianism would say its wrong
Its a RULE because the rule promotes trust in society which leads to greater overall happiness
Why does he interpret Mill in this way?
Mill is a member of the inductive school... Morality is a matter of the application of a general law
BUT
Mill takes this general law to be the GHP
HOWEVER
To take Mill as an act utilitarianism would be to ignore Mill's reference to 'tendencies' of actions to
promote happiness or unhappiness
Furthermore
Mill allows that there may be secondary moral principles - these are what is described in A
Later it will be shown that A cannot be ascribed to Mill
Levels of Moral Thinking
NB: Act utilitarianism only describes a criterion for right action... Not how we should think about how
to act in out everyday lives
A single-level act utilitarian (although he may enjoy certain things) would have no goals other than to
maximize welfare - he would have no problem with killing, lying, stealing, if they met this end
This would require total social detachment in order to have full partiality and rationality
Which is not practically possible
Maybe we should just be as impartial as possible?
However this would not be single-level because the development of partialities is itself moralized
Therefore single-level act utilitarianism is not only possible for societies, but also psychologically
impossible for the individual
Furthermore they would never get anything done - they would be constantly calculating welfare
values for the potential outcomes of their actions
Rightness and Focus
Mill's view of utilitarianism
'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.'
This shows that Mill believes rightness and wrongness are quantifiable and can be traded off. E.g. An
action is still right if it tends to produce more happiness than it does the reverse of happiness, even
if it tends to produce a lot of the reverse.
Why does Mill focus on actions rather than, say, character?
Mill argues that one should have the character that results in the performing of actions leads to the
GPH
Actualism and Probabilism
The rash doctor:
You have a serious medical condition
There are two possible treatments
1. 1% chance of survival with a welfare level of 50
2. 100% chance of survival with a welfare level of 25
If the doctor chooses 1 and succeeds she has done nothing wrong
If she chooses 2 but would have succeeded with 1 she has acted wrongly
This is actualism - the right action overall is the one what will actually produce the greatest balance
of pleasure over pain
The alternative would be probabilism which takes probabilities into account
The welfare levels are multiplied by their probability of outcome
E.g. 50*0.01=0.05
25*1.00=25
In this instance the right choice would therefore be the safe treatment
Mill does not seem to choose between the two but he does stress the significance of intention
The doctor did not know whether she would be successful, therefore although she was objectively
right, one could criticise her intentions through subjective rightness (the maximization of expected
overall happiness)
With actualism, we would never know what to choose as we would never know the full
consequences of our action
E.g. The butterfly effect
However probabilism would mean that this possibility could be quantified as insignificant due to its
minute probability, furthermore unexpected good consequences and unexpected bad consequences
cancel each other out
Acts and Rules
, Act utilitarianism - the right act is the one that maximizes happiness
This is a direct moral philosophy
Rule utilitarianism - whether an action is right or wrong doesn't depend directly on whether it
maximizes happiness, rather on a set of rules derived from the greatest happiness principle
This is an indirect moral philosophy
J.O Urmson interpretation of Mill:
Rules
A. A particular action is justified as being right by showing that it is in accord with some
moral rule. It is shown to be wrong by showing that it transgresses some moral rule.
B. A moral rule is shown to be correct be showing that the recognition of the rule
promotes the ultimate end
E.g. Breaking a promise IN ORDER to maximise overall happiness - act utilitarianism would say its
right, rule utilitarianism would say its wrong
Its a RULE because the rule promotes trust in society which leads to greater overall happiness
Why does he interpret Mill in this way?
Mill is a member of the inductive school... Morality is a matter of the application of a general law
BUT
Mill takes this general law to be the GHP
HOWEVER
To take Mill as an act utilitarianism would be to ignore Mill's reference to 'tendencies' of actions to
promote happiness or unhappiness
Furthermore
Mill allows that there may be secondary moral principles - these are what is described in A
Later it will be shown that A cannot be ascribed to Mill
Levels of Moral Thinking
NB: Act utilitarianism only describes a criterion for right action... Not how we should think about how
to act in out everyday lives
A single-level act utilitarian (although he may enjoy certain things) would have no goals other than to
maximize welfare - he would have no problem with killing, lying, stealing, if they met this end
This would require total social detachment in order to have full partiality and rationality
Which is not practically possible
Maybe we should just be as impartial as possible?
However this would not be single-level because the development of partialities is itself moralized
Therefore single-level act utilitarianism is not only possible for societies, but also psychologically
impossible for the individual
Furthermore they would never get anything done - they would be constantly calculating welfare
values for the potential outcomes of their actions
