UTILITARIANISM
Introduction
Introductory Lines
Since the fifth century BCE, humanity has attempted to formulate moral principles that govern
one’s behaviour, so that individuals can uphold important values and ideologies as well as function
with others in a flourishing society.
Questions
However, this raises questions regarding the framework upon which ethics should be based.
Should morality be focused on a sense of duty? Or the consequences that an action causes? Is it
ever justified to perform a ‘bad’ action if it would produce a ‘good’ consequence?
Debate
These perspectives refer to the intellectual debate of normative ethics, in which it is explored how
one ought to act when faced with ethical dilemmas.
Philosophy
A philosophical theory that relates to this issue is consequentialism, which argues that the morality
of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences, regardless of one’s intentions.
Philosopher
A proponents of this philosophical theory is Jeremy Bentham who formulates an ethical framework
called utilitarianism, that focuses on ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’.
Societal Implications
In terms of societal implications, the debate of normative ethics is of substantial importance when
agents are faced with morally difficult decisions.
Should one focus on what consequence would bring about the most happiness, or what they have
an obligation to do? This debate is also important in terms of crime and punishment.
It could be argued that penalisation for deterrence, separation and rehabilitation maximise pleasure
from a utilitarian’s perspective, whilst the punishment system of retribution penalises those based
on the idea that they are responsible for their actions.
This adheres to Kant’s idea that ‘every deed violating a human beings right deserves punishment,
the function of which being to avenge a crime on the one who committed it’.
Evaluations
This essay will critically evaluate utilitarianism, finding that whilst it is thorough and well-founded,
the theory contains detrimental flaws that deem it’s arguments redundant, even with Mill’s attempt
to resurrect it through rule utilitarianism. Thus, one can reasonably claim that moral actions to not
originate to what generates the most pleasure for the most people.
Utilitarianism
Bentham and General Theory
Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) was an English philosopher who believed that ‘nature has placed
mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure’.
Thus, he concluded that ‘it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to
determine what we shall do’.
Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism consists of three key components.
1. Firstly, it is hedonistic, meaning that all moral actions should concur with the pursuit of pleasure,
the only intrinsic good.
2. Secondly, being a consequentialist theory, one must always determine which act would
maximise pleasure. This can be summarised by the principle of utility, which states: ‘the
greatest good for the greatest number’.
3. Lastly, the principle of equity states that ‘each to count for one and none for more than one’,
meaning that all individuals are treated equally when determining the amount of pleasure
experienced.
Along with these three components of Bentham’s utilitarianism, it is also important to note that his
theory is teleological in that a moral agent’s purpose is to pursue pleasure.
It is also relativistic, as he believes there are no moral views that are always right or wrong, unlike
Kant’ absolutist and deontologist stance.
, Hedonic Calculus
Bentham also created the hedonic calculus in order to address the problems involved with the
calculation of pleasure associated with future actions.
The calculus is a formula utilised to predict possible pleasures according to their intensity, duration,
certainty, remoteness (how far into the future the pleasure is), fecundity (how likely it is that
pleasure will generate other related pleasures), purity (if any pain will be felt alongside that
pleasure) and extent (how many people might be able to share in that pleasure).
Rule Utilitarianism
This form of utilitarianism as proposed by Bentham is referred to as act utilitarianism, which states
that a person's act is morally right if it produces the most pleasure in a specific situation.
On the other hand, rule utilitarianism, as proposed by Mill, states that an action is right if it
conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good, or that ‘the rightness or wrongness of a
particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance’.
For example, thousands of years of human experience has taught us that that killing, lying, and
stealing generally leads to less happiness and more pain.
However, this can be divided into strong rule utilitarianism (a set of compulsory moral principles
that maximise pleasure), and the weak rule utilitarianism (a set of moral principles that maximise
pleasure but can be broken in circumstances in which more happiness would be produced by
ignoring the rule).
Higher and Lower Pleasures
Mill attempted to redraw Bentham’s utilitarianism by moving away from his idea of quantitative
pleasure.
Instead, Mill thought that the quality of pleasure was also crucial in determining what is moral.
According to Mill, higher pleasures, those of intellect brought about through activities such as
painting, reading or poetry are worth more than lower pleasures, animalistic and base pleasures
associated with drinking, eating or sex.
Mill states that we should maximise pleasures of higher quality even if there is a lower quantity.
This notion of higher and lower pleasures is highlighted through the line, ‘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, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the
question’.
Strengths of Bentham
Logical Link Between Pleasure and Pain
A strength of Bentham’s act utilitarianism is the logical link between morality and pleasure and
pain.
As humans tend to naturally avoid pain and maximise pleasure, it makes sense that a moral
framework should aim to concur with this behaviour.
Allows Equity
Additionally, due to the principle of equity, it is a very ‘fair’ theory that treats people equally.
Flexible
Furthermore, due to the lack of absolute rules, act utilitarianism is very context sensitive and
flexible, being able to adapt to many difficult moral dilemmas.
Impacts of Actions
Moreover, being a consequentialist theory, it would make people think about the impacts of their
actions, which would lead to a greater understanding of the situation, and thus generate better
actions as a result.
Clear Process
Also, with the hedonic calculus there is a very clear process of decision making, in which there is
always a method to determine which act would maximise pleasure for the greatest number. This
makes act utilitarianism good for legislation.
Weaknesses of Bentham
Quantifying Pleasure
Despite these numerous strengths, I overall disagree with Bentham’s act utilitarianism for the
following reasons.
Firstly, problems arise when attempting to quantify pleasure.
Introduction
Introductory Lines
Since the fifth century BCE, humanity has attempted to formulate moral principles that govern
one’s behaviour, so that individuals can uphold important values and ideologies as well as function
with others in a flourishing society.
Questions
However, this raises questions regarding the framework upon which ethics should be based.
Should morality be focused on a sense of duty? Or the consequences that an action causes? Is it
ever justified to perform a ‘bad’ action if it would produce a ‘good’ consequence?
Debate
These perspectives refer to the intellectual debate of normative ethics, in which it is explored how
one ought to act when faced with ethical dilemmas.
Philosophy
A philosophical theory that relates to this issue is consequentialism, which argues that the morality
of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences, regardless of one’s intentions.
Philosopher
A proponents of this philosophical theory is Jeremy Bentham who formulates an ethical framework
called utilitarianism, that focuses on ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’.
Societal Implications
In terms of societal implications, the debate of normative ethics is of substantial importance when
agents are faced with morally difficult decisions.
Should one focus on what consequence would bring about the most happiness, or what they have
an obligation to do? This debate is also important in terms of crime and punishment.
It could be argued that penalisation for deterrence, separation and rehabilitation maximise pleasure
from a utilitarian’s perspective, whilst the punishment system of retribution penalises those based
on the idea that they are responsible for their actions.
This adheres to Kant’s idea that ‘every deed violating a human beings right deserves punishment,
the function of which being to avenge a crime on the one who committed it’.
Evaluations
This essay will critically evaluate utilitarianism, finding that whilst it is thorough and well-founded,
the theory contains detrimental flaws that deem it’s arguments redundant, even with Mill’s attempt
to resurrect it through rule utilitarianism. Thus, one can reasonably claim that moral actions to not
originate to what generates the most pleasure for the most people.
Utilitarianism
Bentham and General Theory
Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832) was an English philosopher who believed that ‘nature has placed
mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure’.
Thus, he concluded that ‘it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to
determine what we shall do’.
Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism consists of three key components.
1. Firstly, it is hedonistic, meaning that all moral actions should concur with the pursuit of pleasure,
the only intrinsic good.
2. Secondly, being a consequentialist theory, one must always determine which act would
maximise pleasure. This can be summarised by the principle of utility, which states: ‘the
greatest good for the greatest number’.
3. Lastly, the principle of equity states that ‘each to count for one and none for more than one’,
meaning that all individuals are treated equally when determining the amount of pleasure
experienced.
Along with these three components of Bentham’s utilitarianism, it is also important to note that his
theory is teleological in that a moral agent’s purpose is to pursue pleasure.
It is also relativistic, as he believes there are no moral views that are always right or wrong, unlike
Kant’ absolutist and deontologist stance.
, Hedonic Calculus
Bentham also created the hedonic calculus in order to address the problems involved with the
calculation of pleasure associated with future actions.
The calculus is a formula utilised to predict possible pleasures according to their intensity, duration,
certainty, remoteness (how far into the future the pleasure is), fecundity (how likely it is that
pleasure will generate other related pleasures), purity (if any pain will be felt alongside that
pleasure) and extent (how many people might be able to share in that pleasure).
Rule Utilitarianism
This form of utilitarianism as proposed by Bentham is referred to as act utilitarianism, which states
that a person's act is morally right if it produces the most pleasure in a specific situation.
On the other hand, rule utilitarianism, as proposed by Mill, states that an action is right if it
conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good, or that ‘the rightness or wrongness of a
particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance’.
For example, thousands of years of human experience has taught us that that killing, lying, and
stealing generally leads to less happiness and more pain.
However, this can be divided into strong rule utilitarianism (a set of compulsory moral principles
that maximise pleasure), and the weak rule utilitarianism (a set of moral principles that maximise
pleasure but can be broken in circumstances in which more happiness would be produced by
ignoring the rule).
Higher and Lower Pleasures
Mill attempted to redraw Bentham’s utilitarianism by moving away from his idea of quantitative
pleasure.
Instead, Mill thought that the quality of pleasure was also crucial in determining what is moral.
According to Mill, higher pleasures, those of intellect brought about through activities such as
painting, reading or poetry are worth more than lower pleasures, animalistic and base pleasures
associated with drinking, eating or sex.
Mill states that we should maximise pleasures of higher quality even if there is a lower quantity.
This notion of higher and lower pleasures is highlighted through the line, ‘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, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the
question’.
Strengths of Bentham
Logical Link Between Pleasure and Pain
A strength of Bentham’s act utilitarianism is the logical link between morality and pleasure and
pain.
As humans tend to naturally avoid pain and maximise pleasure, it makes sense that a moral
framework should aim to concur with this behaviour.
Allows Equity
Additionally, due to the principle of equity, it is a very ‘fair’ theory that treats people equally.
Flexible
Furthermore, due to the lack of absolute rules, act utilitarianism is very context sensitive and
flexible, being able to adapt to many difficult moral dilemmas.
Impacts of Actions
Moreover, being a consequentialist theory, it would make people think about the impacts of their
actions, which would lead to a greater understanding of the situation, and thus generate better
actions as a result.
Clear Process
Also, with the hedonic calculus there is a very clear process of decision making, in which there is
always a method to determine which act would maximise pleasure for the greatest number. This
makes act utilitarianism good for legislation.
Weaknesses of Bentham
Quantifying Pleasure
Despite these numerous strengths, I overall disagree with Bentham’s act utilitarianism for the
following reasons.
Firstly, problems arise when attempting to quantify pleasure.
