A2 Ethics Revision
Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
• Based on the principle of happiness – “The greatest happiness for the greatest number”
• It is a teleological theory where the consequence of an action is the most important aspect of a
decision opposed to the action itself
• The theory was devised by Jeremy Bentham and claimed that humans are motivated by pleasure and
pain
• Pleasure is the sole good and pain is the sole evil (also known as hedonist utilitarianism)
Right actions are the ones that produce the most happiness and pleasure
• The rightness and wrongness of an action is determined by its utility which is the amount of pleasure
or pain caused by an action
• According to act utilitarianism the principle of utility must be applied to every situation as it is the
consequence that is the most important aspect of a decision
• Bentham proposed Hedonic calculus to determine which actions lead to the most pleasure/pain
Hedonic calculus:
Bentham believed it was possible to give specific content to ideas about right or wrong by the reference of the
amount of pleasure or pain involved in a situation
1. Duration – How long does it last?
2. Intensity – How intense is the happiness?
3. Remoteness – How near is it?
4. Certainty – How sure are we that it will come?
5. Purity – How free from pain is it?
6. Richness – How much will it lead to pleasure?
7. Extent – How many people will it make happy?
Bentham’s approach is considered a quantitative approach as it does not take into account the quality of the
happiness
Strengths of act utilitarianism:
• It is common sense to think of consequences when making a decision therefore the theory aligns with
our decision-making process
• It is straight forward as it is based on a single principle
• Secular theory – does not rely on religion to identify how we should act
• Impartiality – it is objective
• Maximises happiness – it is a good thing to strive for
Criticisms of act utilitarianism:
• Sees all pleasure as of an equal value – leaves the minority at the mercy of the majority rejecting human
rights
• Needs both knowledge and time to make a decision using hedonic calculus
• It is difficult to predict the consequences
• There is potential to justify evil acts if it makes the majority happy for example gang rape – no absolute
right or wrong
Jim and the Indians – Bernard Williams
• A man arrives in town to find ten innocent political prisoners about to be shot. Corrupt guard suggests
he will release nine of the prisoners if the man shoots one of them himself
• A utilitarian would shoot the prisoner as that would save nine – promoting the most happiness
• Williams states that it ignores the problem of moral agency – an individual's ability to
make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these
actions
1
,Rule utilitarianism
• Devised by John Stuart Mill
• Agreed with Bentham that a person’s wellbeing is of the upmost importance and happiness is achieved
when people pursue their ends
• Mill agreed with the principle of utility but was concerned that a person’s pleasure could be entirely
overlooked if the majority were to gain pleasure from a particular action
• Mill focused on qualitative pleasures – a developed system of higher and lower pleasures. Mill claimed
that to pursue pleasures of intellect were higher than say the pursuit of pleasures of the body – drugs
and sex.
• He believed higher pleasures are those of the mind and led to human progress.
• Rule utilitarianism tries to modify the theory so individual actions are no longer judged by the principle
of utility. Instead rules will be established, and individual acts can be judged right of wrong by reference
to rules.
• He believed that if everyone followed these rules it would lead to the greatest overall happiness as
human experience has shown there are certain rules that tend to promote happiness such as not
stealing or lying
• Rule utilitarianism proposes we consider the practical consequences of an action before carrying it out,
not to assess each situation as if it were new but to follow the rules that have been established
according to the principle of utility.
• Thinks of happiness in a broader sense – Eudaimonia: flourishing and living well, the ultimate end all
actions should lead towards
• “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”
• Mill argued that what each individual wants, should be what all human beings desire for themselves
and others. This is not to say that all humans should have the same desires, but that overall individual
happiness is beneficial to society, indeed this is what produces the greatest good for the greatest
number – and this is known as the ‘principle of universalisability.’
• Based on the Jesus’ golden rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Criticisms of rule utilitarianism:
• The idea of higher and lower pleasures is subjective – not all people consider pleasures of intellect
higher
Preference utilitarianism
• Devised by Peter singer and is based on the idea that a good action is one that maximises the
preferences of all involved so that my own wants, needs and desires cannot count for more than those
of anyone else.
• Happiness is maximised by allowing people to satisfy as many of their preferences as possible. That
means that the preferences and interests of all those involved must be considered, so love and
relationships do not count.
• To make an ethical decision it is necessary to take an impartial view: that of an impartial spectator who
does not count their preferences over the preferences of others
• Some preferences have to be accepted and others rejected so that the good of all may be achieved
• Peter singer known as philosopher of the animal liberation movement as he extends his idea of
preference utilitarianism to all sentient creatures – not to consider them is to be guilty of specism.
Criticisms:
• Difficult for people to consider a wide range of interests and always put themselves in the shoes of
others
• Preferences change over time which can be hard to keep up with
• Difficult for people to be impartial as if family were in a burning building they would put them before
others.
Idea Utilitarianism
• G.E. Moore strongly disagreed with the hedonistic value theory adopted by the classical utilitarian’s.
• Moore agreed that we out to promote good but believed that good included far more than what could
be reduced to pleasure.
2
, • He believed that beauty was an intrinsic good while consciousness of pain, hatred or contempt of what
is good or beautiful and the love, admiration or enjoyment of what is evil or ugly are the three things
that have intrinsic disvalue and should therefore be shunned and disvalued.
Negative utilitarianism
• Negative utilitarianism recommends the reduction or minimising of intrinsic disvalue
• At first sight, the negative kind may seem reasonable and more modest in what it recommends. But
one way of ending human misery is by putting all humans out of their misery. This course of action is
usually considered unacceptable. This has led to the search for reformations of negative utilitarianism
or the rejection of the theory altogether.
Situation ethics
• Situation ethics is a normative, teleological, relative ethical theory – rejecting the concept of absolute
moral rules
• It takes the middle path between antinomian ethics (no laws) and legalistic ethics (reliance on laws)
• Something is right if the action performed results in the most loving thing for the majority
• The theory is commonly associated with Joseph Fletcher and J.A.T. Robinson and emerged at a time
when the church and society were facing drastic and permanent change
• Fletcher argued that there should be a single and simple principle which individuals could use to work
out what was right for their particular circumstances and the situations they found themselves in. He
proposed situation ethics in his book ‘situation ethics’
• He claimed that the only absolute rule was love. His inspiration was the quote ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8)
which focuses on agape love which is selfless neighbourly love.
• Situation ethics is sensitive to variety and complexity in the individual situation. In order to ensure a
person is enacting conscience chooses the correct decision fletcher envisioned principles to illuminate
the situation but not direct action
• Fletcher developed his theory by drawing on a wide range of cases that could not be resolved by using
fixed rules and principles. Examples include the burning house and time to save one; your father of a
doctor with the formulae to cure a killer disease. He also used example of a mother having to smother
her crying baby to save a party from massacre by the Indians on the wilderness trail.
The new morality of the 20th century
• The roots of the new morality can be found in classical Christianity. Fletcher sees his approach to ethics
as grounded in the Christian gospel.
• Both the UK and the USA had witnessed a number of changes between WW2 and the end of the 1960s,
western Europe and north America had been transformed. The changes included women occupying an
increased place in the workforce due to absence of men who fought in WW2. Further JFK’s
assassination took place between this time frame and Martin Luther King’s legacy remained setting the
scene for a radical shift in the powerbase. In addition to this sexual revolution changed society due to
the introduction of reliable contraception meaning people could have sex outside of marriage. This
allowed people to express their individualism and freedom
• J.A.T. Robinsons book ‘Honest to God’ threw the church into disarray and disagreement. The book
‘shook the traditional church at it roots’
The four working presumptions – assumptions that situation ethics makes
1. Pragmatism: what you propose must work in practice and work towards the end that is love e.g. teen
who falls pregnant the most loving thing maybe abortion, but it may not work in practice due to the
detrimental effect on mother’s mental health
2. Positivism: Value/judgement needs to be made based on love. The situational principle must have a
chance of a successful end.
3. Relativism: no fixed rules, all decisions relative to the situation
4. Personalism: Humans are more important than rules. Human beings come first and are not treated as
a means to an end. Laws are just in place to benefit the people.
3
Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
• Based on the principle of happiness – “The greatest happiness for the greatest number”
• It is a teleological theory where the consequence of an action is the most important aspect of a
decision opposed to the action itself
• The theory was devised by Jeremy Bentham and claimed that humans are motivated by pleasure and
pain
• Pleasure is the sole good and pain is the sole evil (also known as hedonist utilitarianism)
Right actions are the ones that produce the most happiness and pleasure
• The rightness and wrongness of an action is determined by its utility which is the amount of pleasure
or pain caused by an action
• According to act utilitarianism the principle of utility must be applied to every situation as it is the
consequence that is the most important aspect of a decision
• Bentham proposed Hedonic calculus to determine which actions lead to the most pleasure/pain
Hedonic calculus:
Bentham believed it was possible to give specific content to ideas about right or wrong by the reference of the
amount of pleasure or pain involved in a situation
1. Duration – How long does it last?
2. Intensity – How intense is the happiness?
3. Remoteness – How near is it?
4. Certainty – How sure are we that it will come?
5. Purity – How free from pain is it?
6. Richness – How much will it lead to pleasure?
7. Extent – How many people will it make happy?
Bentham’s approach is considered a quantitative approach as it does not take into account the quality of the
happiness
Strengths of act utilitarianism:
• It is common sense to think of consequences when making a decision therefore the theory aligns with
our decision-making process
• It is straight forward as it is based on a single principle
• Secular theory – does not rely on religion to identify how we should act
• Impartiality – it is objective
• Maximises happiness – it is a good thing to strive for
Criticisms of act utilitarianism:
• Sees all pleasure as of an equal value – leaves the minority at the mercy of the majority rejecting human
rights
• Needs both knowledge and time to make a decision using hedonic calculus
• It is difficult to predict the consequences
• There is potential to justify evil acts if it makes the majority happy for example gang rape – no absolute
right or wrong
Jim and the Indians – Bernard Williams
• A man arrives in town to find ten innocent political prisoners about to be shot. Corrupt guard suggests
he will release nine of the prisoners if the man shoots one of them himself
• A utilitarian would shoot the prisoner as that would save nine – promoting the most happiness
• Williams states that it ignores the problem of moral agency – an individual's ability to
make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these
actions
1
,Rule utilitarianism
• Devised by John Stuart Mill
• Agreed with Bentham that a person’s wellbeing is of the upmost importance and happiness is achieved
when people pursue their ends
• Mill agreed with the principle of utility but was concerned that a person’s pleasure could be entirely
overlooked if the majority were to gain pleasure from a particular action
• Mill focused on qualitative pleasures – a developed system of higher and lower pleasures. Mill claimed
that to pursue pleasures of intellect were higher than say the pursuit of pleasures of the body – drugs
and sex.
• He believed higher pleasures are those of the mind and led to human progress.
• Rule utilitarianism tries to modify the theory so individual actions are no longer judged by the principle
of utility. Instead rules will be established, and individual acts can be judged right of wrong by reference
to rules.
• He believed that if everyone followed these rules it would lead to the greatest overall happiness as
human experience has shown there are certain rules that tend to promote happiness such as not
stealing or lying
• Rule utilitarianism proposes we consider the practical consequences of an action before carrying it out,
not to assess each situation as if it were new but to follow the rules that have been established
according to the principle of utility.
• Thinks of happiness in a broader sense – Eudaimonia: flourishing and living well, the ultimate end all
actions should lead towards
• “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”
• Mill argued that what each individual wants, should be what all human beings desire for themselves
and others. This is not to say that all humans should have the same desires, but that overall individual
happiness is beneficial to society, indeed this is what produces the greatest good for the greatest
number – and this is known as the ‘principle of universalisability.’
• Based on the Jesus’ golden rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
Criticisms of rule utilitarianism:
• The idea of higher and lower pleasures is subjective – not all people consider pleasures of intellect
higher
Preference utilitarianism
• Devised by Peter singer and is based on the idea that a good action is one that maximises the
preferences of all involved so that my own wants, needs and desires cannot count for more than those
of anyone else.
• Happiness is maximised by allowing people to satisfy as many of their preferences as possible. That
means that the preferences and interests of all those involved must be considered, so love and
relationships do not count.
• To make an ethical decision it is necessary to take an impartial view: that of an impartial spectator who
does not count their preferences over the preferences of others
• Some preferences have to be accepted and others rejected so that the good of all may be achieved
• Peter singer known as philosopher of the animal liberation movement as he extends his idea of
preference utilitarianism to all sentient creatures – not to consider them is to be guilty of specism.
Criticisms:
• Difficult for people to consider a wide range of interests and always put themselves in the shoes of
others
• Preferences change over time which can be hard to keep up with
• Difficult for people to be impartial as if family were in a burning building they would put them before
others.
Idea Utilitarianism
• G.E. Moore strongly disagreed with the hedonistic value theory adopted by the classical utilitarian’s.
• Moore agreed that we out to promote good but believed that good included far more than what could
be reduced to pleasure.
2
, • He believed that beauty was an intrinsic good while consciousness of pain, hatred or contempt of what
is good or beautiful and the love, admiration or enjoyment of what is evil or ugly are the three things
that have intrinsic disvalue and should therefore be shunned and disvalued.
Negative utilitarianism
• Negative utilitarianism recommends the reduction or minimising of intrinsic disvalue
• At first sight, the negative kind may seem reasonable and more modest in what it recommends. But
one way of ending human misery is by putting all humans out of their misery. This course of action is
usually considered unacceptable. This has led to the search for reformations of negative utilitarianism
or the rejection of the theory altogether.
Situation ethics
• Situation ethics is a normative, teleological, relative ethical theory – rejecting the concept of absolute
moral rules
• It takes the middle path between antinomian ethics (no laws) and legalistic ethics (reliance on laws)
• Something is right if the action performed results in the most loving thing for the majority
• The theory is commonly associated with Joseph Fletcher and J.A.T. Robinson and emerged at a time
when the church and society were facing drastic and permanent change
• Fletcher argued that there should be a single and simple principle which individuals could use to work
out what was right for their particular circumstances and the situations they found themselves in. He
proposed situation ethics in his book ‘situation ethics’
• He claimed that the only absolute rule was love. His inspiration was the quote ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8)
which focuses on agape love which is selfless neighbourly love.
• Situation ethics is sensitive to variety and complexity in the individual situation. In order to ensure a
person is enacting conscience chooses the correct decision fletcher envisioned principles to illuminate
the situation but not direct action
• Fletcher developed his theory by drawing on a wide range of cases that could not be resolved by using
fixed rules and principles. Examples include the burning house and time to save one; your father of a
doctor with the formulae to cure a killer disease. He also used example of a mother having to smother
her crying baby to save a party from massacre by the Indians on the wilderness trail.
The new morality of the 20th century
• The roots of the new morality can be found in classical Christianity. Fletcher sees his approach to ethics
as grounded in the Christian gospel.
• Both the UK and the USA had witnessed a number of changes between WW2 and the end of the 1960s,
western Europe and north America had been transformed. The changes included women occupying an
increased place in the workforce due to absence of men who fought in WW2. Further JFK’s
assassination took place between this time frame and Martin Luther King’s legacy remained setting the
scene for a radical shift in the powerbase. In addition to this sexual revolution changed society due to
the introduction of reliable contraception meaning people could have sex outside of marriage. This
allowed people to express their individualism and freedom
• J.A.T. Robinsons book ‘Honest to God’ threw the church into disarray and disagreement. The book
‘shook the traditional church at it roots’
The four working presumptions – assumptions that situation ethics makes
1. Pragmatism: what you propose must work in practice and work towards the end that is love e.g. teen
who falls pregnant the most loving thing maybe abortion, but it may not work in practice due to the
detrimental effect on mother’s mental health
2. Positivism: Value/judgement needs to be made based on love. The situational principle must have a
chance of a successful end.
3. Relativism: no fixed rules, all decisions relative to the situation
4. Personalism: Humans are more important than rules. Human beings come first and are not treated as
a means to an end. Laws are just in place to benefit the people.
3
