Jeremy Bentham & Utilitarianism

What is Utilitarianism?

All human actions should be evaluated according to single moral principle: the
greatest happiness for the greatest number (Benthams phrase)
Utilitarianism tells us the morally right action or policy is the one that produces the
most happiness (or utility or welfare) overall
Simple example: (A) go to pub with friends or (B) visit mother?
o (A) Results in 15 units of pleasure for me & friends 10 units of pain for
mother = 5 units utility
o (B) Results in 10 units pleasure for mother + 6 units pleasure for friends 5
units pain for me = 11 units utility.
Utilitarianism tells us that (B) is the morally right act because it results in the best
consequences in terms of overall happiness
Social rules and laws should also be evaluated by the same standard: do they
maximise utility?
Utilitarianism is the master moral principle which justifies other rules or laws we
follow (e.g. laws prohibiting rape, murder, theft etc)
has been the most powerful/influential doctrine in moral theory & been developed by
philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill, R. M. Hare, J. J. C. Smart, Derek
Parfit & Peter Singer

Defining Happiness

How should we define happiness or utility?

Bentham offers a hedonistic account of utility. Hedonistic theories define pleasure
and pain purely in terms of physical or mental feelings. This account of utility runs
into 2 main objections.
(1) The Matrix dilemma: nobody wants to be Mr Anderson. Almost everyone places
value on experiences being authentic or real its nice, but not enough for them to
feel good. Is this fair to Bentham? Whats the harm if Mr Anderson never gets
unplugged?
Life can go badly for you even if you never find out (e.g. the cheated spouse).There
are other ways of defining happiness that may avoid this problem (more on this next
week).
(2) Goodness cant be reduced to Pleasure. Writing poetry, working out at the gym
etc are things that many people think are good things to do, even if they feel
painful

Calculating Happiness

How should we calculate utility? Need to know about 7 factors:

1. Intensity.
2. Duration.

3. Certainty or uncertainty (probability of experience occurring).

4. Propensity or remoteness (how soon is it going to occur?).
5. Fecundity (chance of being followed by more of the same).
6. Purity (chance of being followed by the opposite).
7. Extent (how many people are affected).
Bentham argues that, in theory, all experiences are measurable on these 7 dimensions.
This means we can quantify and compare any 2 experiences in terms of their overall
utility.

The Oyster & the Artist

Benthams theory is counter-intuitive because some experiences dont seem

comparable.
The problem of the oyster and the artist: call this the incomparability objection to
utilitarianism.
Can Bentham respond to this objection?
(5) Fecundity will experience lead to more of same?
(6) Purity will experience lead to opposite?
Better understood by using theory of Diminishing Marginal Utility (DMU). DMU
tells us that the more of something you have, the less valuable each unit of that thing
becomes to you.
Does this explain the problem of the oyster & the artist? Bentham probably cannot
escape problems of quantification and comparison (more on this next week)

Distributing Happiness

So far have been looking at utility calculation for single individual, but utilitarianism
is also supposed to be theory for politics which requires social calculation. This
means we need to focus on factor (7) extent of experience (how many people
affected?)
Utilitarianism requires that we maximize utility overall. Raises problem of utility
monsters. Philosopher John Rawls says this shows that utilitarianism does not
recognise the separateness of persons. Utility maximization may be rational for single
person, but seems irrational as principle for entire society.
Utilitarianism treats society as single moral being.
This may leave some individuals constantly being sacrificed for good of others.
Bentham might respond to these objections in two ways.
(1) Could argue that utility monster situations dont really occur in real world. This
response is vulnerable to counter - examples.
(2) Could argue that some preferences should be ruled out as illegitimate. This
response is question - begging why should a utilitarian want to rule out certain
experiences from calculus?

The Integrity of Persons

What happens when utilitarian calculations conflict with special projects or

relationships in our lives? Example of the friend vs. the runaway train.
Can the utilitarian escape these sorts of difficulties? Utilitarian could appeal to
psychological pain caused from killing friend outweighs benefits of saving lives. This
response has two problems.
(1) seems very implausible that psychological pain will be so great as to outweigh
saving dozens of lives.
(2) If you are a utilitarian making decision then you should feel no psychological pain
in doing right action.
Utilitarianism seems to leave no room for our own projects, commitments &
relationships.
E.g. are we all morally required to devote every waking hour to charity work?
E.g. has difficulty explaining moral value of promises and obligations: (e.g. the
cheating spouse)

What is the Appeal of Utilitarianism?

1. Utilitarianism is a complete & systematic moral theory. Because there is only one
master moral principle (maximize utility) it can always, in theory, provide a
determinate answer to the question: what should I do? there is thus no possibility of
serious moral conflict.
2. Utilitarianism cares only about suffering and happiness. This seems to match our day
to - day experience. It does not require us to believe in empirically unobservable
ideals.
3. It is a consequentialist theory of morality. It defines what is good (utility) & then
tells us that morality requires us to choose the outcome that contains the most good.
This matches our deep-rooted intuitions. How could it ever be right to choose a worse
outcome over a better one?