Utilitarianism

WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM?

The moral philosophy that actions derive their moral quality from their
usefulness as means to some end, especially as means productive of
happiness or unhappiness.

Applied to civics and politics, the greatest happiness of the greatest

number should be the sole end and criterion of all public action.

UTILITARIANISM
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) is the first notable figure endorsing the principle
of utility. That principle states:

an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it

tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question
Bentham is famous for identifying happiness with pleasure, and providing a
hedonic calculus for determining the rightness of an action.

UTILITARIANISM

One goal of utilitarianism is to provide a way to resolve moral disputes.

Bentham notes that if we can all agree that Good = Pleasure, then
we can make moral progress scientifically by determining which actions really
do produce the most pleasure.

His view if often called Hedonistic Utilitarianism.

Some have argued lecture, that the ends cannot justify the means in
moral choices.

Would a utilitarian say that the ends can justify the means?

PROBLEMS WITH UTILITARIANISM

Dont always know the consequences of our actions

Difficulty in measuring pleasure and happiness

 May be counterintuitive sacrifice one to save many

Concerned only with ends only the bottom line matters

Does not take moral significance of individuals seriously enough, we

are mere conduits of utility

MILLS UTILITARIANISM
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was the son of James Mill, a friend of Benthams

Mill took Benthams Utilitarianism and made two major changes:

He emphasized the greatest good for the greatest number

Rejected Benthams calculus, saying that quality of pleasures is crucial

in deciding what is right, not mere quantity.

Bentham had famously (and very unpretentiously) said,

quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.

Mill rejects that view and argues for a distinction between higher and lower
pleasures.

A bit more generally, then, suppose you are faced with the following decision:
A. You dead, everyone else is alive
B. You alive, everyone else is dead
Choosing B would be a moral catastrophe as it would incredibly limit the amount
of happiness that could be produced, insofar as only one person could now
experience the pleasure where before billions could experience it
Doesnt matter, morally speaking, who is having wants, just as long as
we satisfy as many wants as possible
 The idea is to act so as to produce the greatest happiness for the
greatest number
For our moral calculations, we need to view people as vessels of utility
satisfaction

What justifies the distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

Mill provides 2 reasons

He famously says, it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig

satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied
(Utilitarianism, Chapter 2)

He also says that the only competent judge of two things is someone
with experience of both, and: If one of the two [pleasures] is placed [by
such competent person] so far above the other that they prefer it , and
would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is
capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a
superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in
comparison, of small account.
(Utilitarianism, Chapter 2. My brackets)

For Bentham, as long as a given set of choices produces equal amounts of pleasure,
then we can be indifferent in our choices between them. So to decide on what social
state of affairs we want, simply take a vote, everyone votes on own preference. And
when X wins over Y, we know that X would produce more happiness and so
should be adopted as a social policy
Mill argues that that view is silly. He makes a rather significant change in utilitarian
theory by introducing qualitative differences among wants. For Mill, utilitarians
should aim not at simply satisfying wants, but satisfying better wants.
How do we distinguish between wants?

Of two pleasure, if there be one to which all or almost all who have
experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of
moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure (p. 531).
In other words, to compare wants, find someone who has, for instance, read Tolstoy
and watched professional wrestling and see which is preferred. On the whole,
people who have done both will prefer Tolstoy. Maybe not a perfect example, but
how about if instead we compare
UTILITARIANISM A DEMANDING THEORY

Note that Utilitarianism accepts and emphasizes the distinction

between what is in our self- interest and our duty.

As soon as the happiness of two other people conflicts with your own
happiness, you lose out. Being a moral person quickly becomes quite difficult.

CRITICISMS OF UTILITARIANISM

Responsibility

o Utilitarianism suggests that we are responsible for all the

consequences of our choices.
o The problem is that sometimes we can foresee consequences of
other peoples actions that are taken in response to our own acts. Are
we responsible for those actions, even though we dont choose them or
approve of them?

Integrity

o Utilitarianism often demands that we put aside self-interest.

Sometimes this means putting aside our own moral convictions.
o Integrity may involve certain identity-conferring commitments,
such that the violation of those commitments entails a violation of who
we are at our core.

Intentions

o Utilitarianism is concerned almost exclusively about

consequences, not intentions.
o There is a version of utilitarianism called motive utilitarianism,
developed by Robert Adams, that attempts to correct this.
o Intentions may matter is morally assessing an agent, even if
they dont matter in terms of guiding action.

Moral Luck
 o By concentrating exclusively on consequences, utilitarianism
makes the moral worth of our actions a matter of luck. We must await
the final consequences before we find out if our action was good or
bad.

o This seems to make the moral life a matter of chance, which

runs counter to our basic moral intuitions.

We can imagine actions with good intentions that have

unforeseeable and unintended bad consequences

We can also imagine actions with bad intentions that have

unforeseeable and unintended good consequences.

UTILITARIANISM
Act (Contemporary) Utilitarianism
An act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative.
Rule Utilitarianism
An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of
rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available
alternative.

Debated as a valid form of Utilitarianism

Exceptions to the rules can often be found!

Three levels of rules suggested:

o Rules of thumb always to be followed unless in conflict with

another rule.
o Higher level rules which override thumb rules.

o No rules apply do your best!

CONCULDING ASSESSMENT
Utilitarianism is most appropriate for policy decisions, as long as a strong notion of
fundamental human rights guarantees that it will not violate rights of small
minorities.