Utilitarianism

Act Utilitarianism
Originally founded by Jeremy Bentham, act utilitarianism is perhaps the most famous ethical theory in use today, it is a consequentialist, relativist and teleological theory In this case, the telos of all actions should be human happiness, in summary, actions are morally good if they cause more pleasure than pain Bentham founded this theory on the Greek idea that humans seek pleasure and avoid pain, the greek work for pleasure is hedone and this is what Bentham measured in pleasure in It is based around the principle of utility, which is effectively the maximisation of happiness and the minimisation of pain for the greatest number of people

For Bentham, the morality of an action can be judged by running it through what he called the hedonistic calculus This is a series of criteria that should provide you with a number, which allows you to choose the correct moral action in a dilemma The 7 criteria are:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Intensity this is how intense the pleasure/pain will be Duration this is how long the pleasure/plain will last Certainty this is how likely the desired pleasurable outcome will be Remoteness this is how far off in the future the pleasure/pain will be Fecundity this is the tendency of the pleasure/plain to produce other sources of pleasure/pain 6. Purity this is the tendency of the pleasure to produce only pleasure and not have sideeffects of pain 7. Extent this the amount of people affected by resulting pleasure/pain of the action

For Bentham, it is important that the pains and pleasures of each person are to be taken equally, every human has the same value, no matter how close you are to them; Each to count for one and none for more than one Bentham For Bentham, a person is defined as anyone who could suffer, unlike Kant who defined it as someone who could reason This led Bentham to the ideology that all pleasures are equal, there are no higher or lower pleasures; Better to be a pig satisfied than a human dissatisfied Bentham Bentham drew on the famous analogy of the game of pushpin, a simple pub game involving no real skill, if you derive pleasure from playing this then it is a morally good action;

Prejudice apart, the game of pushpin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of pushpin furnishes more pleasure, it is more valuable than either Bentham Bentham was also a strong believer in the idea that there was no such thing as a community or society; The community is a fictitious body Bentham He regarded humans as being entirely self-interested, and that all their actions are focused on benefiting themselves The hedonistic calculus therefore takes into account the self-interests of all the members making up the community; In every human breast, self-regarding interest is predominant over social interest; each persons own individual interest over the interests of all other persons taken together Bentham Bentham is also famous for being a disbeliever in any sort of rights, because he believed unless the right constantly benefited the principle of utility, then it was not morally good, he famously called rights Nonsense upon stilts - Bentham

Strengths
Avoids the criticism of snobbery by classing all pleasures as equally valid A very straightforward calculus that can be applied in all possible circumstance, avoids confusions very easily It promotes the principle of human equality, since everyone deserves the same dignity The telos (human happiness) is a logical principle that makes a lot of sense

Weaknesses
It is guilty of committing the naturalistic fallacy, just because humans naturally do seek pleasure, it doesnt mean that we ought to seek pleasure Pain is not necessarily all bad and can lead to pleasure, for example, an athlete must train hard, which is very painful, but in the end he might win an Olympic gold medal which will be very pleasurable, Bentham has a very simplistic view of human happiness Like all consequentialist theories, it runs into the problem that you cannot tell the long-term consequences of every action, for example, in the moment, the hedonistic calculus would determine that using genetically modified crops is a good idea, however maybe in the longterm, they could have serious side-effects which would cause more pain than pleasure The philosopher Nozick raises the criticism that Bentham places too much emphasis on pleasure and pain, he argued that if you were given the option to live in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain giving you constant pleasure, most people would say no to this because humans may place more value on self-worth, autonomy, personal identity and integrity rather than their lives revolving solely around pleasure The greatest happiness of the greatest numbers thus requires the greatest misery of the few Himmelfarb

Rule Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism, was invented by John Stuart Mill, nephew of Jeremy Bentham, it is still based on the principle of utility but differs on a few key points It is based around the idea that you should still use the hedonistic calculus in some cases, but you should follow rules passed down along the generations that will help you choose the morally good action For Mill, happiness and pleasure are more likely to be maximised if you follow a set of walls that society has found and devised It is important to note that the rules are not absolute, but rather guidelines that you can choose to follow if you wish In the case of a moral dilemma in which the rules do not apply that well, you should go back to using the hedonistic calculus to determine the morality of the action; Whatever we adopt as the fundamental principle of Morality, we require subordinate principles to apply it by Mill In the quotes case, the fundamental principle is utility and the subordinate principles are the rules passed down by society Mills utilitarianism is grouped into the category of very weak rule utilitarianism and deontological ethics Mill also differed with Bentham on the ideas of rights and dignity, he argued that at the core of every rule, should be the golden rule of Jesus; In everything do to others as you would have them do to you Mill He thought that unhappiness is caused by selfishness and that in order for the principle of utility to be fulfilled to the max, people need to act in the interests of others, and develop a feeling with the collective interests of mankind Because of this belief, Mill was a strong believer in human rights and care for the fellow man Mill also rejected the idea that all pleasures were equal, he thought that pleasure was more involved with human beings flourishing and becomes more virtuous This links in with this idea of there being higher and lower pleasures, for Mill, it was quality of the pleasure rather than the quantity For Mill, if an action developed your personality, then it was a higher pleasure than a pleasure than was purely instinctual, such as having sex; Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied Mill

Strengths
It is simple and makes sense, the principle of utility logically is the central reason for human existence It is universal, happiness is natural for all human beings Morality Is centred on all human beings rather than an unknown, perhaps non-existent divine being It involves a logical system for calculating pleasure It tries to benefit all human beings and treats them all equally It provides a system for human progression

Weaknesses
Same weaknesses of normal act utilitarianism

Preference Utilitarianism
This type of utilitarianism, developed by Professor Peter Singer, advocates a system of utility that balances people differing preferences rather than balancing the total amount of pleasure and pain caused by the action This type of utilitarianism judges the morality of an action not by its ability to maximise pleasure and minimize pain, but rather the extent by which they fulfil the majority of peoples first preferences In preference utilitarianism, there is no single intrinsic good, unlike in act utilitarianism where the good is pleasure and pain, an action is also defined as good when it does not interfere with the free choice of others (autonomy) The motive for doing the action is irrelevant, only the consequences of the action matter, therefore it is a consequentialist theory Peter Singer defines a person as anyone who can state their preferences, beings that do not have a sense of time and biography are therefore not persons as they cannot state preferences; A person is a being with certain characteristics such as rationality and selfawareness Singer For example a new-born baby cannot qualify as a person because they cannot state preferences and so they should be taken into account when deciding the morality of an action For Singer, only humans above the age of 4 weeks can be defined as persons, however neither foetuses or severely disabled/ill people cannot show preferences Because of this theory, Singer tries to avoid speciesism by extending his ethical theory to include higher primates along with other animals who can express preferences

For humans below 4 years old, and animals who cannot state preferences, you must apply act utilitarianism, because they can feel pleasure and pain This view justifies Singers controversial view on infanticide, in which he believes that if you give birth to a severely disabled child, then you are allowed to kill it if a happier, pain free life can replace the life of suffering, this also extends to euthanasia However all beings have rights according to Singer, but the rights of a higher order being such as an adult human or great primate are more than the rights of normal animals or severely disabled beings The right for all animals is to a pain-free life as far as possible, and so if you are replacing a severely disabled baby, the death has to be completely painless

Singer also maintains the belief that there is no difference between an act and a failure to act (omission), such as the case of the violinist and the man hooked up to his life support machine Singer can link this principle in with his belief in the ethics of distribution, by allowing so many impoverished people to do in third world countries, we are basically directly involved In killing them first hand There singer argues that we should spend as much as we can to alleviate world poverty, which is why he donated 20% of his income to charities Singer also draws a distinction between true and manifest preferences, true preferences are made by people who are well informed and capable of resisting social conditioning, while manifest preferences are shown by people who lack the degree of self-awareness suitable for correct decision making, however a problem is raised when deciding who is capable of true and manifest preferences Singer also rejects any claim that there is absolute value to any life, but rather insists that quality of life is the most important factor when relating to issues like abortion and euthanasia

The strengths and weaknesses to this ethical theory are the same that apply to the other forms of classical utilitarianism