AO1 Flashcards
(12 cards)
explain the basics of utilitarianism
Bentham’s utilitarianism argues that the right thing to do is that which leads to the greatest good for the greatest number, making it a relativist theory (right and wrong isn’t fixed, it’s dependent on situation/ culture). it’s teleological (goodness is determined by the outcome of an action), and hedonistic (pleasure is the true/ greater good that should be pursued).
Bentham acted in such ways, arguing against slavery and in support of votes for women.
what is the utility principle
Bentham takes it as a fact of nature that human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain, being naturally more inclined to do things that bring us pleasure and avoid those causing pain. he suggests this presents a simple moral rule to us: the utility principle (doing what’s useful in terms of increasing overall good and decreasing overall evil, resulting in the greatest balance of good over evil).
TUP= ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’.
what is the hedonic calculus
Bentham suggest there’s almost a mathematical way of calculating the overall pleasure/ pain involved (the hedonic calculus). Bentham suggests 7 factors need to be considered when making a moral decision:
1. intensity- how strong is the pleasure or pain involved?
2. duration- how long will the pleasure or pain last?
3. certainty- how sure are we that the anticipated pleasure/ pain will occur?
4. propinquity- (closeness or proximity) how soon will the pleasure or pain occur?
5. fecundity- how likely is it that pain will result from the original pleasure?
6. purity- how likely is it that pain will result from the original pleasure?
7. extent- how many people will be affected?
requires considering long-term consequences (fecundity and duration, ensure we don’t seek short term pleasure at expense of long term pain). (purity and extent requires we consider how each individuals might be affected by our actions).
explain one common objection to utilitarianism
the swine ethic objection.
an ethic that treats us as if we were pigs, assuming se are creatures that value each pleasure identically. how can pleasures hold the same value (kids games vs poetry)? equally, how can gang rape be supported based on the pleasure of multiple rapists outweighing the pain of one victim?
explain mill’s addition to utilitarianism
his utilitarianism aims to correct what he sees as a major defect in Bentham’s idea (quantitative and appears to suggest we can coldly calculate pleasures/ pains in each situation). mill is more interested in the quality of each pleasure, arguing there are 2 types:
1. higher- intellectual and social pleasures of the mind, only human beings can enjoy (intellectual conversation or enjoyment of art).
2. lower- pleasures of the body that humans and other creatures enjoy (food, sleep, sex).
creatures like a pig can enjoy simple pleasures, we’re capable of higher pleasures (its possible for us to appreciate art and music). mill says ‘it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.. and if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they know only their side of the question.’
so, mill argues HPs are more important. so in gang rape example, it fails as rapists experience a lower pleasure that can’t outweigh the trauma and pain inflicted. mill believes in individuals being free to live as they choose, so long as they don’t cause harm to others.
compare act and rule utilitarianism
act- aims to produce best balance of good over evil in each case, taking situations on a case by case basis. hedonic calculus is an example of this. the act utilitarian may give different answers to the same action, depending on situation/ context. (e.g. telling the truth for shop directions, but not for a bully searching for victim).
rule- also aims at the greatest balance of good over evil, but it has the common good of society rather than individuals as its starting point. it suggests we do on the whole actions that typically lead to happiness and pleasure (stealing- victims more miserable than thief’s pleasurable, and victims may end up in prison, so we can make the utilitarian rule that stealing is wrong). yet, rules aren’t fixed, the basis of the rules is entirely utilitarian, so the rules can be changed to maximise happiness if society changes.
explain strong and weak utilitarianism
this is a further distinction within rule utilitarianism- the difference between strong and weak versions of the theory. a strong rule utilitarian would argue once we’ve decided the rules that lead to the greatest good, these rules are fixed and cannot, under any circumstances, be broken. a weak rule utilitarian would make allowances for exceptions, while the rules broadly lead to the greatest good and should generally be followed, there may be exceptional cases that require a rule to be broken.
its not clear which mill is, he didn’t create these terms. he may be seen as rule as he argues past experiences of humans allow us to know the tendencies of actions his principles of liberty and non harm are rules that would seem to allow society to flourish. yet he may be seen as broadly act as he’s aware of Kant’s problem (axe murderer seeking victim) and he seems to think it sensible to lie in such situation.
explain measuring pleasure
mill argues in favour of the notion we can to some extent measure pleasure. he argues if we want to know what’s good/ desirable we should look at what people actually desire. its fact that people seek pleasure, and persue it as an end in itself, everything that’s desirable is so because it contributes to happiness. this simple observation of reality tells us happiness is a good thing that should be pursued.
mill offers an analogy to reinforce this. if we want to know what is/ isn’t visible, the only way we can prove this is by asking what can actually be seen. in the same way, we can only resolve what is desirable by asking what people actually desire.
criticism of analogy= what people desire/ aim towards can be described, but this doesn’t establish the normative claim that this ought to be desired. we can measure people’s happiness in the sense of what they desire, but this doesn’t mean those desires are good.
what is the distribution problem
this is a subtle variation related to the difficulty of measuring pleasure and pain. assuming we can in some way measure pleasure, there’s a problem in that we may create the same overall amount of happiness or pleasure, but distributed differently. if decision A causes person 1 to have 10 hedons of happiness, and person 2 and 3 with one each, but decision B causes all to have 4 hedons, these decisions both generate 12 hedons of happiness. yet the 2 outcomes feel very different.
is utility a pleasure
theory broadly states that an action is right if more good (utility) is produced by this action than alternatives. however, measuring pleasure/ pain is difficult/ impossible. hence why some philosophers view utility differently, with less of a focus on pleasure (Nozick’s thought experiment demonstrates pleasure not being the most valuable thing).
even if utility is understood as a pleasure, this need not be a bad thing. mill’s HPs and LPs leads to the development of the non-harm principle (suggests that to secure the pleasure of most individuals, society should only adopt laws that prevent harm to others).
what is singer’s preference utilitarianism
3 +s
a form of modern utilitarianism, by Peter Singer et al. it recognises different people have different views about what happiness is. we all have different aims in life/ different things we find important, these are our preferences/ interests. preference utilitarianism argues people should be allowed to pursue their preferences as long as this doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s pursuit of happiness.
so the morally good thing to do is that which maximises satisfaction of preferences/ interests of most people. in doing this, we have to be ‘impartial observers’ free from personal biases, considering what each individual would truly want. singer does work around animal rights issues, and the same goes for animals, the fact they cannot communicate preferences doesn’t stop us acting in their interests as impartial observers. recently, singer has focused more on avoiding pain.
+ may be easier to measure
+ allows individuals to pursue own interests and not be restricted to what the majority deems to be happiness, avoids the ‘tyranny of the majority’.
+ retain flexibility of resolving cases differently as we aren’t tied to rule utilitarianism.
what is Nozick’s experience machine
a powerful objection to hedonistic versions of utilitarianism, Nozick’s thought experiment on the experience machine. he asks us to consider the possibility that scientists invent a machine you can step into that will give you every possible pleasurable sensation you could ever wish to experience (taste of pizza, getting an A, etc), without having any real life experiences. Nozick suggests we would decline offer of being plugged into such a machine as we value real life experiences far more. seems to show pleasure isn’t the ultimate thing we aim for in life.
