AO2

Question 1

4x reasons it is a helpful way of making moral decisions

Answer 1

1. utilitarianism is relatively straightforward in the sense that they key idea of utility is not difficult to understand or apply.
2. it’s difficult to object to the basic principle that happiness is a good thing. we wouldn’t find many/ any people who would sincerely argue that they don’t want to be happy, suggesting it atleast has a good aim.
3. utilitarianism is a secular ethical theory and doesn’t rely on God or other metaphysical ideas that cannot be provided in order to justify its decisions.
4. utilitarianism is democratic in that everyone counts equally regardless of whom they are, each person’s potential pains or pleasures are to be considered. the theory also requires we’re impartial in our decision making and don’t count those nearer to us as more significant.

Question 2

5x reasons it is not a helpful way of making moral decisions

Answer 2

1. although the idea is straightforward, application isn’t. there are so many factors and variables to consider. it’s also difficult to know how far to take consequences of an action, sometimes a simple decision may have repercussions that affect future generations.
2. utilitarianism is teleological and so, requires that we’re able to make a reasonable prediction as to the outcome of an action. however, it’s not always obvious what the effects of a truth vs lie are in given circumstances. we cannot predict the future.
3. while everyone is considered, the greatest good for the greatest number inevitably leads to poorer treatment of minority groups and may disregard rights to serve the greater good. Bentham refers to the rights as ‘nonsense on slits’.
4. it’s difficult to measure pain and pleasure (hedonic calculus).
5. utilitarianism also disregards moral agency. in his thought experiment ‘Jim and the Indians’, Bernard Williams gives a situation where a utilitarian can save 10 lives by killing 1 themselves. he argues even if this was the right thing to do, we’d find it difficult, because we’re moral agents who have to live with ourselves after the act.

Question 3

3x reasons act is stronger than rule

Answer 3

1. the case by case decision making act of utilitarianism is a strength as it allows flexibility, recognising that no 2 situations are the same.
2. J.J.C Smart said it could be argued rule is an incoherent position, particularly in weak rule utilitarianism, as the theory ends up collapsing into act utilitarianism as more and more exceptions are made.
3. there can be situations in rule where rules and principles clash and a different approach would be needed to decide between the rules. act doesn’t have this issue.

Question 4

2x reasons rule is stronger than act

Answer 4

1. rule utilitarianism offers a quicker approach to decision making, recognising a case by case basis as unnecessarily and time consuming in weighing up all the complex factors in each situation.
2. rule allows us to make rules that uphold justice and rights, two things that may be lost in individual cases for the act utilitarian. the McCloskey example, where a sheriff chooses to arrest an innocent man for the greater good would be permitted by AU, but cannot be justified by RU (as persistent unjust acts would undermine justice itself).

Question 5

3x reasons pleasure, happiness, or goodness can be measured, and then reach used to reach a moral decision

Answer 5

1. mill’s argument that happiness is desirable rests on the assumption that we can observe what people desire and thus presumably have some measure of whether they are achieving these desires. hence, on a crude level we may be able to have some measure of pleasure or pain.
2. preference versions of mill’s utilitarianism may avoid some of the difficulties of measuring pleasure as they would argue that overall utility/ happiness lies in preference satisfaction. we may be able through surveys and other empirical research to ascertain the relative happiness of people in terms of achieving their life goals.
3. as neuroscience advance it may be possible to measure happiness or pleasure in terms of observing what is happening in the brain during key moments. while we are perhaps some way off having portable brain scanners permanently attached to us, the existence of such technology would make measurements of pleasure possible.

Question 6

4x reasons pleasure, happiness, or goodness cannot be measured, and then reach used to reach a moral decision

Answer 6

1. things that are measurable or quantifiable tend to have units of measurement. time has hours/ minutes, mass has grams, etc, there are no obvious units that could measure pleasure or pain.
2. further difficulties in the measurement of pleasure and pain lie in the fact pleasure and pain are often subjective to the individual, we enjoy different things and each of us may have a different pain threshold and be willing to suffer more pain for a greater good. this suggests if any version of utilitarianism were to succeed it would have to be preference utilitarianism as that doesn’t require such a measurement.
3. assuming pleasure and pain can be measured would require a very simple version of utilitarian’s such as Bentham’s, where a child hood game is ‘as good as poetry’. yet mill seems right that there are higher and lower pleasures. how should the higher pleasures be weighted? worth twice, three, or four times the worth of lower pleasures?
4. Nozick’s experience machine and Moore’s open question argument both raise the possibility that even if we actually could measure pleasure, we aren’t necessarily measuring the good (evil can bring pleasure to a select few).

Question 7

x reasons the hedonic calculus is morally valid

Question 8

x reasons the hedonic calculus is not morally valid

Question 9

4x reasons utility is a good basis for making moral judgements / the moral action is the one with greatest balance of pleasure over pain

Answer 9

1. utilitarianism has been progressive and the arguments based on these principles have been used to decriminalise homosexuality, ban slavery, and give votes to women. things we all agree with.
2. the idea of utility gives a decision procedure, whilst other ethical theories like Kantian ethics may promise clarity, but when duties clash there’s no easy way of resolving the issue. utility provides a way of resolving each dilemma.
3. utilitarianism offers a pragmatism that works in the real world, while other ethical theories offer theoretical solutions that don’t work in practice.
4. it’s difficult to object to the basic principle that happiness is a good thing. we wouldn’t find many/ any people who would sincerely argue that they don’t want to be happy, suggesting it atleast has a good aim.

Question 10

5x reasons utility is not a good basis for making moral judgements / the moral action is not the one with greatest balance of pleasure over pain

Answer 10

1. Nozick’s experience machine seems to show that if utility is understood in terms of pleasure, this is not the thing that is most important to us.
2. if we assume utility is something similar to preference satisfaction then it’s unclear whose preferences do or do not count (dogs, infants etc).
3. preference satisfaction is not easily quantifiable and as such, this version goes against the spirit of utilitarianism.
4. utility is too demanding, greater happiness is always achieved by giving money and resources to the poorest rather than buying oneself a coffee or a film. it becomes morally wrong to give ourselves treats, where is the line drawn?
5. it may also be possible to argue that other motivations, such as duty in Kantian ethics or agape in situation ethics, represent better moral motivations.

Question 11

x reasons utilitarianism should aim to promote the greatest overall balance of good over evil rather than greatest amount of good over evil

Question 12

x reasons utilitarianism should aim to promote the greatest amount of good over evil rather than the greatest overall balance of good over evil