Topic 1 - Utilitarianism

Question 1

Act Utilitarianism origin

Answer 1

• Ethical theory associated with work of Jeremy Bentham
• Put forward during Enlightenment era (scientific development -> big bang, evolution)
• Enlightenment ultimately led to society becoming more secular
  -Bentham created ethical theory reflecting non-religious ideas of such a society -> just part of nature, not special creation
• Atheistic ethic
• If there are no Gods making demands of us, moral concern = happiness in this life
• Usefulness of an action in leading to good consequences (pleasure/happiness)
• Much emphasis on considering the immediate effects of an individual action

Question 2

Concept of happiness

Answer 2

• Bentham firmly believed all humans want to be happy
• Idea can be traced back to Ancient Greece (birthplace of philosophy)
• “…when happiness is present, we have everything. When it is absent, we do everything to possess it.” - Epicurus
• Philosophers (e.g. Aristotle) argued humans wanted to achieve their highest goal
• “Pleasure is the first good. It is the beginning of every choice.” – Epicurus
• Aristotle -> highest goal = ‘eudemonia’ (flourishing) ‘one day, or a brief space of time, cannot make a man blessed and happy’
• “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure.” - Bentham
• Pursue pleasure, avoid pain
• Bentham - pleasure ‘sovereign good’ - type of happiness moral agents wanted

Question 3

Principle of utility

Answer 3

• Not legalistic -> needed guiding principle (principle of utility), guides moral agents in decision making
• Create maximum pleasure for maximum number of people
• Minimising pain, maximise pleasure
• For moral agent to be considered good, outcome of actions must have minimal pain, maximal pleasure
• If moral agent created outcome resulting in more pain than pleasure -> morally bad
• Requires judgment of tendency of certain types of actions to maximise utility, not particular consequences of an action (difficult to know in advance)
• Accepts perfect calculation is impossible, aim for best we can
• Moral obligation = action best judged to reasonable standard to maximise utility
• Laws should be based on this

Question 4

Additional information for Bentham’s theory

Answer 4

• 4 ideas for moral agents to better understand theory
• Not about own happiness
• Moral agents must be willing to sacrifice own happiness for means of maximising pleasure for maximal number of people
• Create happiness to point of own death - moral agents should be prepared to sacrifice own life in meaningful situations to create pleasurable outcome for others (sacrificing yourself in a school shooting)
• Negative act utilitarianism -> in ethical situation where more pain created than pleasure, moral agent should aim to create outcome with least pain e.g. abort ectopic pregnancy
• Quantity over quality - Bentham believed all types of happiness equal, most important to maximise pleasure for maximum amount of people

Question 5

Hedonic Calculus

Answer 5

• Hedonism -> view pleasure is the only intrinsic good
• Way to measure happiness
• 7 criteria moral agents must consider when making moral decision, all equal -> pleasure calculator
• Intensity -> how strong pleasure is
• Duration -> how long pleasure will last
• Certainty -> probability the act will bring pleasure
• Propinquity -> how close one is to the experience of pleasure
• Fecundity -> probability of this pleasure increasing further
• Purity -> how free of pain pleasure is
• Extent -> how many people benefit from the pleasure
• Impossible to know precisely, requires best judgement about expected outcomes

Question 6

John Stuart Mill

Answer 6

• Student of JB, prolific philosopher
• Advocate of political reform, became Member of Parliament
• Fought against colonialism, unfair wages, patriarchy
• Compared women’s status in Britain to slaves, advocated full equality
• Generally accepted JB’s theory of utilitarianism
• 2 key issues
  1- Act utilitarianism justifies bad actions (max pleasure for max number of people) e.g. torture, murder
  2 - Overly complex due to hedonic calculus
• Not practical, moral agents won’t have time to go through all 7 criteria, have to make quick decision on the spot (e.g. seeing mother steal in Tesco)
• Proposed his own theory of utilitarianism

Question 7

Higher and Lower Pleasures

Answer 7

• Mill differentiates (Bentham states all pleasures equal)
• Mill “better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”
• Argues should focus on quality not quantity of pleasure
• Higher pleasure -> moral and intellectual (reading, poetry, philosophy, music)
• e.g. artist suffering financial deprivation to produce art, higher pleasure outweighs
• Lower pleasure -> physical (sex, food, drugs) - fleeting, ‘nearer good’
• Argues higher pleasures separate humans from animals
• HP bring true pleasure -> moral agents should focus on these to make moral decisions
• Allows bad actions to be avoided (e.g. torture = lower pleasure, doesn’t outweigh pain so immoral)
• “It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others” – Mill
• Problem -> elitist, alienates those outside middle/upper classes

Question 8

The Harm Principle meaning

Answer 8

• JB problem -> too individually focused, didn’t account for times society needed to overcome individual pursuits
• Social reform - > colonial politics (denial of women’s right, poverty) -> political tyranny of the few dictated the freedom of others to pursue happiness
• Society should be guided by ‘one very
  simple principle’ – the harm principle
• Restrict power of individuals so actions
  would not cause need for self-protection by other individuals
• Mill -> anything that causes harm is immoral
• JB disagrees -> believes could kill 30 people to save 1000
• Mill -> moral decisions do not create any pain, fixes issue Act Utilitarianism justifies bad actions
• Does not address overly complex issue (Hedonic Calculus) - proposed own theory

Question 9

Rule Utilitarianism origin

Answer 9

• Created two changes, Bentham’s theory was still too complex
• Had to get rid of hedonic calculus
• Mill made third change by creating new version of Utilitarianism - Rule Utilitarianism
• Apply principle of utility to rules -> rule is good if its general observance maximises utility

Question 10

Mill’s Theory

Answer 10

• We have awareness of actions that make humans happy through human experience (e.g. positive actions, kindness)
• Certain rules in society humans followed would maximise pleasure, minimise pain
• e.g. do not kill, no human wants to be killed
• Result -> in Rule Utilitarianism, anyone who follows rules considered morally good, breaks rules = morally bad

Question 11

Distinction between Act and Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 11

• Act Utilitarianism -> moral agents expected to follow Principle of Utility, apply 7 criteria before making moral decision
• Rule Utilitarianism -> moral agents expected to follow rules that maximise pleasure, minimise pain

Question 12

Strong and Weak Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 12

• Strong Rule Utilitarianism - moral agents follow rules all of the time regardless of circumstance
• Weak Rule Utilitarianism - moral agents follow rules most of time
• Rules can be set aside in exceptional circumstances
• Moral agents must refer back to hedonic calculus (e.g. killing someone in self defence)

Question 13

Key terms for Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 13

• Absolutism -> every action considered right or wrong
• Deontological -> the action what should be focused on and judged
• Teleological -> outcome is what should be focused on and judged
• Rule Utilitarianism both deontological and teleological
• Known as a hybrid ethic

Question 14

Act Key Quotes

Answer 14

• “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure.” - Jeremy Bentham
• “…when happiness is present, we have everything. When it is absent, we do everything to possess it.” - Epicurus
• “It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.” - Jeremy Bentham
• “[Judge action] … according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question.” -Jeremy Bentham
• “Pleasure is the first good. It is the beginning of every choice.” – Epicurus

Question 15

Rule Key Quotes

Answer 15

• “Some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others” - J.S. Mill
• “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied” - J.S. Mill
• “No person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base” - J.S. Mill
• “All action is for the sake of some end” - J.S. Mill

Question 16

J.S. Mill’s Criticisms

Answer 16

• Generally accepted JB’s theory of Utilitarianism
• 2 key issues
  1- Act utilitarianism justifies bad actions (max pleasure for max number of people) e.g. torture, murder
  2 - Overly complex due to hedonic calculus
• Not practical, moral agents won’t have time to go through all 7 criteria, have to make quick decision on the spot (e.g. seeing mother steal in Tesco)
• Proposed his own theory of Utilitarianism

Question 17

Application Key Quotes

Answer 17

• “To discriminate against beings solely on the account of their species is a form of prejudice.” - P. Singer
• “Producing a new medicine is a lengthy and complex process … Tests on animals play a vital role.” - The Nuffield Council on Bioethics
• “Such weapons have no legitimate place in our world. Their elimination is both morally right and a practical necessity in protecting humanity.” - Ban Ki-moon

Question 18

Use of animals for medical research - support

Answer 18

• Principle of utility (greatest happiness
  principle) -> human happiness in long-term outweighs suffering of animal experimentation
• Purpose = medical research, more noble than cosmetic safety tests
• Sheer numbers benefitting from successful treatments/controlling
  epidemics against the amount of pain caused for animals justifies
• Mill’s distinction of quality of pleasure -> animal pleasure and pain are at lower value than higher pleasures of humans, animals’ moral rights not equal to human rights
• Act Utilitarianism -> individual cases of diseases, epidemics and medical
  possibilities to make decision
• Rule = establish guidelines (e.g. guide for the use of animals for research used in the United Kingdom)

Question 19

Use of animals for medical research - against

Answer 19

• Peter Singer -> we should have rule against causing harm or suffering to
  any sentient being
• Jeremy Bentham ‘the question
  is not, can they reason? Not, can they talk? But can they suffer?’ was an active campaigner for animal rights
• Any outcome uncertain, difficult to judge
• Bentham’s calculus could be used to attempt to quantity the pleasure that results from animal experimentation

Question 20

Act Utilitarianism

Answer 20

• Utility = usefulness of action in leading to good consequences (pleasure/happiness)
• Normative moral theory that what makes an action morally right is its utility
• Principle of utility -> consequences of an action determine whether it is good, not the type of action
• Teleological/consequential
• Bentham -> human nature inevitably values maximisation of positive mental states (e.g. pleasure)
• Even religious ethics operate on promise of maximal happiness in afterlife
  -If Bentham thought heaven existed, he would recommend we follow religious ethics to get there -> religious ethics could be about maximising happiness -> happiness = nature moral goal (intuitive)
• Apply principle of utility directly to actions, an action is good if it maximises utility

Question 21

Teleological disadvantages

Answer 21

• Burning building -> utilitarian argues we should save an expensive painting over a baby could sell the painting for enough money to give to charity, save one hundred babies -> intuitively wrong
• Saving a hundred babies is clearly better than saving one, action required ‘ethically icky’
• Consequences don’t seem to be all we care about
• Trolley problem -> if you have to push the one person onto the tracks to save the other five 70% of people say they wouldn’t, result the same
• Something prevents most people fully embracing the consequentialist path
• Only caring about consequences provoked objection utilitarianism cannot properly incorporate ethical concepts + intuitions around individual liberty/rights, integrity and intentions
• Criticised for the practicality due to difficulty of calculating future consequences/fully capturing broadness of what humans value

Question 22

Nuclear weapons as deterrence - against

Answer 22

• Application of Utilitarianism to use of any
  weapon (deterrent/means to
  achieve an end) very suspect, almost alien
  to the notion of the principle of utility
• Principle of utility = avoid pain, often forgotten
• Problem is the element of risk -> implications of deterrent not working, consequences devastating (no winners), difficult to see how any form of Utilitarianism could justify

Question 23

Nuclear weapons as deterrence - support

Answer 23

• If deterrent works, preferred
  option for all -> numbers benefitting from the stability resulting from deterrence could be seen to support the
  greatest happiness for the greatest number
• Mill = we should use whatever means available to create/protect society
  where higher pleasures can develop
• Nuclear program could have a detrimental effect on this development
• Act = look at specific conflicts to make decisions (using a utilitarian calculus) about nuclear deterrence
• Rule = possibly support principle of
  deterrence, no nuclear war = suggest it has worked in the past

Question 24

Teleological advantages

Answer 24

• Trolley problem -> 80% say pull the lever (kill one save five)
• Burning building scenario seem different, interesting to consider what this says about how our moral psychology
• Such choices not merely abstract -> sometimes must make terrible decisions (war generals, doctors, or governments with budgets -> which people to prioritise / leave to die
• Most employ utilitarian thinking -> seems saving the most people possible = best, even if it comes at the cost of letting others die, even if it requires us to kill someone (trolley problem)

Question 25

Utilitarianism teleological defence

Answer 25

- To be human = to ultimately desire utility maximisation - If X matters, its mattering must be for happiness (utility) -> concern for X is really just indirect, disguised, unappreciated concern for happiness - “When a man tries to combat the principle of utility, his reasons are drawn—without his being aware of it—from that very principle itself” (Bentham 1789). - “those who reject [the principle of utility], generally do no more than erect … secondary principles into first principles” (Mill 1838)

Question 26

Different forms of Utilitarianism

Answer 26

- Created to address practicality concerns, avoid supposed intuition violations, better capture intuition of ultimate goal - Hedonic utilitarianism: utility = positive mental states (pleasure) - Moral rightness = the maximisation of pleasure over pain. - Negative utilitarianism: utility = reduction of suffering/pain - Moral rightness = the minimisation of suffering - Preference utilitarianism: utility = satisfaction of preferences - Moral rightness = maximisation of satisfaction of preferences of all morally relevant beings - Ideal utilitarianism: utility = maximising plurality of goods + pleasure (aesthetic appreciation, friendship, intellectual activity) - Moral rightness = maximisation of the total amount of these ideal goods

Question 27

Quantitative vs qualitative

Answer 27

- Quantitative Utilitarianism = only amount of utility matters (e.g. amount of pleasure for hedonic, amount of suffering reduction for negative, amount of preference satisfaction for preference) - Qualitative Utilitarianism = type/form of utility matters (e.g. type of pleasure for hedonic, type of suffering for negative, type of preference for preference

Question 28

Philosopher categorisations

Answer 28

Bentham - quantitative, hedonistic, act Mill - qualitative, hedonistic, rule Singer - quantitative, preference, act R. M. Hare - qualitative, preference, act G. E. Moore - qualitative, ideal, act Karl Popper - qualitative, negative, act Richard Brandt - quantitative preference, rule J. J. Smart - quantitative, hedonistic, act

Question 29

Principle of utility quotes

Answer 29

- "The nearer the process actually pursued on these occasions come to it, the nearer they will come to exactness” - Bentham - “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question” (Bentham 1789). - “An action then may be said to conform to the principle of utility. . . . when its tendency to increase the happiness of the community is greater than any tendency it has to lessen it” (Bentham 1789)

Question 30

All pleasures equal arguments

Answer 30

- “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.” - Bentham - Thomas Carlyle -> utilitarianism fit only for swine, narrow view of value, degrades dignity and goal of human life by reducing it to animalistic pleasure seeking - Aristotle -> sole ultimate goal not pleasure but eudaimonia (flourishing, gained through virtue) - Highest form of human life involves philosophical contemplation (theōria) -> influenced natural law - Bentham failed to capture what humans truly seek from life

Question 31

Criticisms of Mill

Answer 31

- Object that person who can/has experienced higher pleasures won't always prefer to lower ones - Mill -> all prefer higher pleasure experienced, doesn't follow everyone always chooses them over lower ones - Requires cultivation lost by addiction, weakness of will/character (akrasia), external pressures or lack of internal support - "Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance" - Mill

Question 32

Elitist argument

Answer 32

- Mill privileges pleasures of his own social class -> elitist bias -> positive view of privileged people + their enjoyment, negative view of underprivileged and theirs - Upper classes use enjoyment of higher pleasures as a status symbol, denigrate those who lack taste for higher pleasures as inferior - Helps privileged feel their unequal share of power is justified

Question 33

Defence against elitism

Answer 33

- “What matters is whether Mill’s view is true or not, and it may be that the truth is unpalatable.” - Robert Crisp - Truth to concern about lack of opportunity in society -> not valid criticism of Mill’s views (in favour of radically expanding opportunity to higher pleasures e.g. through access to education) - If there are higher modes of being only privileged have had opportunity to experience, logical reaction for equality = insist on equal opportunity to them, not deny existence (Mill’s view) - Experience -> higher pleasures require cultivation to appreciate in perpetuity - Elitists use this as excuse to look down on those who haven’t succeeded in that, doesn’t mean Mill is incorrect - Distinctions of quality between human experiences are vulnerable to abuse - Accusation of elitism could be coping mechanism by those who addicted to lower pleasures, want to rationalise avoiding the discipline required to change.

Question 34

Mill's Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 34

- An action is good if it follows a good rule - Rule is good if general practice maximises happiness (compared to other possibilities) - Bentham's principle of Utility 'first principle', disagrees with his application - Happiness "much too complex and indefinite an end" for this - Secondary principles = society's laws/rules - Should be aimed at maximising happiness

Question 35

General Utilitarianism strength: supports human nature

Answer 35

- Far back as Ancient Greece (400BC), happiness recognised as most important goal of humanity - Aristotle -> everyone's highest goal is pursuit of happiness for "both ordinary and cultured people" - Contemporary psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky supports importance of happiness - "Happy people are more likely to have fulfilling relationships, high incomes, superior work performance, community involvement, robust health, and even a long life." - Scientist Stefan Klein - "People are genetically programmed for positive feelings."

Question 36

General Utilitarianism strength: secular society

Answer 36

- Sociologists - we live in a secular society (declining belief in organised religion) - Works in contemporary society -> Bentham did not believe in God, made ethic to reflect needs of people here and now instead of eternal (natural law)

Question 37

General Utilitarianism weakness: Happiness not important to humanity

Answer 37

- Robert Nozick -> happiness (basis of Utilitarianism) should not be criteria to judge morality, not most important emotion in our lives - We would turn down opportunity to be hooked to virtual reality machine guaranteeing happiness for rest of our life, friends and family more important - Bentham wrong to claim happiness ultimate goal of moral agents

Question 38

General Utilitarianism weakness: Happiness is a dangerous emotion

Answer 38

- Can be dangerous to judge complex/important moral decisions on happiness (emotionally unstable) - Many horrific crimes carried out for justification of creating happiness - Hitler's treatment of Jews designed to bring happiness to German population -> falsely claimed Jews hoarding mass amounts of wealth

Question 39

Act Utilitarianism strength: Post-modern society

Answer 39

- Sociologists -> we live in post-modern society (society rejected traditional fixed values e.g. deontological commandments, rules of the Bible) - Does not have fixed set of rules

Question 40

Act Utilitarianism strength: Compassionate ethic

Answer 40

- Compassionate approach, judges outcomes (teleological), considers individual situation, not general moral judgements - Natural law (deontological ethic) -> lying always wrong, times lying needed to ensure happy outcome e.g. hiding a Jew from Nazi - Act Utilitarianism allows lie, brings about biggest gap between pleasure over pain

Question 41

Act Utilitarianism strength: Cultures are different

Answer 41

- Natural law -> God made us all same, should follow same rules - Philosopher Gareth Moore -> people are different, affected by their culture - People's concepts of pleasure and pain different in each culture - Allows differences, each moral dilemma judged individually, localised concepts of pain/pleasure taken into account, seen as more just

Question 42

Act Utilitarianism weakness: lacks rules

Answer 42

- Modern society in moral decline - Lord Devlin -> society's existence depends on maintenance of common, strong deontological rule based moral value, not unclear guidelines about pleasure - To improve morality, society needs decisive, clear moral ethic (Natural Law) everyone can follow

Question 43

Act Utilitarianism weakness: requires prediction of consequences

Answer 43

- Teleological approach -> predict potential pleasure/pain of outcomes of our actions - Humans not good at this, society complex - Could do bad action with hope it creates more pleasure than pain - Almost impossible to predict consequences accurately - Bad action could result in more pain than pleasure

Question 44

Act Utilitarianism weakness: some actions are just wrong

Answer 44

- Poor ethic, some actions just wrong, should not be justified because they create pleasure (torture, gang rape) - Highlighted by Mill -> Act allows certain horrific actions to be morally justified because they create biggest gap in pleasure over pain

Question 45

Act Utilitarianism weakness: too complex and time consuming

Answer 45

- To work out pleasure/pain Bentham created hedonic calculator - Trying to apply 7 principles to each potential action in moral dilemma extremely complex, time consuming - Not going to work, most moral dilemmas need quick decisions

Question 46

Rule Utilitarianism strength: clearer

Answer 46

- Offers clear set of rules to follow - Lord Devlin pleased, deontological rule based moral value, not unclear teleological guidelines

Question 47

Rule Utilitarianism strength: does not require predictions

Answer 47

- Rule-based approach, no need to predict potential happiness outcomes of actions - No danger of bad actions also creating unhappiness due to misjudged happiness consequences - Hedonic calculus not needed, much less complex, time consuming

Question 48

Rule Utilitarianism strength: Weak Rule Utilitarianism

Answer 48

- Ideal middle ground - Make quick everyday moral decisions, e.g. lying about missing homework - More complex moral dilemmas can switch back to Act for more thorough ethical decision

Question 49

Rule Utilitarianism weakness: not good for post-modern society

Answer 49

- Rejected deontological rules, won't like - Rule Utilitarianism switched back to having rules

Question 50

Rule Utilitarianism weakness: not a compassionate ethic

Answer 50

- Lacks compassionate approach - Judging action rather than consequence does not allow consideration of each moral situation - Has rules, ignores individual situations of moral agents, not compassionate

Question 51

Rule Utilitarianism weakness: defeats original purpose of utilitarianism

Answer 51

- Part of reason Bentham created Utilitarianism was to rebel against legalistic religious rules (Natural Law) - Takes ethics back to being rule based legalistic ethic (particularly Strong Rule Utilitarianism)

Question 52

Mill - Breaking rules

Answer 52

- Immediate good consequences of an action cannot justify breaking a rule - Rules can only justifiably be broken if two rules conflict, must follow the rule with greater utility - Shouldn't break a rule to maximise utility if there isn't another to follow -> guarantees people always follow societally accepted rules calculated to have utility - The more utility a rule has, the more strictly it should be followed (e.g. murder) - “to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner” - Mill - Figure out which socially approved rule would maximise happiness, people following rules even when breaking them

Question 53

The Harm Principle

Answer 53

- Secondary principle - People should be free to do what they want so long as they aren’t harming others - If we allowed each other to do what made us happy, society would be the happiest it could be -Attempting to place political liberalism on a utilitarian foundation - Avoids ‘tyranny of the majority’ (Tocqueville) - "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” - Mill

Question 54

Mill - rule + qualitative

Answer 54

- Rule is good if it maximises quality of pleasure in society - Happiness = number of people experiencing higher pleasures + how high higher pleasures are - Rules should aim at long-term progress of society towards maximising autonomy, virtue of individuals - E.g., if a town’s inhabitants strongly wanted someone released from prison, Bentham = release to increase town's happiness if chance of reoffending not high enough to counterbalance - Criticised, logically implies allowing harm to minority for majority (arresting innocent) - Mill -> justice, virtue = higher pleasures, -not outweighed by lower pleasures - Incorporates Aristotelian virtue ethics -> human not merely animalistic pleasure seeker -> rules aim to develop individual’s wilful commitment to social good through cultivating virtue, not align interest judgements with social good (Bentham)

Question 55

Issue of Calculation

Answer 55

- Utilitarianism = goodness of an action depends on it maximising happiness - Requires knowing all consequences of all actions to calculate utility - Need to know future, not time sensitive - Objectively measure subjective mental states (pleasure and pain) - Impossible -> no objective way to measure subjective feelings

Question 56

Issue of calculation - Bentham and Mill

Answer 56

- Perfectly acting on principle of utility impossible, can be acted on with sufficient approximation for utilitarianism to function as a normative theory - Principle of utility -> tendency of actions not particular consequence - Obligation of society/legislature to make laws maximising utility - Main burden of calculations based more reasonably on culture/lawmakers - Distinguishes moral goodness (maximising happiness) from moral obligation (follow secondary principles) - Individuals don't need to know future, measure subjective feelings, make complex calculations - "This is exactly as if any one were to say that it is impossible to guide our conduct by Christianity, because there is not time, on every occasion on which anything has to be done, to read through the Old and New Testaments. The answer to the objection is, that there has been ample time, namely, the whole past duration of the human species." - Mill

Question 57

Bentham allows more rule breaking than Mill

Answer 57

- Still requires calculation in some moral decisions - People must consider of utility would be maximised by breaking rules - Only moral obligation when reasonable to expect person to recognise when breaking rule maximises utility - No time/ability to judge = follow rules - Approval of action proportional to tendency to maximise happiness - Aim for perfect calculation, impossible to achieve - Mill -> principle of utility applicable to rules, not actions on their own - Individuals only need calculations when rules conflict - Quality “so far [outweighs] quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.” - Prioritise quality over quantity of pleasure created when making rules

Question 58

Calculation issue evaluation

Answer 58

Defending Utilitarianism: - Mill only shifted calculations to more practical basis (society), not eliminated - Requiring calculation = strength of normative theory - Historically, morality rigidly tied to power structures -> ethical progress required war, revolution, became new rigid standard