Utilitarianism

Question 1

What is utilitarianism?

Answer 1

A consequentialist ethical theory developed by Bentham, Mill, and Sidgwick. It is a hedonistic theory which claims that “good” is that which causes pleasure, and what is “bad” is that which causes pain.

Question 2

Define “utility”.

Answer 2

Welfare or use for the majority of people. For Bentham and Mill, utility came to mean “pleasure” or “happiness”.

Question 3

What is the utility principle?

Answer 3

The principle than an object is good in as much as it brings about something that is desired (for most utilitarians this is pleasure).

Question 4

What do utilitarians claim our ultimate en goal is?

Answer 4

Pleasure.

Question 5

What is psychological hedonism?

Answer 5

This is not a moral theory, but a descriptive theory of human motivation. It claims that the individual’s potential pleasure and the avoidance of pain are the sole aims of the individual’s action.

Question 6

What is hedonism?

Answer 6

This is a moral theory which claims that for each individual, pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is the right thing to do. One ought to seek pleasure.

Question 7

What is the paradox of hedonism?

Answer 7

The idea that the more a person tries to seek pleasure, the harder it is to obtain.

Question 8

What is classic (or hedonistic) utilitarianism?

Answer 8

The moral theory which claims that a right action is one that increases the general happiness: not just the individual’s.

Question 9

What philosophical problems come about from believing both psychological hedonism and utilitarianism?

Answer 9

If you believe humans are motivated solely by their own pleasure and pain, then it seems pointless to tell them that they ought to maximise the general happiness, when they are in fact capable only of maximising their own.

Question 10

Who first formally articulated utilitarianism?

Answer 10

Jeremy Bentham.

Question 11

Why is psychological hedonism so difficult to counter?

Answer 11

Every action taken does indeed seem to be reducible to the pleasure or pain it results in. For example, one might claim that they do not do work instead of going out and having fun in order to obtain more pleasure, however, it seems that this is ultimately merely an example of one delaying their short-term pleasure in order to pursue a greater, long-term pleasure.
A more extreme example of this is that of radically religious people who claim that they seek to live their lives in a complete absence of pleasure, and live simply, sacrificing everything and even resorting to self-chastisement in order to avoid pleasure. However, Bentham would respond to this by arguing that ultimately, these people are living their lives in order to obtain eternal pleasure in heaven, or avoid the pain of hell, upon their deaths.

Question 12

What is the “pleasure machine” criticism for psychological hedonism?

Answer 12

This is a thought experiment adapted from Robert Nozick.
Imagine you have the ability to be hooked up to a machine in which you will receive guaranteed pleasure (in the form only of “lower” pleasures), ranging from mild pleasures to more intense pleasures. The machine is completely safe, and there are no side effects of it. However, once you have entered, you cannot leave; the pleasure machine is permanent. You will live a long and healthy life and will be unable to experience anything other than pleasure.
If you are willing to agree to be plugged into the pleasure machine, seemingly, the truth of psychological hedonism is proved. However, if you are not willing, then seemingly psychological hedonism is a flawed theory.

Question 13

Reasons not to sign up for the pleasure machine.

Answer 13

We want to do certain things and not just have the experience of doing things.
We want to be a certain type of person.
Plugging into the pleasure machine limits us to artificial, man-made experiences.

Question 14

Who makes the distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

Answer 14

John Stuart Mill.

Question 15

What is a “higher” pleasure?

Answer 15

Less “intense” pleasures, typically pleasures of the mind as opposed to physical, bodily pleasures, such as reading, going to the theater, or listening to classical music.

Question 16

What is Mill’s criticism of the pleasure machine?

Answer 16

If focuses primarily on lower pleasures.

Question 17

What is a “lower” pleasure?

Answer 17

More “intense” pleasures, typically associated to bodily pleasures such as eating, having sex, receiving a massage.

Question 18

Explain the criticism of psychological hedonism that it is not pleasure we seek, but specific actions, activities and objects themselves.

Answer 18

Example: Imagine you collect stickers, and have one sticker missing that you have sought for a long period of time. Bentham would claim that obtaining the sticker would simply be a means to achieve the end pleasure. However, you may feel that it is the sticker itself you desire: not the pleasure it gives. If you were to be offered the same quantity of pleasure through a different means, it is likely that you would still rather obtain the sticker, as opposed to mere pleasure.

Question 19

What is Sidwick’s response to the pleasure machine?

Answer 19

It is specific objects and activities in life that we desire, not pleasure itself. For example, I might desire to play a sport for the intrinsic properties of it, but not for any sensation called “pleasure”. If it were merely pleasure that were desired, why would I not obtain it in a different way?

Question 20

Explain the criticism to psychological hedonism that it is not pleasure we seek, but states of affairs in the world - things outside our heads.

Answer 20

By creating the thought experiment of the pleasure machine, especially in its second adaptation, Nozick attempted to show that the argument that humans merely try to achieve pleasure, a sensation in the mind, may be wrong.
People often want certain states in the world: for example, for people to think well of them; for their children to be happy; etc. People want these states to exist in the world, not just as sensations that they feel.

Question 21

What is the “second adaptation of the pleasure machine”?

Answer 21

The same as the initial pleasure machine with the addition of the capacity to administer higher pleasures as opposed to only lower pleasures.

Question 22

Explain the criticism to psychological hedonism that pleasure is a way of talking about behavior.

Answer 22

Pleasure can be obtained in a number of ways from a number of sensations that are not in any way linked. Seeking pleasure is not seeking a specific thing, which brings us to question: what is pleasure?
According to behaviourists, pleasure is not a sensation but simply something we seek to achieve. Therefore, to say “one seeks pleasure”, is just a way of saying “one seeks what one seeks”. Thus, according to behaviourism, psychological hedonism results in a tautology and tells us nothing new about the world but is simply an empty theory.

Question 23

What is the utility principle?

Answer 23

The principle that an act or an object is good in as much as it brings about something that is desired (for utilitarians, pleasure); and is bad insofar as it brings about pain or unhappiness.

Question 24

What method does Bentham offer to determine the utility of an action or object?

Answer 24

He introduced the hedonic/utility/felicific calculus.

Question 25

What does the hedonic calculus do?

Answer 25

It is a method by which the amount of pleasure and pain caused by an object or action is calculated.

Question 26

What is the hedonic calculus? What steps must one take when determining the pleasure/pain caused by an object?

Answer 26

a) Determine the amount of pleasure/pain bought to the person most affected by the action by measuring: 1. The intensity of the pleasure/pain. 2. The duration of the pleasure/pain. 3. The certainty of the pleasure/pain. 4. The remoteness of the pleasure/pain. b) Examine the effects of this pleasure/pain: 5. The fecundity of the pleasure/pain. 6. The purity of the pleasure/pain. c) This step only comes into action when considering the impacts on other people: 7. The extent of the pleasure/pain.

Question 27

What is meant by fecundity?

Answer 27

The tendency of a pleasure to bring about other pleasures.

Question 28

What is meant by purity?

Answer 28

The tendency of the pleasure to produce only pleasure, or the pain to produce only pain.

Question 29

Explain the criticism to the hedonic calculus that it is impossible to compare pleasures.

Answer 29

It seems that some different pleasures cannot be compared to each other: eating an apple, for example, cannot be compared to watching tennis. This difficulty occurs within one person, and comparing degrees of pleasure within numbers of people would be even more meaningless: how would the pleasure derived by one person from eating an apple be comparable to the pleasure derived by another person from eating an apple? Pleasure is an internal, qualitative sensation and thus this is problematic.

Question 30

Explain the criticism to the hedonic calculus that questions whether quantity of pleasure is the only factor.

Answer 30

According to the hedonic calculus, pleasure is the key indicator of the utility of an action. If two different pleasures are compared, the one that results in the highest amount of pleasure is what should be aimed for. With Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures, however, the question is raised over whether the quantity of pleasure is what is significant, or whether it is the type of pleasure.

Question 31

What are teleological ethics?

Answer 31

Consequentialist ethics.

Question 32

What does Bentham say about motive and government?

Answer 32

According to Bentham as a psychological hedonist, motive is a red herring as everyone is motivated by pleasure: we all have the same motive. People may have different intentions regarding achieving this motive, however the motive is nonetheless the same. According to Bentham, altering laws and criminal punishments will modify people's intentions and enable pleasure to be sought and maximised for the general population instead of simply for themselves. Eg. One might find pleasure in throwing loud parties in the middle of the night, irritating neighbours. However, introducing a law illegalising this will cause the person to stop in order to avoid the pain og prison, thus the way in which they pursue their happiness will be in line with the general population's pursuit of happiness.

Question 33

Explain the criticism of Bentham's take on motive and government that utilitarianism is a form of social engineering.

Answer 33

The goal of utilitarianism, maximising general pleasure, seems to be best achieved by artificially engineering society. It seems that the optimum society would be one in which individuals are trained to enjoy a certain thing and take drugs to maximise their happiness, thus creating a perfect utilitarian society - this intuitively does not seem as an ideal society, as autonomy is diminished by training and replaced by artificially engineered pleasure.

Question 34

How does Mill's utilitarianism differ from Bentham's?

Answer 34

Bentham saw all pleasures as equal, whereas Mill drew a distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

Question 35

Explain the criticism against the higher and lower pleasure distinction that the theory is exclusivist.

Answer 35

It seems as though Mill is attempting to position pleasures enjoyed by perhaps "higher" society as above more bodily pleasures.

Question 36

How does Mill defend himself against the criticism that higher and lower pleasures are exclusivist?

Answer 36

He claims that only those capable of experiencing both higher and lower pleasures are in a position to determine that one type of pleasure is superior to another. For example, a pig would not be in a position to state whether rolling around in mud or reading Shakespeare is a greater pleasure - Mill claims that his ability to experience both allows him to retain a degree of objectivity in utilitarianism. We can draw on the judgement of "competent judges" (people who have experienced both higher and lower pleasures). Mill believed that there would be substantial agreement between these judges that some pleasures were "better" than others.

Question 37

Explain the criticism to Mill's higher/lower pleasure distinction that this form of utilitarianism is no longer hedonistic.

Answer 37

Mill's argument holds that some pleasures are better than others, even if they give less pleasure. This is not in accordance with hedonistic utilitarianism, which seeks to maximise overall pleasure, without distinguishing between the supposed "goodness" of the type of pleasure. If striving to achieve something that is a "better" pleasure, but is less pleasurable, then we no longer seek to maximise pleasure.

Question 38

Explain Mill's defense that higher pleasures are actually more pleasant than lower pleasures, against the criticism that distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures is no longer hedonistic.

Answer 38

When taking into account the duration ect. of the particular pain or pleasure, although it may be less intense it is in fact more pleasurable: a good book will give you pleasure until you finish it, which will take longer than finishing a meal, and thee book is likely to stay with you for longer, thus causing more pleasure in terms of duration.

Question 39

Explain Mill's defense that higher pleasures and lower pleasures cannot be judged by the same standards, against the criticism that distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures is no longer hedonistic.

Answer 39

Higher and lower pleasures are incommensurable rather than greater or lesser than each other. Eg. no amount of blue-ness will ever be equivalent to an amount of red-ness, as they are simply different. We cannot compare higher/lower pleasures, we can only ask someone who has experienced both which is better.

Question 40

Explain Mill's defense that happiness is not merely a pursuit of pleasure, against the criticism that distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures is no longer hedonistic.

Answer 40

A society plugged into "pleasure machines" would not be good in Mill's eyes: humans have the capacity to reason, develop and enjoy the way they look at life in different ways. If we were only receiving physical pleasures, these aspects would be overlooked. A competent judge has the ability to say whether they prefer one type of pleasure over another because that have had the ability to experience both and have developed their capacity to experience different pleasures. The fact that competent judges tend to prefer higher pleasures suggests that these are what we should pursue.

Question 41

Explain the criticism that Mill's higher/ lower pleasure distinction detracts from the simplicity of utilitarianism.

Answer 41

One of the main appeals of Bentham's utilitarianism is that it is simple and practical and allows us to easily calculate what actions we should take by calculating the pleasure or pain they result in. However, with Mill's introduction of quality into this discussion, the simplicity is detracted from. The quality distinction makes the application of the hedonic calculus harder.

Question 42

Explain the criticism of Mill's higher/lower pleasure distinction that it leads to cultural snobbery/elitism.

Answer 42

Eg. Should the BBC spend money making a documentary, or producing a new soap opera which will attract 10x the views of the documentary? The documentary will bring about less pleasure, but a greater kind of pleasure. This brings about the question: as good utilitarians, should we do when a lower pleasure will be felt by many, and a higher pleasure will only be felt by a few?

Question 43

What type of utilitarianism is Bentham's utilitarianism?

Answer 43

Act utilitarianism.

Question 44

What is act utilitarianism?

Answer 44

A form of utilitarianism which states that a person's act is morally right if and only if it produces the best possible results in that specific situation.

Question 45

Explain the criticism to act utilitarianism that it has counter-intuitive implications.

Answer 45

The goodness or badness of an act is based solely on its consequences. The nature of the act is not important. In this way, the ends can justify the means, and as such the motivation for an action is not taken into account, which seems to work counter-intuitively.

Question 46

How might Bentham respond to the criticism that act utilitarianism has counter-intuitive implications?

Answer 46

We must consider not only the immediate pleasure bought to the majority but also the negative impacts had on the majority. Eg. in the instance of one innocent person being killed in order to please a crowd and prevent hundreds of people from dying, though this may have a positive short-term impact, it may leave the majority in fear that they too will suffer the same fate someday.

Question 47

Explain the criticism of act utilitarianism that it is impossible to follow.

Answer 47

It is often impossible to calculate how much happiness a certain action will bring about. Even were this possible, it would undoubtedly take too long for many actions. Moreover, sometimes happiness and pleasure is bought about through spontenaity, not a previously thought out consideration about what would maximise general happiness.

Question 48

Define rule utilitarianism.

Answer 48

Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says an action is right as it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good.

Question 49

Who introduced the idea of "secondary principles"?

Answer 49

Mill.

Question 50

What are secondary principles?

Answer 50

Rules for which there is empirical evidence that following these rules will lead to the greatest happiness, and which should be adhered to despite the fact that in certain instances, abandoning these rules may have more advantageous consequences.

Question 51

What are the advantages of rule utilitarianism over act utilitarianism?

Answer 51

The greatest happiness principle is applied to general rules rather than individual actions, thus eliminating the need to calculate the hedonic value of each particular action. Therefore, in order to make a moral decision, one need only follow a rule. Moreover, this acts for the maximisation of pleasure for the general population, as if everyone follows the rules, the happiness of society will be maximised.

Question 52

How does rule utilitarianism allow us to incorporate rights?

Answer 52

Eg. For an act utilitarian, killing one person to save five lives would be ethically acceptable. However, this seems to work against our intuitions. A rule utilitarian would maintain that the rule "do not kill" in the form of a right to life would be, if followed by all, a way to maximise overall happiness. It would be wrong therefore to breakk the rule, and even if doing so on a particular occasion would maximise general happiness, people would feel safer were the rule in place.

Question 53

What is strong rule utilitarianism?

Answer 53

A form of rule utilitarianism which holds that rules should be followed and adhered to regardless of the circumstances.

Question 54

What is weak rule utilitarianism?

Answer 54

A form of rule utilitarianism which holds that rules can be broken under certain circumstances.

Question 55

According to strong rule utilitarianism, what makes an action moral?

Answer 55

If it adheres to the rule that will generally maximise pleasure for the wider population.

Question 56

According to weak rule utilitarianism, what makes an action moral?

Answer 56

If it adheres to the principle of utility.

Question 57

What is the criticism that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism?

Answer 57

I certain cases it may result in greater happiness for a rule to be broken, thus in order for rule utilitarianism to always result in the greatest pleasure and always adhere to the rules, some rules may need to be redefined. For example, the rule "do not lie" could be refined to "do not lie unless it is to prevent a murder". However, this could lead to an infinite set of rules, in which every scenario must have its own set of distinct rules. Moreover, this could result in a necessity for contradicting rules: for example, in some scenarios, lying may bring about the most pleasure, whereas for the same scenario in a different context, not lying brings about greater pleasure. Eg. if your friend asks if they are dressed nicely, in some contexts lying would be moral in accordance with utilitarianism, whereas in others, telling the truth could be the morally correct action. It is argued by some, therefore, that it is not the adherence to the rule that is where morality stems from, but a system with an infinite amount of rules places morality in the action itself. Thus, rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism.

Question 58

What is Hare's "two-tier utilitarianism"?

Answer 58

Act utilitarianism acts as the judge of our actions whilst rule utilitarianism is the principle of deliberation for humans. Thus, the moral value of an act is still determined by the amount of pleasure or pain it brings about, however, humans should follow rules most of the time as this will typically result in the maximum amount of happiness. In instances where the rule needs to be challenged in order to bring about the greatest happiness, act utilitarianism should be followed.

Question 59

Who developed preference utilitarianism?

Answer 59

Hare.

Question 60

What is preference utilitarianism?

Answer 60

Preference utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism which acknowledges issues with traditional utilitarianism including issues surrounding the nature of the pleasure machine; ideas of higher and lower pleasures; and the idea that pleasure is not a singular thing but a collection of desires. Thus, Hare proposes a form of utilitarianism which focusses on preferences instead of pleasure. An action should be judged by the extent to which it corroborates with the preferences of all those connected with the action and its consequences.

Question 61

What are two advantages of preference utilitarianism over classic utilitarianism?

Answer 61

It avoids moral circumstances which oppose our intuition - eg. the pleasure machine would be moral in accordance with act utilitarianism but seems intuitively wrong. With preference utilitarianism, the preferences of individuals can be considered, thus avoiding the dilemma - if it is an individual's preferred choice to enter the pleasure machine then this is not morally dubitable, however plugging everyone into a pleasure machine is morally dubitable, despite the fact that it leads to maximum pleasure. Moreover, it is easier to find out about preferences than it is to calculate the amount of pleasure resulting from an action.

Question 62

Who developed two-tier utilitarianism?

Answer 62

Hare.

Question 63

Who is the most significant philosopher to talk about animal rights in a utilitarian context?

Answer 63

Singer.

Question 64

From where does singer argue moral equality amongst humans derives? Why does he argue this?

Answer 64

Singer argues that moral equality amongst humans derives from sentience as this is the sole quality that all humans share equally: were the basis of moral equality to be IQ, for example, this would cause an issue, as not all humans share the same IQ.

Question 65

Why, according to Singer, should we take take the preferences/pleasure/pain of animals into consideration?

Answer 65

If moral equality is derived from sentience, then animals must be the moral equals of humans as they too are sentient. Thus, to disregard their ability to feel pleasure or pain is to be guilty of speciesism.

Question 66

What does Singer say about causing pain to animals?

Answer 66

It is wrong.

Question 67

According to Singer, should we eat meat from intensively farmed animals, and why?

Answer 67

Most methods of intensive farming cause a considerable amount of unnecessary pain to animals, thus it is wrong to eat meat from these sources.

Question 68

Why does Singer argue that it is not always wrong to eat meat?

Answer 68

Animals are, as far as we know, limited in their rationality. They do not hold specific hopes about the future and therefore do not have conscious preferences. As such, there is a difference in how we treat animals morally and how we treat humans morally.

Question 69

Why is there a moral discrepancy between killing a human and killing an animal?

Answer 69

Killing humans is not specifically wrong because of the potential lack of pleasure, but because it goes against the preference of the person, and their family and friends, for them to stay alive. Saying alive is (generally) the strongest preference a human has. Animals, however, do not consciously have the preference to stay alive, so killing an animal painlessly does not infringe on its preferences. However, if someone were to kill a family pet, this would go against the preferences of its owners and therefore would be morally wrong.

Question 70

What does Singer say about killing babies?

Answer 70

Young and unborn babies do not have conscious preferences so killing them is not morally wrong. However this likely does go against the preferences of the baby's family.

Question 71

How does preference utilitarianism overcome the problem of "bad" and "crazy" preferences?

Answer 71

It states we imagine was people would prefer were they able to view a situation from an ideal viewpoint - such that they would know all of the facts of the circumstance; be in the optimum position to know their preference

Question 72

Give examples of bad/crazy preferences.

Answer 72

1. Gertrude wanting to drink from a glass of wine that she does not know is poisoned. 2. Henry is depressed and wants to self-harm. 3. David is psychotic and wants to punch strangers.

Question 73

How would a preference utilitarianism answer to the problem of "bad" and "crazy" preferences involving others?

Answer 73

Eg. A psychotic person wants to punch strangers. 1. Other people's preferences must be taken into consideration - eg. other people have the preference not to be punched. 2. The preference must be considered from the ideal perspective of the person with the preference - eg. questioning whether the psychotic person would want to punch strangers if they were not mentally ill. 3. Rule preference utilitarianism would claim that it is morally right to follow the rule that would satisfy the preferences of the majority - eg. "don't punch people" would be a rule that would satisfy the most people.

Question 74

How would different types of utilitarians respond to the following problem? (a preference from a distance): James is dead and his last dying wish was that Bobby scatter his ashes in his favourite park. The park charges £10,000.

Answer 74

Act utilitarians: As James is no longer alive and thus incapable of feeling pleasure. Bobby could use the money to bring about more pleasure. Rule utilitarians: Bobby should scatter James' ashes so as to not break the rule that he should keep his promises. Preference utilitarians: Fulfilling preferences is the right thing to do so Bobby should fulfil James' preference.

Question 75

How do preference utilitarians respond to preferences from a difference?

Answer 75

If someone's preference is about something to which they are not causally connected, it seems odd that their preference should be taken into account.

Question 76

Explain the criticism of preference utilitarianism regarding weighing up preferences.

Answer 76

Bentham's hedonic calculus was an attempt to quantify different pleasures and pains. Preference utilitarianism is lacking an equivalent to this. If people have conflicting preferences, how should it be determined which to adhere to in accordance with moral law? What about the preferences of those who are not directly affected? Is it a question of the number of people with a specific preference, or the cumulative strength of preferences, either from individuals or a group?

Question 77

What was Bentham's utilitarianism originally designed for?

Answer 77

To help shape the government; make laws;