AS Ethics Utilitarianism Title: - Preference Utilitarianism To begin… What is meant by preference? L/O: To understand Preference Utilitarianism

Preference… being preferred. Chosen above all else. Rather have.

Strong and Weak Utilitarianism Strong Utilitarianism = Bentham’s idea of arriving at moral decisions through one rule – the principle of utility. Weak Utilitarianism = Mill’s more flexible idea which claimed it was sometimes needed to break the rule – if consequences of action are harmful.

Preference Utilitarianism Preference Utilitarian's consider whether a decision is right or wrong by asking whether it fits in with what people would rationally prefer. Singer was concerned about minorities and felt all minorities and individuals should be taken into account when considering what is best for everyone. You should do what is the best interests of the greatest number, rather than calculating pleasure against pain. Singers approach concentrates on minimising suffering, rather than maximising pleasure. He thinks there is more agreement about what causes pain than what gives you pleasure – is pleasure more down to pleasure than pain?

Preference utilitarianism is a more recent form of utilitarianism and is associated with R.M. Hare, Peter Singer and Richard Brandt. Like act and rule utilitarian's, Preference utilitarian's claim that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences. However, instead of specifying the end to be pursued in terms of pleasure, they define the best consequences in terms of preference.

A preference utilitarian judges moral actions according to whether they fit in with the preferences of individuals involved. This is based on the questions: ‘What outcome do I prefer? What is in the best interests of those concerned?’ The principle of utility is still followed, so preference utilitarianism considers the preferences of all conscious beings. The more preferences satisfied in the world, the better.

R.M Hare ( ) R.M Hare argues that in moral decision making we need to consider our own preferences and those of others. He says that ‘equal preferences count equally, whatever their content’. People are happy when they get what they prefer, but what we prefer may clash with the preferences of others. Hare says we need to ‘stand in someone else’s shoes’ and try to imagine what someone else might prefer. We should treat everyone, including ourselves, with impartiality – he also argues for universality.

Peter Singer (1946-) Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher who continues to be an influential figure in the area of ethics. He specialises in practical ethics, approaching ethical issues from a preference utilitarian perspective. His views, such as those on the welfare of animals, are often regarded as controversial. In his book, Animal Liberation, he questioned the idea of discrimination based on species, arguing that is should be on grounds of ability to experience suffering. This would mean that some animals should be accorded equal considerations to human beings, in certain circumstances.

“An action contrary to the preference of any being is, unless the preference is outweighed by contrary preferences, wrong”

Peter Singer also defends Preference Utilitarianism and suggests that we should take the viewpoint of an impartial spectator combined with a broadly utilitarian approach. He says that ‘our own preferences cannot count any more than the preferences of others’ and so, in acting morally, we should take account of all the people affected by our actions. These have to be weighed and balanced and then we must choose the action which gives the best possible consequences for those affected. For Singer, the ‘best possible consequences’ means what is in the best interests of the individuals concerned – this is different from Bentham and Mill, as he is not considering what increases pleasure and diminishes pain.

This principle of equal consideration of preferences or interests acts like a pair of scales – everyone’s preferences or interests are weighed equally, So, in Singer’s view, killing a person who prefers to go on living would be wrong and not killing a person who prefers to die would also be wrong. Singer argues that it is preferences, rather than human life, that we ought to value, and this means that animals fall within our sphere of moral obligations since certain animals show preferences, such as to be with others of the same species and to avoid pain.

Richard Brandt ( ) Richard Brandt was one of the leading utilitarian philosophers of the twentieth century. He defended a version of Rule Utilitarianism, but later, in his book A Theory of the Right and the Good (1979), he talks about the preferences you would have if you had gone through a process of cognitive psychotherapy and explored all the reasons for your preferences and rejected any you felt were not true to your real values. He argued that the morality you would then accept would be a form of Utilitarianism – with your preferences free from any psychological blocks and you in full possession of all the facts. Such a person would not, therefore be influenced by advertising.

Henry Sidgwick (1838 – 1900) It is well known that Henry Sidgwick put forward a version of utilitarianism based on the three indisputable principles and the hedonistic theory of the ultimate good.

(1) The Principle of Justice: This limits the judgment of 'right' or 'ought' as follows. "whatever action any of us judges to be right for himself, he discreetly judges to be right for all similar persons in similar circumstances"

(2) The Principle of Prudence This is related to the idea of the good on the whole of a single individual, and is stated as follows. "Hereafter as such is to be regarded neither less nor more than Now"; "the mere difference of priority and posteriority in time is not a reasonable ground for having more regard to the consciousness of one moment than to that of another"

(3) The Principle of Rational Benevolence This is about the universal good, i.e. the good of all individuals, and is stated as follows. "the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view of the Universe, than the good of any other"; so that "as a rational being I am bound to aim at good generally,----so far as it is attainable by my efforts,----not merely at a particular part of it"

Advantages Vs. Disadvantages of Preference Utilitarianism