Utilitarianism: Modern Applications of the theory Preference Utilitarianism: Peter Singer and R.M. Hare Negative Utilitarianism: Peter Singer and R.M. Hare Do now: If you had to update/modify Utilitarianism in some way, what would you change and why? Ideal Utilitarianism: Peter Singer and R.M. Hare

Preference Utilitarianism: ‘The life of a middle-aged gorilla should take precedence over the life of a newly born baby’ Why might someone disagree with this statement? What assumptions would they be making about human and animal life? Is the moral value of humans and animals comparable?

Preference Utilitarianism How does an Act utilitarian judge morality? How does a rule utilitarian judge morality? What might a preference utilitarian be concerned with? An Act Utilitarian judges right and wrong according to the maximising of pleasure and minimising of pain A Rule Utilitarian judges right or wrong according to the keeping of rules derived from utility A preference utilitarian judges moral actions according to whether they fit in with the preferences of the individuals involved It asks ‘what is my own interest? What would I prefer in this situation? Which outcome would I prefer?’ However, it is still concerned with the preferences of others in order to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

Peter Singer advocates a view called ‘preference utilitarianism’. First advocated by R.M Hare in 1930. Takes a different approach to Bentham and Mill in that he proposes the right action is the one which best satisfies individual’s ‘preferences’. Begins with the notion of ‘equality’ and eventually leads to a form of utilitarianism.

Having equal traits is a poor justification for moral equality. Peter Singer argues that it is wrong to assume that everybody has equal traits. Having equal traits is a poor justification for moral equality. Rather, moral equality should be based on an equal consideration of preferences or interests. Different people have different ‘preferences’ for doing this. Also called ‘interests’. We should base our moral decisions on ensuring that the most amount of preferences/interests are achieved. But humans aren’t the only species with interests. Animal interests also have to be taken into consideration.

‘An interest is an interest – whoever’s interest that may be!’ Peter Singer, Practical Ethics Therefore, Singer believes that the preferences of animals should also be taken into consideration.

‘An interest is an interest – whoever’s interest that may be!’ Peter Singer, Practical Ethics Activity: Read the handout from Singer’s Practical Ethics. 1). Write a one paragraph summary of what he is arguing. 2). Imagine a doctor comes across an adult gorilla and young human baby. Both have life-threatening malaria, however the doctor has enough medicine to cure one of them. According to Singer what should the doctor do and why? 3). Do you agree with Singer? Give two reasons for your answer.

Act utilitarianism Utilitarianism Bentham Rule utilitarianism Preference utilitarianism Bentham Goodness = actions that maximise pleasure minus pain. Mill Goodness = happiness of greatest number or highest pleasures. Singer Goodness = maximising preferences and interests of all.

Negative Utilitarianism: You should act in such a way which promotes the least amount of harm or pain for the most amount of people. How is this different from Bentham's classic act utilitarianism? Supporters of negative utilitarianism argue that this approach is better as there are more ways to do harm than to do good, and thus the focus should be on protecting from harm rather than promoting pleasure. It seems commonsensical for the focus of morality to be on avoiding pain. For example, there will be a moral focus on sending medical supplies to starving community over sending them DVD’s or other material items to increase their pleasure.

Negative Utilitarianism: Problems All life involves suffering… If this is true, which many people argue it is, how could a negative utilitarian end the suffering of the majority? THINK: Are there some pleasures that cannot be experienced without a degree of suffering? How does this cause problems of negative utilitarianism? MASS SUICIDE REDUCING ALL HUMAN PAIN

Ideal Utilitarianism: You should act in such a way which promotes the least amount of harm or pain for the most amount of people. How is this different from Bentham's classic act utilitarianism? Supporters of negative utilitarianism argue that this approach is better as there are more ways to do harm than to do good, and thus the focus should be on protecting from harm rather than promoting pleasure. It seems commonsensical for the focus of morality to be on avoiding pain. For example, there will be a moral focus on sending medical supplies to starving community over sending them DVD’s or other material items to increase their pleasure.