Utilitarianism

What does Utilitarianism mean?

Utilitarianism means “usefulness” as Bentham and Mill claim their theory is useful for defining what is “good” and for making moral choices.

What proof is there that utility (usefulness in producing happiness) is the best definition of “good”?

Only the empirical one, says Mill Only the empirical one, says Mill. The only proof that happiness is good is that people pursue it. (But do we just pursue happiness? What about virtue, or duty, or something other than happiness? And can you just pursue happiness independent of something else eg art makes me happy?)

Are happiness and pleasure the same?

Not really! Bentham was a hedonic act utilitarian because he believed we lived “under two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain”. Mill was a rule utilitarian who argues that we pursue the greatest happiness of the greatest number: not just our own happiness, by following a rule. Was he so different from Kant?

Mill took a qualitative view of pleasure, different from Bentham Mill took a qualitative view of pleasure, different from Bentham. Explain this.

Mill didn’t like the “pig’s philosophy” of Bentham who seemed to imply we were pleasure machines, so Mill differentiates between nobler higher pleasures like reading Wordsworth (which he enjoyed) and lower pleasures of the body (eating, drinking, playing squash, making love).

Why did Mill argue for a form of rule utilitarianism?

Mill is not entirely consistent Mill is not entirely consistent. He tries to reconcile his belief in consequentialism with his strong belief (see On Liberty) in human freedom and equal rights. In the final section of utilitarianism he argues that justice is an essential feature of utility and that without rules governing security, property and other rights we won’t be happy.

Bentham tried to calculate the pleasure of acts. How does this work?

Bentham tried to apply his hedonic calculus to choices Bentham tried to apply his hedonic calculus to choices. I give you 30 hedons and you decide how to allocate them between alternatives according to 7 criteria, eg the strength, certainty, closeness, or ability of this choice to produce other pleasures as a byproduct (he calls this latter fecundity).

What’s wrong with this, after all, don’t economists do it in their theory of marginal utility?

Good point, yes they do! But we can’t be that sure of the pleasure units of an action, and how do I know my hedon has the same unit value as your hedon? It’s also rather a complex way of describing how we choose things: what of feelings, duties, expectations? I can’t just not turn up for work because I don’t think it will be much fun!

People talk a lot about Bernard Williams and his example of Jim and the Indians. What’s all this about?

Bernard Williams (who died in 2004) was a great critic of utilitarianism. He argued that it didn’t take into account moral integrity. Jim is an honoured guest who Pedro invites to shoot an indian. If he refuses all 20 prisoners will die. Williams argues that utilitarians would shoot, but most of us couldn’t do it, or couldn’t live with it. See Utilitarianism for and Against by Smart and Williams.

Give three strengths of Utilitarianism.

It is practical and forms the basis of laws on abortion and embryology (for example). It is fair in so far as “everyone to count as one, and no-one more than one” (you, me and the Queen). It is consequentialist and in considering consequences it is really directly opposed to Kantian deontology (stress on passionless duty). So it might have avoided World War 1 !!!

And the weaknesses of utilitarianism?

It’s hard to calculate the future (if you’re not God). It rides roughshod over human rights (hence Mill’s desire to write a whole section of his essay devoted to justice) It fails to account for important moral elements of a decision, like integrity (Williams) and duties to family, friends or the truth (Ross, who calls them prima facie duties)