1. Revision Notes
Utilitarianism

2. General Long history - Epicurus, Caiaphas, Hume, Adam Smith
Characterised by Pojman as teleological aspect and utility aspect
e.g. of punishment

3. Bentham’s Utilitarianism
Pleasure and pain 'sovereign masters'
Pleasure the only intrinsic good
Right actions increase total pleasure

4. Principles Greatest Happiness Principle or Principle of Utility
Teleological/consequentialist

5. Application Empirical (Hume) and response to rationalists (Descartes)
Hedonistic Calculus: Extent, certainty, duration, nearness, fruitfulness, purity, intensity
Applies to Individuals and groups

6. Strengths
Simple,
commonsensical,
scientific,
impartial

7. Weaknesses Justice, consequences, comparable pleasures,
'pig philosophy'

8. Mill’s Utilitarianism
We seek happiness
So we seek the happiness of others
So happiness is something we ought to seek for ourselves and others

9. Quality not quantity Competent judges Experience of both
'better to be Socrates dissatisfied'

10. Acts as one of group of acts
tendencies known
'some consequences accidental; others are its natural result'

11. Justice
everyone counts as one
all equal worth

12. Strengths
distributive justice,
consequences,
Socrates satisfied

13. Weaknesses
punitive justice,
other intrinsic goods,
complexity

14. Philosophical problems
Naturalistic fallacy (GEMoore);
Jump from egoism to altruism (Mackie) but rational benevolence (Sidgwick) and education (Warnock/Mill)

15. Act
GHP applied to acts
“An act is right and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”
From acts general rules deduced
Bentham and Mill?

16. Response
But special responsibilities (Brandt)

17. Rule GHP applied to rules
“An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative”
From rules acts deduced as wrong
Brandt, Smart, Nielsen
Mill and 'tendencies'

18. Preference Individuals decide what is pain/pleasure for them
Preferences unless outweighed by others
e.g. Peter Singer and abortion.

19. General Strengths Simplicity but Mill/Hedonic Calculus
Social change and Bentham
Purpose of morality (Aristotle/Epicurus/Pojman)

20. General Weaknesses
Incommensurate values (number/happiness) but internal debate
Immeasurable consequences but Mill and CILewis (actual/expected/intended consequences)
No rest; no personal integrity; not for all as difficult to follow (Pojman)
Justice but Mill (punitive/distributive)
Intuition and intrinsic/instrumental values and absurd implications (WDRoss)
Ends and Means (Kant)

21. General responses
Split level utilitarianism (general/lower: rule, rare but difficult/higher: act)

22. Overall response Kant and categorical imperative
So right on purpose of morality wrong on need for rules and justice
Frankena and principles of beneficence and justice
Or Ross, objectivism and actual vs.. prima facie duties