AO1: Utilitarianism
- Utilitarianism developed in the 18th–19th centuries alongside the Enlightenment, which emphasised reason and human progress.
- Industrialisation created social problems like poverty and inequality, encouraging new ethical approaches focused on reform.
- Thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham aimed to create a practical system for improving society.
- It also reflects liberal political ideas about maximising welfare rather than obeying tradition.
- Utility means usefulness in producing good consequences.
- For classical utilitarians, this is understood as pleasure or happiness (hedonism).
- Bentham defined good as pleasure and bad as pain, while Mill refined this as overall happiness.
- The moral aim is to maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
- Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism holds that each action should be judged individually by its consequences.
- He created the hedonic calculus to measure pleasure using factors like intensity and duration.
- All pleasures are equal, so only quantity matters.
- The right action is the one that produces the most total pleasure.
- Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism holds that constantly calculating actions is impractical.
- Instead, we should follow rules that generally maximise happiness, such as the harm principle.
- He also distinguished higher (intellectual) and lower (bodily) pleasures.
- This makes his utilitarianism qualitative rather than purely quantitative.
- Peter Singer argues utility is not pleasure but preference satisfaction.
- An action is right if it maximises the preference satisfaction of those affected.
- This requires impartiality, treating all preferences equally.
- Stronger or more important preferences may outweigh weaker ones.
- Negative utilitarianism focuses on reducing suffering rather than increasing pleasure.
- It prioritises minimising pain as the most urgent moral goal.
- This approach responds to concerns that maximising happiness can justify harm.
- It shifts the emphasis from benefit to harm prevention.
- Ideal utilitarianism broadens utility beyond pleasure to include values like knowledge, beauty, and friendship.
- Thinkers like G. E. Moore argue these goods are intrinsically valuable.
- Moral decisions should maximise these higher goods, not just happiness.
- This avoids reducing all value to pleasure alone.
- Utilitarianism has influenced major political and social reforms.
- Bentham supported prison reform, legal reform, and democracy to improve overall welfare.
- Mill defended individual liberty and women’s rights as ways to increase happiness.
- Today, utilitarian thinking influences policy areas like healthcare, cost-benefit analysis, and public welfare.
- Utilitarianism is relativistic because right and wrong depend on the situation’s consequences.
- There are no absolute rules; actions can be justified if they maximise utility.
- This allows flexibility but can lead to uncertainty in moral decisions.
- Different contexts may produce different moral answers.
AO2: The higher/lower pleasure ‘swine’ debate & a calculation issue
- Bentham argued that all pleasures are equal, so only the quantity matters.
- For example, simple pleasures like games are just as valuable as intellectual ones like philosophy.
- This led to criticism that utilitarianism reduces human life to basic pleasure-seeking, ignoring dignity and higher values.
- Carlyle called it a philosophy fit only for “swine.”
- It also creates a problem of calculation, since pleasure is a private mental state that is hard to measure.
Counter
- Mill responded by distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures.
- Higher pleasures involve the mind (e.g. learning), while lower pleasures are physical (e.g. eating).
- He argued that “competent judges” who have experienced both will prefer higher pleasures, even if they involve more effort.
- This shows that quality matters more than quantity.
Evaluation
- Mill’s response clearly strengthens utilitarianism by recognising that humans value more than basic pleasure.
- It makes the theory more realistic and avoids the “swine” criticism by prioritising intellectual and moral development.
- It also helps with the calculation issue, since we can focus on types of pleasure rather than trying to measure exact amounts.
- However, the idea of “higher” pleasures is still subjective and depends on personal judgement.
- This means disagreement remains about which pleasures are truly better.
- Overall, Mill improves Bentham’s theory, but does not fully solve the problem of measuring happiness.
AO2: The issue of calculation
- Utilitarianism requires calculating which action will produce the most happiness.
- However, this is difficult in practice.
- As Kant argues, we cannot predict consequences with certainty, especially long-term ones.
- Moral decisions are often made quickly, leaving no time for calculation.
- Also, pleasure and pain are subjective and hard to measure.
- This makes utilitarianism difficult to apply as a guide to action.
Counter
- Rule utilitarianism responds by focusing on rules rather than individual actions.
- Mill argued that society can develop rules that generally maximise happiness, such as laws against harming others.
- Individuals then simply follow these rules instead of calculating each situation.
- This makes moral decision-making easier and more realistic.
Evaluation
- Rule utilitarianism clearly improves practicality by removing the need for constant calculation in everyday decisions.
- It reflects how people actually make moral choices, relying on rules rather than complex reasoning.
- However, the theory still faces a dilemma.
- If rules can be broken, it collapses into act utilitarianism.
- If rules must never be broken, it becomes too rigid and less flexible.
- A strong version can respond that following rules produces greater long-term happiness overall.
- While not perfect, rule utilitarianism offers a more workable approach than act utilitarianism and significantly reduces the calculation problem.
AO2: The issue of liberty & rights; tyranny of majority
- Utilitarianism judges actions by consequences, not by rights.
- This means it could justify harming a minority if it benefits the majority.
- For example, sacrificing one person to save five could maximise happiness.
- Philippa Foot uses examples like organ transplants to show this problem.
- This suggests utilitarianism can lead to a “tyranny of the majority,” where individuals are treated unfairly.
Counter
- Mill argues that liberty is essential for happiness.
- His harm principle states that people should be free unless they harm others.
- Protecting freedom allows individuals to pursue their own happiness.
- He also argues that harming others usually produces lower pleasures and reduces overall happiness.
- Therefore, respecting liberty generally maximises utility.
Evaluation
- Mill’s defence makes utilitarianism more acceptable by showing that protecting liberty usually leads to the greatest happiness.
- In practice, his approach produces a society that respects individuals and avoids obvious injustices.
- However, the protection of rights is still based on outcomes rather than being absolute.
- This means that, in extreme cases, rights could still be overridden if it increased overall happiness.
- So the worry about the “tyranny of the majority” is not completely removed.
- Despite this weakness, Mill’s rule-based approach provides a strong response and shows utilitarianism can support liberty in most real situations.
AO1: strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism
- Weakness: Utilitarianism can seem to reduce human life to animalistic pleasure-seeking, ignoring dignity and degrading humanity.
- Strength: Utilitarianism recognises that happiness includes intellectual and moral fulfilment, not just basic pleasure.
- Weakness: It is difficult to predict and measure consequences, making utilitarianism hard to apply in real situations.
- Strength: Utilitarianism can guide action through general rules that usually promote the greatest happiness.
- Weakness: Rights are not absolute, so individuals could be sacrificed if it benefits the majority.
- Strength: Utilitarianism can support individual freedom because protecting liberty usually increases overall happiness.