Revision Notes
Utilitarianism
General Long history - Epicurus, Caiaphas,
Hume, Adam Smith Characterised by Pojman as teleological
aspect and utility aspect e.g. of punishment
Bentham’s Utilitarianism Pleasure and pain 'sovereign masters'
Pleasure the only intrinsic good Right actions increase total pleasure
Principles Greatest Happiness Principle or
Principle of Utility Teleological/consequentialist
Application Empirical (Hume) and response to
rationalists (Descartes) Hedonistic Calculus: Extent, certainty,
duration, nearness, fruitfulness, purity, intensity
Applies to Individuals and groups
Strengths Simple, commonsensical, scientific, impartial
Weaknesses Justice, consequences, comparable pleasures, 'pig philosophy'
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
Quality not quantity Competent judges Experience of both 'better to be Socrates dissatisfied'
Acts as one of group of acts tendencies known 'some consequences accidental; others
are its natural result'
Justice everyone counts as one all equal worth
Strengths distributive justice, consequences, Socrates satisfied
Weaknesses punitive justice, other intrinsic goods, complexity
Philosophical problems Naturalistic fallacy (GEMoore); Jump from egoism to altruism (Mackie)
but rational benevolence (Sidgwick) and education (Warnock/Mill)
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?
Response But special responsibilities (Brandt)
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'
Preference Individuals decide what is pain/pleasure
for them Preferences unless outweighed by
others e.g. Peter Singer and abortion.
General Strengths Simplicity but Mill/Hedonic Calculus Social change and Bentham Purpose of morality
(Aristotle/Epicurus/Pojman)
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)
General responses Split level utilitarianism (general/lower:
rule, rare but difficult/higher: act)
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
Top Related