Betham (Act Utilitarianism)
Utilitarianism is an teleological ethical theory which decides if an act is moral or immoral based on the outcome of the action itself. Jeremy Bentham was a consequentialist who developed the theory as he was concerned with social and legal reform. He developed his idea to help establish if something was good or bad according to its benefit for the majority of people. This idea was originally created by Joseph Priestley's idea of the 'greatest happiness for the greatest number' in one of his essay's based on society. Bentham called this theory the 'principle of utility' (meaning usefulness) which aims to 'promote happiness which is the supreme ethical value' which is often expressed as 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. However for Bentham 'good' means pleasure or happiness, therefore an act is right or wrong according to the results of pain or pleasure to decide if it is moral or immoral. As his theory is based around the greatest number it is thus a quantitative theory.
Jeremy Bentham was also inspired by Hedonism, this is the idea that 'good' is based on pleasure or happiness, therefore utilitarianism is a hedonistic theory. Ancient Greek philosophers also thought along similar lines as they introduced the term eudaimonia meaning 'well-being'. Both Plato and Aristotle believed that 'good' equated to the greatest happiness, and others emphasised that happiness was the main aim of life. According to these philosophers the desire of happiness is the ultimate end of actions, but Aristotle believed that although pleasure may sometimes accompany happiness, it is not the chief aim of life. However Bentham focuses on the stem which pursued physical pleasure and avoided physical pain, which according to Bentham decides if an act is moral (pleasure) or immoral (pain). Bentham once said 'Nature has placed us under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. An act is right if is brings about more pleasure than plain and wrong if it brings about more pain than pleasure'. Therefore happiness is pleasure minus the physical pain.
To help choose if an act is good Bentham developed the hedonic calculus, this helps an individual work out the possible consequences of an action and a way of measuring the pleasurable outcome. It has seven elements:
1) The intensity of the pleasure?
2) The duration of the pleasure-how long it lasts?
3) How certain is the pleasure?
4) How near or far is the pleasre?
5) How continuous is the pleasure?
6) How secure will the pleasure be?
7) Is the pleasure universal?
This gives the individual a method of working out if the action will deliver a pleasurable outcome and thus decides if it will be moral. Whatever is good or bad can be measured in a quantitative way.
Evaluation of Betham
Bentham's theory has various strengths and weaknesses, however a key issue is that the theory ignores the minority in its search for the greatest happiness for the greatest number. An example of this weakness can be example in the issue of gang rape. Bentham's principle of utility would believe that this would be acceptable as 9/10 would find the experience pleasurable and therefore the theory classifies gang rape as moral. However gang rape is not moral it is immoral and it further ignores the minority's (1/10) pain. Therefore are all actions only good because they have a good outcome for some and not for others?
However Bentham did create the hedonic calculus which would weigh the pro's against the con's of the action and may show that although the act would bring pleasure it may bring pain (such as prison) for a long duration of time and therefore the action is not worth doing. On the other hand, this raises a further key problem with the theory, as it will only be of use to those who can predict the future. Bentham believed that the principle of utility required experience of past experiences to work out the right action-especially if there is no time to use the hedonic calculus- but what if the individual has no previous experience of a situation? This shows various loopholes of the theory and therefore may not be an appropriate ethical theory.
The theory also cannot be universalised as what is pleasurable for one may not be pleasurable for another. Furthermore the theory is impractical as it cannot be universalised to everyone, societies would be ruined and the legal system would collapse. An example of this could be seen in the riots, there would be mass suffering, injuries and bankruptcy which would not benefit society in the future.
However it does focus on well being of the greatest number- this is the basis of the healthcare system: care is provided to improve the health of the population and if more money is spent on the health service it means more people are healthier thus happier.
Mill (Rule Utilitarianism)
However, John Stuart Mill was also a hedonist who accepted that happiness is of great importance, however he stressed happiness rather than pleasure. His stem of utilitarianism is called the greatest happiness principle. Mill said 'The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. As previously mentioned, Mill modified Bentham's principle of utility-focusing on qualitative pleasure.
He believed 'some kinds of pleasures are more desirable and more valuable than others'. According to Mill, the quality of pleasure employs the use of higher faculties, as what satisfies a humans pleasure is different from what satisfies an animals. People are more capable than animals therefore it takes more to make a human happy. Thus, a human will always choose higher quality human pleasures and reject all of the animal pleasures. For Mill 'it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied'. An example of what Mill would classify as a higher pleasure would be intellectual activities such as listening to music, reading poetry or a book, and a lower pleasure would be drinking alcohol or having sex. Happiness is the desire to make human life feel as a whole- not filling life with pleasure but rather the fulfilment of higher ideals.
Mill further develops his argument, that in order to derive the principle of the greatest good (happiness) for the greatest number we need the principle of universability. This is the idea that what is right or wrong for one person would be right or wrong for all. Mill's idea of universability is that each person desires their own happiness, therefore each person ought to aim at this persons happiness, hence everyone ought to aim at the happiness of everyone. Mill has a positive view on human nature and believs that people have powerful feelings of empathy for others which can be cultivated by education etc.
A further aspect of Mill's theory is the idea that there should be smoe moral rules in place to establish social order and justice- but the rules follow universability therefore if followed they will produce the greatest happiness.
Evaluation of Mill
The theory is straightforward as it is based on maximising pleasure and minimising pain, a system which aims to do this for all individuals as it is a universalised theory. However it is too simplistic and does not represent real life, as pursuing happiness may infact intail immoral actions -e.g robbing a bank for gold to live a life of luxury.
Mill's universability also does not follow a logical pattern and assumes everyone in the world thinks alike-everyone wants everyone to be happy. However some may not, such as someone who has be bullied by another or someone who was tortured by another. He might have done this to justify the greatest number. His idea of universalisation demands that people put the interests of a group of people before their own.
Mill does not address ways of working out how to predict if the action will have good or bad future consequences like Bentham's hedonic calculus does. However its consequentialism is a strength as humans naturally try to predict outcomes of actions to decide if the action is worth doing. Utilitarianism also does not consider motives and intentions, just the result of happiness- therefore it rejects the principle of treating people with intrinsic value.
Hare and Singer (Preference Utilitarianism)
An act utilitarian judges right or wrong according to the maximisation of pleasure or pain, rule utilitarian judges right or wrong according to the keeping of rules derived from utility, but a preference utilitarian judges moral actions according to whether they fit in with the preferences of the individuals involved. Preference utilitarianism looks more at what the individual would prefer for their own interests and what outcome they would prefer as although utilitarianism aims to create the greatest good for the greatest number, it is necessary to consider the preference of others in order to achieve this.
R M Hare argues that in moral decision making we need to consider our own preferences and those of others. He believed that 'equal preferences count equally, whatever their content'. People are happy when they get what they prefer, but what we prefer may clash with the preferences of others. Hare believed we needed to stand i someone elses shoes and try to imagine what they might prefer. We should treat everyone, including ourselves, with impartiality- he also argues for universalisability.
Peter Singer also defends prefernce utilitarianism and suggests that we take the viewpoint of an impartial spectator combined with a broad utilitarian approach. He said 'our own preferneces cannot count any more than the prefernces of others' and so, in acting morally, we should take the others who will be impacted by an action into consideration. Moral decisions have to be weighed and balanced and then we must choose the action which gives the best possible consequence for those affected- the 'best possible consequence' will be the best interests of the individuals concerned. Singer's theory is different from Betham or Mill as he does not consider what increasure pleasure and minimises pain.
Evaluation of Hare and Singer
Singer's view has the strength of considering and acknowleging other peoples interests, for example if someone wants to live killing them would be wrong but if someone wants to die killing them would be right, or be racist as it puts a greater value on one race than another. This is good as it trys to give a good outcome to all those it will effect in a just manner.
It also doesn't focus on pleasure or pain but the right moral action-therefore it has less chance of being subjective like in Betham's principle of utility.
