What is Utilitarianism? A Consequentialist theory of ethics pioneered by: Jeremy Bentham (1748-1842) John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) It’s central belief is the Greatest Happiness Principle “Always act such that you promoted the greatest aggregate happiness”

The Greatest Happiness Principle This principle has 3 underlying ideas: Consequentialism Hedonism Equity This means that: The consequences of an act are all that matters The only consequence that matters is happiness Everyone’s happiness is worthy of equal consideration

Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus Bentham thought we could calculate how much happiness each action creates on a 7 point scale: Intensity (How strong is the pleasure?) Duration (How long will it last?) Certainty (How likely is it?) Propinquity (How close in time and space is it?) Fecundity (Will it be followed by similar sensations?) Purity (Will it be followed by opposite sensations?) Number affected (How many will benefit?)

1. Are all Pleasures the Same? Bentham thought that all pleasures could be measured on the same scale but can they? “Pushpin is as good as poetry” (Bentham)

2. Are all Pleasures Morally Good? Does Bentham’s account mean that the happiness of 2 prison guards outweighs the happiness of one prisoner?

Mill’s Higher and Lower Pleasures Mill thought that some pleasures were intrinsically better than others Higher Pleasures Pleasures of the mind: Poetry, Opera, Study, Conversation. Uniquely human Lower Pleasures Pleasures of the flesh: Food, Drink, Drugs, Sex. Shared with animals ‘Competent Judges’ are best placed to discern them People of taste who have experienced both types “Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” “Better to be a fool dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”

3. Does the Higher/Lower distinction solve the problem? What about the Hadyn/Oyster problem suggested by Roger Crisp? Would you rather be Hadyn for 70 years or an Oyster for eternity? There must come a point when the oyster’s pleasure outweighs Haydn’s.

4. Are Competent Judges qualified? It’s not enough to have simply experienced both types of pleasure You also need to have enjoyed them Can competent judges enjoy getting plastered? Suggested by Ryan

Act Utilitarianism There are at least 2 types of Utilitarianism: Act and Rule In Act Utilitarianism each act is considered on it’s own merits. In theory, any action could be justified in terms of its consequences - even murder.

5. Is Act Utilitarianism psychologically possible? We must survey all possible actions and consequences and behave accordingly But is it possible to constantly reassess the facts, second by second? Could you consider, moment by moment, whether you should kill the person next to you?

6. Can Utilitarianism account for Justice and Rights? Sheriff example: What’s wrong with hanging an innocent man if it makes everyone happy? Free Speech example: Why shouldn’t we ban Nazis from standing for election?

Rule Utilitarianism In Rule Utilitarianism we act in accordance with rules But these rules are justified because they in turn promote the greatest happiness We must follow rules even on occasions where they don’t make anyone happy

7. How long is the long term? Rule Utilitarians think we should observe rules because they produce happiness in the long run But how long should we wait? A day? A year? A century?

8. Don’t pleasures have to be real? According to Mill, all that matters is pleasure. But we can have pleasure in: Dreams Drug-induced states or in an “experience machine” (Robert Nozick) Isn’t a little real pleasure better than a lot of fake pleasure?

9. Are Consequences more important than integrity? Some things should not be done even if they did promote happiness Would you take a job as a public executioner? If not, why not? Can utilitarianism account for notions like “clean hands”?

10. Is Utilitarianism too demanding? If Mill is right, shouldn’t I always surrender all my pleasures to help others? In Africa £1 could literally save a life so should I ever have a chocolate biscuit?