1. Bentham’s Classical Utilitarianism
Seems reasonable to link morality with the pursuit of happiness and avoidance and pain.
Offers a balanced, democratic morality that promotes general happiness
It is a commonsense system that’s practically applicable to real-life situations. It has no need for special wisdom.
The Principle of Utility – “An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number.”
Proposed the Hedonic Calculus - Quantative
Seems natural to consider the consequences of out actions when deciding what to do.
It doesn’t support individual pursuits that are at the expense of the majority.
A working morality that can be brought into operation in organisational rather than simply individual matters. Benefits in the management of hospitals where fixed budgets must be best to alleviate the suffering of many.
Utilitarianism ensures a maximum-pleasure result, but it doesn’t set out how the pleasure is distributed. It guarantees nothing for minorities. There’s nothing in utilitarianism that prevents the total sacrifice of one pleasure for the benefit of the whole e.g. bullies torturing a single boy.
John Rawls – A Theory of Justice – “The striking feature of justice is that does not matter, except indirectly, how this sum of satisfactions is distributed among individuals any more than it matters, except indirectly, how one man distributes his satisfactions over time.”
The concept of happiness is so broad that it can be taken as the name for whatever a person takes as his or her personal goal. Utilitarianism offers no objective method of assessing rights and wrongs of an action.
Difficulty in measuring pleasure. The hedonic calculus seems straightforward but can different pleasures and different pains be so easily quantified?
E.g. pleasure of chocolate bar or pleasure of seeing a child grow up? How to quantify.
E.g. What about pain that’s good for you? When we hurt ourselves, the pain is a reminder that we have the injury and to take care.
Utilitarianism depends upon accurate predictions of the futures, but human beings don’t always display accurate foresight. The consequences of actions may not become apparent until years into the future.
Alasdair MacIntyre – A Short History of Ethics – “Utilitarianism could justify horrendous acts as being for the pleasure of many e.g. Nazi policy of persecution. He identifies the focus on happiness as the problem: “That men are happy with their lot never entails that their lot is what it ought to be. For the question can always be raised of how great the price is that is being paid for the happiness.”
Robert Nozick – The experience machine – There must be things apart from pleasure that we consider intrinsically valuable.
Mill’s Utilitarianism - Qualitative
Focus on qualitative pleasures – pleasures of the mind are higher than those to the body.
“It is better to be human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Mill

2. Strong Rule Utilitarianism Weak Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
Flexibility– being able to take into account individual situations at a given moment, although the actions that it justifies can change.
Potential to justify virtually any act if, in that particular case, the result generates the most happiness.
More closely associated with Jeremy Bentham
The principle of utility must be directly applied for each individual situation. Which action will create the greatest good or the greatest number? Value in the consequences.
Can have some quite extreme results: An act utilitarian goes out to see a film, sees a charity collector so gives money away. This happens again and again. Taken to the extreme, all leisure activities would end.
Impractical to suggest that we should measure each and every choice every time, especially as we may not have all the information required but the hedonic calculus.
Rule Utilitarianism
Associated with John Stuart Mill (1861) and John Austin (The province of Jurisprudence, 1832)
Practical – general rules exist
Focuses on general rules that everyone should follow to bring about the greatest good for that community. Rule utilitarianism establishes the best overall rule which, when pursued by the whole community, leads to the best result.
I should never lie because, as a general community rule, lying doesn’t bring about the greatest good for the community. People would not trust each other.
A person would be allowed to see the film, because a rule that allows people leisure time would be acceptable.
Could still permit certain practices, such as as slavery, that appear to be morally unacceptable. There’s no guarantee that minority interests will be protected. As long as slaves are the smaller proportion, the greatest good might be to keep them enslaved.
R.M.Hare – suppose a maniac is chasing someone who hides in my shop. My gut feeling would be to lie. A rule utilitarianist would state that I have to be honest, because I’m not allowed to break a rule, even though, the result isn’t the greatest happiness.
A rule utilitarian will maintain that I must always drive on the left-hand side of the road in the UK, even when stuck in a traffic jam – because that will ensure the greatest good when everyone acts in such a way.
Strong Rule Utilitarianism
Maintains that rules established through the application of utilitarian principles should never be broken.
Weak Rule Utilitarianism
Tries to allow for the possibility that utilitarian principles can take precedence in a situation over a general rule. However, the rule would still form part of the decision-making process.