Utilitarianism

Principle of Utility:

Maximize the good

Maximize the Ònon-moralÓ good, i.e., things that people like, such as the pleasure of ice cream, automobiles, and all the things that people value whether public (air, water, etc.) or commercial (ice cream).

Goal of Enlightenment: Put morality on rational, secular, and scientific foundation. 

Be a tool for social reform.

(NB. The judgments or intuitions of the gentleman, of the person with a refined sensibility, were appealed to in law and public policy, e.g., in what was known as BlackstoneÕs Commentary on common law.  The utilitarians were able to bring about prison reform among other accomplishments through promotion of their calculus.)

 

Utilitarians need a theory of basic good:

 

Moral good = maximizing basic good
Basic good = ?

Bentham and Mill are hedonists: Pleasure and pain are the only values.

Good = Pleasure and the absence of pain
Bad = Pain and the absence of pleasure
 

Choices facing a moral theorist (including utilitarians):

 

1. What to take as fundamental? 

Society

Person

Character traits

Motives

Behavior

Bentham and Mill make behavior, or motives + behavior, fundamental; but other choices are possible

Bentham and Mill are individualists: the value of everything depends on the value of individuals' actions.

Some utilitarians are communitarians: the value of the state of the entire community is independent of, and generally prior to, the value of individual actions and character traits.

2. What is evaluated?

Particulars or Universals (Kinds)?

particular acts vs. kinds of actions

particular societies vs. kinds of societies

This affects the status of rules: Are they (a) rules of thumb, only generally true; (b) definitive of morality, invariably true (except, perhaps, when they conflict with each other?)

Bentham's Moral Calculus

(simplified version)

Option A

Expected pleasure

Expected pain

Person 1

P1

L1

Person 2

P2

L2

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Person j

Pj

Lj

Total

P

L

Net expected value of option A: P - L (Profit minus loss; pleasure minus pain; benefit minus cost; advantage minus disadvantage; etc.)

Each entry must take into account probabilities of various outcomes, and pleasures and pains on each outcome

Bentham: Is P - L positive or negative?

If positive: Do it! (Or, it's okay to do it)
If negative: Don't do it! (Or, it's okay not to)

What if all possible acts have positive outcomes? Negative outcomes?

Maximize P - L; choose option with the best net expected value.


  Two Kinds of Utilitarianism
 

ACT utilitarianism:
Perform the particular ACTS that maximize good

Appeal directly to the principle of utility.

Act Utilitarianism 

The Principle of Utility

Particular Actions 

 

RULE utilitarianism:
Act according to the RULES that maximize good.

Appeal is to secondary moral rules.

The principle of utility justifies and resolves conflicts between secondary principles.
 

Rule Utilitarianism 

 

The Principle of Utility

Secondary Principles (Rules)

Kinds of Actions 

Particular Actions 

 

We appeal to the principle of utility only

1.                  to justify secondary principles

2.                  to resolve conflicts between secondary principles

The act utilitarian can use rules as guides. The real issue: Are the rules epistemic or constitutive? Are they indicators of what is right (act utilitarianism) or do they define what is right (rule utilitarianism)?

For Bentham and Mill-- act utilitarians-- they indicate what is right.  The principle of utility defines what is right, but serves as a practical test only in cases of conflict.

Do act and rule utilitarianism ever disagree?  They do if it ever maximizes the good to break a good rule.  (E.g., to assassinate Hitler.)

Does a secondary principle ever conflict with the principle of utility without conflicting with another secondary principle (e.g., to save lives)?
 

Objections to utilitarianism

1. Pleasure not the (only) non-moral good (Carlyle's objection: Utilitarianism is PIG philosophy!)
(Bentham: "Pushpin is as good as poetry" given that the pleasure is equal)

Mill's answer: (Value pluralism) Goods differ significantly in sub-kind, though they all can be related in terms of pleasure (or happiness) and the avoidance of pain (or suffering).

2. Impossibility of weighing together different goods (value incommensurability)

Bentham's answer:

Measure pleasure and pain by

It's possible to quantify pleasure and pain on a single scale.

But what about pluralism?

Mill's answer:

Intellectual pleasures trump sensual pleasures.

 "It's better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

Bentham's answer:

Each person must be judge in his/her own case. Pushpin might be better than poetry for some.

3. Incompatible with virtue

To be virtuous is to act courageously, justly, kindly, etc., naturally, not as a result of utilitarian calculation. And calculation seems incompatible with love and friendship.

Mill's answer: Virtues are good for everyone, including the virtuous person. And, though utility constitutes the good, it is not our usual indicator of it. (Usually, we don't have to calculate.)

4. Time to calculate

Mill's answer: Standing moral rules (secondary principles); history of the human race (experience embodied in tradition)

5. Regress (prior calculation of utility is an act): Should we always calculate?

Calculate about doing A

Calculate about whether to calculate

Calculate about whether to calculate about whether to calculate

Sometimes, we shouldn't calculate. But how can we know without calculating?

Answer: Moral education makes much instinctive, including whether or not to calculate.

6. Impossibility of moral education

Mill's answer: How can we teach morality? How can we learn to think morally?  By teaching "Act for the happiness of everyone" and by teaching secondary principles.

7. Too high a standard

Mill's answer: (1) Duty is severe, and (2) Few are moral saints.

8. Too wide a standard (impartiality)

We ought to favor those closest to us. (Whom should you save first: your own child or the child who lives down the street? your mother or the scientist who has an (unpublished cure for AIDS?)

Mill's answer: Private utility is usually enough. Rarely do actions affect more than a limited few.