Transcript Utilitarianism

Author: John Waters
Act and Rule
Utilitarianism
Socratic Ideas Limited © All Rights Reserved
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Compare / Contrast / Compare / Contrast / Compare / Contrast
Act Utilitarian
Assess each individual situation
on its own merits with the aim of
promoting the greatest happiness
for those involved.
(1) People should follow and be
guided by moral rules
Rule Utilitarian
(2) which in the past have shown
to promote the greatest happiness
of the greatest number.
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
Some examination boards label Bentham
an act utilitarian, and Mill a rule utilitarian.
However such labels are crude and have two major faults:
1. The terms Act and Rule
utilitarianism are anachronistic
when applied to Bentham and
Mill. Robert Arrington has
mentioned that such labels
came into use after Bentham
and Mill had died.
2. They do not do justice to
the subtleties of Mill’s
philosophy – who many
consider being more akin to
`Weak Rule Utilitarianism.’
Bentham and Mill
Compare / Contrast / Compare / Contrast / Compare / Contrast
BENTHAM
J.S. MILL
Principle of Utility
Greatest Happiness Principle
Emphasis on pleasure
Emphasis on happiness
Concerned with QUANTITY
of pleasure “Push-pin [a
simple child's game] is as
good as poetry”
Concerned with QUALITY of
pleasure “…better to be a
Socrates dissatisfied than a
fool satisfied”
Social Reformer:
criminal, judicial, penal
Social Reformer: equality
for women
Labelled an act utilitarian
Labelled a rule utilitarian
Problems of Act Utilitarianism
or
Benefits of Rule Utilitarianism
Consequences Are Difficult To Predict
Act Utilitarian
Rule Utilitarian
Has the benefit of
No guidelines to help the
individual when facing a receiving guidance from
past rules which have
moral decision other than
shown to produce the
the Felicific Calculus,
which many consider to be greatest happiness for
the greatest number.
too impractical.
May predict consequences
Unable to predict
accurately.
consequences accurately.
Consequences Are Difficult To Predict
Bounded and Perfect Rationality
• When explaining this weakness of act utilitarianism
in an examination it is helpful to refer to the terms
`bounded’ and `perfect’ rationality.
• Bounded rationality – is when someone is
unaware of the full facts – as Professor John
Rawles stated, they are acting under a `veil
of ignorance’. On the other hand Perfect rationality
refers to the situation where all the facts are known.
• Act utilitarianism suffers the draw-back of bounded
rationality more than rule utilitarianism as it has no
guidelines from which it may predict outcomes.
Act Utilitarianism is Self-Defeating
(Peter Singer)
Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the
example of promise keeping.
Promises are made on the understanding that
they will be kept, something the rule utilitarian
Peter Singer
recognises as promoting happiness.
However, whilst Act utilitarians (AU) may make a promise
in a particular situation there can be no guarantee that the
AU will always uphold promise keeping; and so one can
never take seriously a promise from an AU – as there is no
confidence they will keep their promise!
Act Utilitarianism Is, By Definition,
An Inconsistent Philosophy
Act utilitarians make decisions which promote the greatest
pleasure for the greatest number for a particular situation,
without following any principles, other than utility.
But if EVERYONE followed Act utilitarianism it would be
impossible to predict consequences. So by definition one
could not will that everyone follow AU – for if they did the
ethical theory would not work.
Rule utilitarians however recommend following rules, which
in the past have promoted happiness, and so their approach
to ethics can be universally applied and consequences
predicted; thus avoiding the inconsistency of Act
utilitarianism.
Act Utilitarianism Does Not Take Account
Of Professional Or Contractual Obligations
Society functions by people recognising their obligations
once they have signed a contract. For example a doctor has
an obligation to uphold a patient’s medical confidentiality.
An Act utilitarian doctor
(thinking it would produce
the greatest happiness)
might report her patient’s
condition (e.g. a teenage
pregnancy), to the girl’s
parents. (Even though the
doctor would be breaking
the trust and code of the
medical profession.)
Rule utilitarians however
recommend following the
professional code of patient
confidentiality as in the past
such a code has promoted the
greatest happiness; i.e.
teenagers are happy to go to
doctors for help and support
as opposed to dealing with the
situation on their own.
Act Utilitarianism Does Not Take Account
Of Family Relationships
Utilitarianism has been accused of undermining family
relationships as it adopts an impartial approach – the overall
happiness for the greatest number is all that matters.
Bentham’s Act
utilitarianism states
that “Everybody is to
count for one, and nobody
for more than one.” An
implication being that when
it is your mum’s birthday it
would be better to donate
money to Oxfam than to
buy her a present.
Rule utilitarians might
reply that whilst the
spirit of utilitarianism is to be
impartial, past experience
teaches that when preferential
treatment is offered to those
who are close (e.g family and
friends) then those societies
function well – producing the
greatest happiness.
Utilitarianism: Undermines Justice
Instrumental Approach
Utilitarians think that justice is only important if it serves
the principle of utility. Justice has no intrinsic value.
e.g
To Kill a Mocking Bird, Harper Lee
Tom, a black
farm-hand, is
made a scapegoat
and is unjustly
accused of having
raped a young,
white woman.
If the racist, white, jury adopted an
act-utilitarian approach it would be
justified in finding Tom guilty of a
crime he did not commit, on the
grounds that the predominantly
white townsfolk would have justice
“seen to be done” and so the
majority of people would be happy.
Utilitarianism: Undermines Justice
A Response: Rule Utilitarianism
To Kill a Mocking Bird, Harper Lee
Tom – an innocent man unjustly treated
A rule utilitarian might reply that it has been shown that
societies which uphold justice are those which make for
happy citizens.
The long term implication being that by upholding the rule
of justice people have confidence that they will not be
found guilty of crimes they have not committed…
….even if a guilty verdict meant that in the short-term the
majority of people were happy.
It is worth analysing Mill’s understanding of justice.
“Justice is a name given for certain moral requirements,
which, regarded collectively stand higher in the scale of
social utility, and are therefore of more paramount
obligation, than any others.” (Utilitarianism)
So in the true spirit of utilitarianism Mill concedes that
justice is not of intrinsic value, but is important due to
the instrumental (consequential) value it has for society
by upholding principles which make for the
greatest happiness of the greatest number.
J.S. Mill Recognised
Other Goods Besides Happiness
“Now it is palpable that they do desire things which,
in common language, are decidedly distinguished
from happiness.
They desire, for example, virtue, and the absence of
vice, no less than pleasure and the absence of pain.
The desire of virtue is not as universal, but it is as
authentic a fact, as the desire of happiness.”
(J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism)
“the ingredients of happiness are various, and
each of them is desirable in itself…besides being
means, they are part of the end.
Virtue, according to the utilitarian doctrine, is not
naturally and originally part of the end, but it is
capable of becoming so; and in those who love it
disinterestedly it has become so, and is desired and
cherished
not as a means to happiness, but as part of their
happiness.”
(J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism)
“The ingredients of
Happiness are various.”
Like baking a cake – there
are many different elements
which constitute
Happiness
Virtues
Integrity, Honesty, Courage,
Fortitude, Prudence
Does Mill show he is not a strict utilitarian or that
“The ingredients of Happiness are various” ?
Does Mill show he is not a strict utilitarian or that
“The ingredients of Happiness are various” ?
• J.S. Mill was a clear believer in
utilitarianism but, as has previously
been mentioned, following his nervous
breakdown Mill was greatly influenced
by the writings of Aristotle.
• In understanding `the ingredients of
happiness are various’, which include
the importance of virtue, are we seeing
Aristotle’s influence of Virtue ethics at
work?
Case Studies
Application of Utilitarianism
To Moral Issues
Should One Use The Eggs Of An Aborted
Foetus To Help Infertile Couples?
• The scientist Roger Gosden thinks it is
possible to use eggs obtained from an
aborted foetus to be used to help
infertile women who suffer from
genetic abnormalities, such as Tasachs.
• By the 11th week of foetal development
all the eggs that a woman will have
during her life-time are present.
• What might a utilitarian think?
Give reasons to support their views.
Professor
Roger Gosden
Using Eggs Of An Aborted Foetus…?
Some further points to consider…
Pope John Paul II
Roman Catholic Church
Roger Gosden
Scientific Researcher
• A gift from God, created imago
• Life begins at birth, not
dei, sacred from the moment of
conception.
conception.
• Relief to suffering of infertile
• Abortion is contrary to natural
women / couples.
law. Killing of innocent life.
• Overcomes shortage of egg
• Human beings are stewards of
donors.
the world - should not play God. • Benefit of scientific technology.
• Issue of permission / consent?
• Consequences of restrictive
• Unknown long-term physical
laws? If banned in the UK
and psychological affects on the
scientists will go to the Ukraine
child
with no regulatory bodies, such
• Science: challenging God given
as HFEA, to monitor research.
definition of `family’.
• Ability to predict consequences?
6
12
14
The Survival Lottery
22
(by Professor John Harris)
3
27
• Patients Y and Z will die unless they receive
organ transplants – in which case they will
live for a further 20 years.
• There is a lack of donor organs.
• Faced with the prospect of imminent death
patients Y and Z propose a `National Survival
Lottery’ – where each week a person’s
number would be pulled out at random,
he or she would be killed, and their organs
donated to help those in need of a
transplant; saving a greater number of lives.
Professor John Harris
• Explain a utilitarian response to the
suggestion of a National Survival Lottery.
6
12
The Survival Lottery
22 Some further points to consider… 3
14
27
• Is there a difference between killing and letting
die? (Patients Y and Z do not think so!)
• Is one’s individuality undermined?
• Would the ‘National Survival Lottery’
create
a climate of fear, or would people become
accustomed to the unlikely probability?
• What about those who have brought their illness
upon themselves, e.g through heavy smoking,
should they benefit equally?
• How would a sub-class of people be
protected from not being victimised?
• Can society take away the intrinsic right to life? Professor
John Harris
Where does its authority lie?
Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia?
• Public Opinion Polls in the UK show that the
majority of people would like to see voluntary
euthanasia legalised. e.g. 82% 2001.
• The UK is an increasingly secular society where
the Quality of Life is considered to be more
important than the sanctity of human life.
• 20% of patients in Intensive Care Units are being
treated with no likelihood of survival.
• Would a utilitarian agree with the legalisation of
voluntary euthanasia?
Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia?
Some further points to consider…
Hippocrates
Pius XII
Kevorkian
Williams
J.S. Mill
• Would voluntary euthanasia undermine the role
of the doctor? (cf. the Hippocratic oath, the
medical duty to preserve innocent human life.)
• Is the current law of `the principle of double
effect’ satisfactory in a secular society?
• Consequences of restrictive laws? Will people
pursue a policy of illegal euthanasia?
• Would legalising voluntary euthanasia pressurise
vulnerable members of society? (The Church of
England’s concern, On Dying Well 1993)
• Is voluntary euthanasia a private, or a public,
act? (How does it differ from suicide?)
Homosexual Bishops?
• In 2003 the Anglican Church did not ordain
Canon Jeffrey Johns Bishop of Reading
because he was homosexual; despite his
investiture being supported by the Bishop
of Oxford.
• Evangelical Christians claimed that
Rowan Williams
homosexuality is condemned by scriptureArchbishop of
whilst more liberal Christians claim this is Canterbury
not the case (The interpretation of scripture
being the contentious issue.)
• Would a utilitarian agree with the right of a
homosexual to become a Bishop?
Homosexual Bishops?
Some further points to consider…
• How would utilitarians view the authority of scripture?
• Should Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, refuse the ordination of
homosexual Bishops in order to avoid a schism
the World Wide Anglican Church? As is
Piuswithin
XII
being threatened by some influential African Bishops.
• Is there a lack of consistency? Many Christians claim
scripture condemns female ordination but the Church
of England has ordained women priests since 1992.
• How might J.S. Mill’s classic liberalism
influence the decision.
• Is homosexuality a private, or a public, act?
J.S. Mill
Socrates Says Links
Principle of Utility
The good is that which will
bring about the greatest
sum of pleasure, or the
least sum of pain, for the
greatest number
Greatest Happiness Principle
Actions are right in
proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong
as they tend to promote
unhappiness.
•These principles have been compared to Jesus’ Golden Rule,
“Love your neighbour as yourself” or “Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you.”
•Utilitarianism upholds the message of a benevolent God
showing interest for the well-being of human beings; but
utilitarianism avoids reference to the metaphysical God!
Both Bentham and Mill were concerned with producing the
greatest aggregate happiness (irrespective as to how that
happiness was distributed.)
Pleasure is not the same as happiness!
There are two main differences between pleasure and happiness
PLEASURE
Gratification
HAPPINESS
1
PLEASURE
Pursued as an end
in its own right
Satisfaction
HAPPINESS
2
An indirect
by-product of
another activity
Pleasure is not the same as happiness!
Hedonistic utilitarianism – “a pig philosophy fit only
for swine.” (J.S Mill)
A person may have a lot of gratifying, pleasurable
experiences but see life as pointless and superficial
and so be very unhappy.
e.g, A divorced, wealthy, young man may seek
pleasure from drugs, alcohol and an active sex life
with many partners, but lack the happiness of true
friendship and the love of his family.
Quantity or Quality?
Analysis/Evaluation/Analysis /Evaluation/Analysis /Evaluation
BENTHAM
QUANTITY
of pleasure.
All pleasures
are of equal
value.
“Push-pin [a
simple child's
game] is as
good as
poetry”
J.S. MILL: Higher and Lower Pleasures
H
I
G
H
E
R
L
O
W
E
R
INTELLECTUAL
For Mill
QUALITY of pleasure
intellectual
pleasures are
“…better to be a
dissatisfied human being intrinsically
than a pig satisfied; and more valuable
than physical
better to be a Socrates
pleasures.
dissatisfied than a fool Those who have
satisfied”
felt both kinds
will prefer
PHYSICAL / BESTIAL intellectual
pleasures.
J.S. MILL: Higher and Lower Pleasures
Analysis/Evaluation/Analysis /Evaluation/Analysis /Evaluation
H
I
Is Mill right? G
Or merely an H
intellectual E
R
snob?
Do you agree
with the
ranking of the
following
pleasures?
L
O
W
E
R
INTELLECTUAL
Studying Philosophy
Reading Shakespeare
Does Mill show
that he is not a
strict utilitarian?
By bringing in
quality of
Going out with your partner pleasures does
Mill not bring in
Playing pub darts
additional
factors other
Drinking 5 pints of beer
than pleasure?
PHYSICAL / BESTIAL
Listening to Mozart
Higher and Lower Pleasures
In 1996 a shocking trial was heard at the Old Bailey
A female Austrian tourist, in her mid-thirties, found
herself lost in the King’s Cross area of London late at
night. On seeing 6 young male teenagers she asked them
if they knew the way back to her hotel. The youths
agreed to take the tourist to her hotel. However, instead
of taking the tourist back to her hotel they led her on a
side-road, to a canal, where they repeatedly raped the
woman, before attempting to drown her in a canal.
Mill’s utilitarianism would assert the quantity of bestial
pleasure of the teenage boys does not outweigh the
quality of suffering endured by the Austrian tourist.
Nineteenth Century Social Reformers
Reform of Parliament
Penal Reform
Judicial System
Animal Rights
Cheap Postal System
Registration of Births and Deaths
As an M.P. Mill campaigned for
sexual equality; proposing
votes for women.
On Liberty (1859)
Freedom of the individual,
other than when it harms
anyone else.
“Your liberty to swing your arm
ends where my nose begins.”
(Mill)
Mill’s utilitarianism has been referred to as being
eudaimonistic (human well being) utilitarianism, as
opposed to Bentham’s hedonistic (pleasure) utilitarianism.
The rationale of Mill’s eudaimonistic utilitarianism is
found in the writings of Aristotle.
Aristotle distinguished between pleasure and happiness.
Life of Material
Pleasure
Life of contemplation
offering Happiness
Held by the many
Held by the few
For Mill the difference in happiness over pleasure is significant;
happiness having a higher qualitative edge over the quantity of lower,
bestial, pleasures.
J.S. Mill: Weak Rule Utilitarianism
Three Key Influences on Mill’s Philosophy
Aristotle and Wilhelm von
the Lake Poets
Humboldt
Classical
liberalism
Weak Rule Utilitarian
Click on any of the above boxes
for more information.
Influences on Mill: Aristotle and the Lake Poets
Following his nervous breakdown at the age of 20 Mill was heavily
influenced on his path to rehabilitation by the writings of:
Aristotle
The Lake Poets
Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley
Emphasis on a well rounded
Through an appreciation of natural
individual through:
beauty Mill came to realise that the
Phronesis
utilitarianism of his father, James Mill,
(practical wisdom)
working in accordance with and Jeremy Bentham was too restrictive
as their narrow and mechanical
Emotions put into practice
through a `Golden Mean’ conception of humanity missed the vital
importance of individuality, self
Appetite – leading to
cultivation and the inner life in the
Eudaimonia – individual
promotion of happiness.
human flourishing.
Influences on Mill: Wilhelm von Humboldt
Wilhelm von Humboldt
German philosopher and educationalist
Perceived that, “as the demands on each man’s nature are
so special and peculiar, so each man’s happiness has
features that are unique and which distinguish it
from any other man’s.”
(John Gray, Plato to Nato, p.152)
Mill adopted classical liberalism for social policy which
respected the rights and individuality of each person.
Influences on Mill: Classical liberalism
In On Liberty (1859), Mill defends individual freedom of
thought, association and life-style on the grounds that only
in a context of liberty in which competing `experiments of
living’ may be tried can each of us hope to seek and find
his own distinctive happiness.
On Liberty is directed against repressive laws which
inhibit voluntary association and are oppressive to the
expression of human spirit and individuality.
Classical liberalism: Mill’s criticisms of legal moralism
and state paternalism altered public opinion and have
informed legal reforms in the field of votes for women,
divorce, censorship and homosexuality.
Mill: Weak Rule Utilitarian
WEAK
RULE
Mill respected the sovereignty of
the individual over himself and
the importance of an individual’s
freedom to express themself, so
long as it was not detrimental to
society.
Equally, J.S. Mill argued that people
should come up with, and be guided
by, general principles which over
the passage of time have promoted
the greatest happiness.
Summary
Generally speaking people should follow rules which have stood the test
of time in promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
However, individuals should have the right to self expression and the
freedom to pursue their own creativity.
e.g. “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one
person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more
justified in silencing that one person, than if he had the power, would
he be justified in silencing mankind.” (Utilitarianism 229)