Revision Notes

Utilitarianism

General Long history - Epicurus, Caiaphas,

Hume, Adam Smith Characterised by Pojman as teleological

aspect and utility aspect e.g. of punishment

Bentham’s Utilitarianism Pleasure and pain 'sovereign masters'

Pleasure the only intrinsic good Right actions increase total pleasure

Principles Greatest Happiness Principle or

Principle of Utility Teleological/consequentialist

Application Empirical (Hume) and response to

rationalists (Descartes) Hedonistic Calculus: Extent, certainty,

duration, nearness, fruitfulness, purity, intensity

Applies to Individuals and groups

Strengths Simple, commonsensical, scientific, impartial

Weaknesses Justice, consequences, comparable pleasures, 'pig philosophy'

Mill’s Utilitarianism We seek happiness So we seek the happiness of others

So happiness is something we ought to seek for ourselves and others

Quality not quantity Competent judges Experience of both 'better to be Socrates dissatisfied'

Acts as one of group of acts tendencies known 'some consequences accidental; others

are its natural result'

Justice everyone counts as one all equal worth

Strengths distributive justice, consequences, Socrates satisfied

Weaknesses punitive justice, other intrinsic goods, complexity

Philosophical problems Naturalistic fallacy (GEMoore); Jump from egoism to altruism (Mackie)

but rational benevolence (Sidgwick) and education (Warnock/Mill)

Act GHP applied to acts “An act is right and only if it results in as

much good as any available alternative”

From acts general rules deduced Bentham and Mill?

Response But special responsibilities (Brandt)

Rule GHP applied to rules “An act is right if and only if it is required by a

rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative”

From rules acts deduced as wrong Brandt, Smart, Nielsen Mill and 'tendencies'

Preference Individuals decide what is pain/pleasure

for them Preferences unless outweighed by

others e.g. Peter Singer and abortion.

General Strengths Simplicity but Mill/Hedonic Calculus Social change and Bentham Purpose of morality

(Aristotle/Epicurus/Pojman)

General Weaknesses Incommensurate values (number/happiness) but

internal debate Immeasurable consequences but Mill and CILewis

(actual/expected/intended consequences) No rest; no personal integrity; not for all as difficult

to follow (Pojman) Justice but Mill (punitive/distributive) Intuition and intrinsic/instrumental values and

absurd implications (WDRoss) Ends and Means (Kant)

General responses Split level utilitarianism (general/lower:

rule, rare but difficult/higher: act)

Overall response Kant and categorical imperative So right on purpose of morality wrong

on need for rules and justice Frankena and principles of beneficence

and justice Or Ross, objectivism and actual vs..

prima facie duties