Component 3: Religion and Ethics

Theme 3: Teleological Ethics

Booklet 2 Utilitarianism
Knowledge and understanding of religion and belief
D Classical Utilitarianism - Jeremy Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism: happiness as the basis of
morality:
Bentham's theory of 'utility' or 'usefulness';
ultimate aim is to pursue pleasure and avoid pain;
principle of utility ('the greatest happiness for the greatest number').
The hedonic calculus as a means of measuring pleasure in each unique moral situation; by
considering seven factors: intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, purity and
extent.
Act Utilitarianism as a form of moral relativism, a consequentialist and teleological theory.

John Stuart Mill's development of Utilitarianism: types of pleasure, the harm principle and
the use of rules:
Mill's idea that not all pleasure is the same: ‘higher pleasures’ (intellectual) are superior to
‘lower pleasures’ (basic physical pleasure);
the ‘Harm Principle’: the actions of individuals should be limited to prevent harm to other
individuals;
not all actions need to be morally assessed as actions are morally right if they conform to a
historical rule that has demonstrated that it fulfils the principle of utility (now known as ‘Rule’
Utilitarianism).
Mill’s Utilitarianism as a teleological/deontological hybrid.

Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism and Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism - application of the theory:
The application of Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism and Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism to both of the
issues
listed below:
1. animal experimentation for medical research
2. the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent

AO2 Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as:
 The degree to which pleasure can be seen as the sole intrinsic good.

1
  The extent to which Act and/or Rule Utilitarianism works in contemporary society.
 The extent to which Rule Utilitarianism provides a better basis for making moral decisions than Act
Utilitarianism.
 Whether Utilitarianism promotes immoral behaviour.
 The extent to which Utilitarianism promotes justice.
 The extent to which Utilitarianism provides a practical basis for making moral decisions for both religious
believers and non-believers.
Key Words
Moral relativism
Teleological
Consequentialist
Deontological
Utility
Principle of utility
Hedonic Calculus
Higher pleasure
Lower pleasure
Harm principle
Deterrent
What is Utilitarianism?
You have probably heard someone justify their actions as being for the greater good. Utilitarianism is
the ethical theory behind such an idea.

Bentham’s Utilitarianism is a teleological and relativist theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics
look at the end purpose or goal of an action. Utilitarianism is also a consequentialist theory of ethics
that looks at the consequences - results of an action - to decide whether it is right or wrong. Relativist
ethical theories have no universal moral norms or rules and that each and every situation has to be
looked at independently because each situation is different.

Example
What are the implications of this? A police officer accidentally discovers a man in a house with
bomb making equipment. The man admits that a bomb has
 There can be no moral absolutes
been planted nearby and that it will explode in one hour. The
(absolutes are things that are always man refuses to tell the police officer where the bomb is. The
right or wrong whatever the police officer is on his own and could use force to make the man
circumstances). tell him where the bomb is. The police officer does not use
 Nothing would be intrinsically or force and goes ‘by the book’ even though he knows it will take
inherently right or wrong. over an hour for the police to arrive and start to question him.
1. Is this teleological or deontological?
 Actions would have only instrumental
value.
2
2. Do you think it is ever acceptable to authorise
someone to be tortured to save innocent lives?
 Motives are neither good nor bad but
morally neutral.

Jeremy Bentham

The theory began with Jeremy Bentham (a philosopher of the Enlightenment period) who wanted to
find a way of defining right or wrong. Whilst reading Priestley’s essay On Government Bentham came
across the expression ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’ and cried out, like Archimedes,
‘Eureka’
His theory was a response to the social changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, which
witnessed a mass migration of workers towards overpopulated towns, resulting in poverty, disease and
alcoholism - the conditions in which people lived and worked were appalling.
Bentham came from a family of lawyers working in the city of London, but became disgusted with the
law as then practiced since he felt that it was more about making money than helping those in need. He
was a practical man concerned with the social conditions and particularly with the conditions of prisons
and hospitals. He wanted to find a moral basis for law that could serve to benefit the whole of society.
Bentham believed the established church was not doing enough to create a more equal society and in
fact was actively supporting the status quo, as shown in this is an extract from the hymn ‘All things
bright and beautiful.

‘The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.’

The theory encouraged prison reform, anti-slavery laws and the introduction of a postal service. In
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) Bentham tried to establish a way of
arguing for something to be good or bad according to its benefit for the majority of the people. He
called this the principle of utility. Utility here means the usefulness of the results of actions. It is often
expressed as ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. ‘Good’ is defined in terms of pleasure or
happiness - so an act is right or wrong according to the good or bad results from the act and the good
act is the most pleasurable. Since it focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number, Bentham’s
theory is quantitative.

Jeremy Bentham was born in London on 15th February 1748. He could

read scholarly works at 3, played the violin at 5 and studies Latin and
French at 6. At aged 12 he went to Oxford and trained as a lawyer.
Bentham was the leader of the Philosophical Radicals who founded the
Westminster Review. He died in London on 6th June 1832. His body was
dissected and his clothed skeleton is in a glass case at University College,
3
London.
4
Jeremy Bentham’s Ethical Theory - Act Utilitarianism

Bentham developed his ethical system around the idea of pleasure and it is based on ancient hedonism
which pursued physical pleasure and avoided physical pain. According to Bentham the most moral acts
are those that maximise pleasure and minimise pain. An act would be moral if it brings the greatest
amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain.

Bentham said: ‘The principle of utility aims to promote happiness which is the supreme ethical value.
Nature has placed us under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. An act is right
if it delivers more pleasure than pain and wrong if it brings about more pain than pleasure’.
By adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act we should be able to choose the
good thing to do. Happiness = pleasure minus pain

The Hedonic Calculus

The pursuit of happiness is the fundamental purpose of human life. Bentham stressed the importance
of promoting whatever factors led to the increase of pleasure and in suppressing those which produced
pain In chapter 4 of his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Bentham
sketched his idea of the hedonistic calculus. As his theory implied, law should enforce actions and
dispose sentences whereby this maximizing of pleasure and minimizing of pain could be most effective.
In short, Bentham stated that pleasures and pains, which exist only in individuals, could be constructed
into a calculus of value Hedonic calculus considers seven factors which include: intensity, duration,
certainty, remoteness, richness, purity and extent.
1. The intensity of the pleasure or pain – this means . . .

2. The duration of the pleasure or pain – this means . . .

3. The certainty or uncertainty of the pleasure or pain – this means . . .

4. The remoteness of any pleasure or pain – this means . . .

5. The chances of the same effects being repeated. (Fecundity/Richness) – this means . . .

6. The chances of the same effects not being repeated. (Purity) – this means . . .

7. The number of people who will be affected by any pleasure or pain arising as a result of the action(s)
in question. (Extent)

5
Hedonic Calculus made happiness the basis of deciding whether an action should be considered right or
wrong. Bentham took the view that following this principle of seeking the happiness of the majority
would also benefit the individual who did so, and would itself lead to that individual’s
greatest happiness.

Bentham believed that everyone has an equal right to

happiness, regardless of his or her situation or status in
life he argued that everyone counted equally. Therefore
the pleasure derived by the flower seller from her
weekly bottle of gin was equal to the pleasure derived
by the upper class couple who attended the opera.

‘The quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry.’ Bentham

In the enlightenment age when science was gaining ground, Bentham offered a way of calculating the
happiness afforded by a course of action, and made that the basis of deciding whether that action
should be considered right or wrong.

Bentham’s Utilitarianism states that actions are judged as a means to an end. What is right is that which
is calculated to bring about the greatest balance of good over evil (good is defined as pleasure or
happiness). Bentham’s view is described as Act Utilitarianism.

Bentham argued that we should be guided by the principle of utility and not by rules. However, it may
be necessary to use rules of thumb based on past experience, especially if there is not time to work out
the consequences.

6
Original Text
Principles of Morals and Legislation Jeremy Bentham
Chapter 1: The Principle of Utility
1. Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.
They alone point out what we ought to do and determine what we shall do; the standard of right and
wrong, and the chain of causes and effects, are both fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we
do, all we say, all we think; every effort we can make to throw off our subjection ·to pain and pleasure·
will only serve to demonstrate and confirm it. A man may claim to reject their rule but in reality he will
remain subject to it. The principle of utility recognises this subjection, and makes it the basis of a system
that aims to have the edifice of happiness built by the hands of reason and of law. Systems that try to
question it deal in sounds instead of sense, in caprice instead of reason, in darkness instead of light.

But enough of metaphor and declamation! It is not by such means that moral science is to be improved.

2. The principle of utility is the foundation of the present work, so I should start by giving an explicit and
determinate account of what it is. By ‘the principle of utility’ is meant the principle that approves or
disapproves of every action according to the tendency it appears to have to increase or lessen—i.e. to
promote or oppose—the happiness of the person or group whose interest is in question. I say ‘of
every action’, not only of private individuals but also of governments.

3. By ‘utility’ is meant the property of something whereby it tends •to produce benefit, advantage,
pleasure, good, or happiness (all equivalent in the present case) or (this being the same thing) •to
prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered. If
that party is the community in general, then the happiness of the community; if it’s a particular
individual, then the happiness of that individual.

4. ‘The interest of the community’ is one of the most general expressions in the terminology of morals;
no wonder its meaning is often lost! When it has a meaning, it is this. The community is a fictitious body
composed of the individuals who are thought of as being as it were its members. Then what is the
interest of the community? It is the sum of the interests of the members who compose it.

5. It is pointless to talk of the interest of the community without understanding what the interest of the
individual is.

6–7. An action then may be said to conform to the principle of utility. . . . when its tendency to increase
the happiness of the community is greater than any tendency it has to lessen it. And the same holds
for measures of government, which are merely one kind of action performed by one or more particular
persons.

8. When someone thinks that an action (especially a measure of government) conforms to the principle
of utility, he may find it convenient for purposes of discourse to

•imagine a kind of law or dictate of utility and to

•speak of the action in question as conforming to such a law or dictate.

7
9. A man may be said to be a ‘partisan’ of the principle of utility when his approval or disapproval of any
action (or governmental measure) is fixed by and proportional to the tendency he thinks it has to
increase or to lessen the community’s happiness. . . .

10. Of an action that conforms to the principle of utility one may always say that

•it ought to be done, or at least that

•it is not something that ought not to be done.

One may say also that

•it is right that it should be done; it is a right action; or at least that

•it is not wrong that it should be done; it is not a wrong action.

4. Read the information and complete these tasks

a) What did Bentham believe were human’s sovereign masters?

b) Explain the principle of utility.

c) How does Bentham define utility and the community?

d) If an action conforms to the principle of utility it should . . .

8
Chapter 4: Measuring Pleasure and Pain

1. Pleasures and the avoidance of pains, then, are the legislator’s goals; so he ought to understand their
value. Pleasures and pains are the instruments he has to work with, so he needs to understand their
force, i.e. their value.

2. To a person (considered by himself) the value of a pleasure or pain (considered by itself) will be
greater or less according to:

(1) its intensity. (2) its duration. (3) its certainty or uncertainty. (4) its nearness or remoteness.

3. These are the circumstances that are to be considered when estimating a pleasure or a pain
considered by itself. But when the value of a pleasure or pain is considered for the purpose of
estimating the tendency of an act by which it is produced, two other circumstances must be taken in to
the account:

(5) its fecundity, i.e. its chance of being followed by sensations of the same kind (pleasure by pleasure,
pain by pain), and (6) its purity, i.e. its chance of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind
(pleasure by pain, pain by pleasure).

These last two, however, are not strictly properties of the pleasure or the pain itself, so they aren’t
strictly to be taken into the account of the value of that pleasure or pain. They are really only properties
of the act or other event by which such pleasure or pain has been produced; so they are only to be
taken into the account of the tendency of that act or event.

4. For many people the value of a pleasure or a pain will be greater or less according to seven
circumstances—the six preceding ones and one other, namely

(7) its extent, i.e. the number of persons to whom it extends or (in other words) who are affected by it.

5. Thus, to take an exact account of an act’s general tendency to affect the interests of a community,
proceed as follows. Of those whose interests seem to be most immediately affected by the act, take
one, and take an account,

(1) of the value of each pleasure that appears to be produced by it in the first instance;

(2) of the value of each pain that appears to be produced by it in the first instance;

(3) of the value of each pleasure that appears to be produced by it after the first, this being the
fecundity of the first pleasure and the impurity of the first pain;

(4) of the value of each pain that appears to be produced by it after the first, this being the fecundity of
the first pain and the impurity of the first pleasure. Then

(5) Sum up the values of all the pleasures on one side and of all the pains on the other. If the balance is
on the side of pleasure, that is the over-all good tendency of the act with respect to the interests of that
person; if on the side of pain, its over-all bad tendency. (6) Repeat the above process with respect to
each person whose interests appear to be concerned; and then sum the results. If this balance is on the

9
side of pleasure, that is the over-all good tendency of the act with respect to the interests of the
community; if on the side of pain, its over-all bad tendency.

6. It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued before every moral judgment or
every legislative or judicial operation. But it can be always kept in view; and the nearer the process
actually pursued on these occasions come to it, the nearer they will come to exactness.

7. This process is applicable to pleasure and pain in whatever form they appear, and by whatever name
they are labelled: to pleasure, whether it be called ‘good’ (that is properly the cause or instrument of
pleasure) or profit (that is distant pleasure, or the cause or instrument of distant pleasure) or
‘convenience’ or ‘advantage’, ‘benefit’, ‘emolument’, ‘happiness’, and so forth; to pain, whether it is
called ‘evil’ (that corresponds to ‘good’) or ‘mischief’ or ‘inconvenience’ or ‘disadvantage’ or ‘loss’ or
‘unhappiness’, and so forth.

8. This is not a novel and unjustified theory, any more than it is a useless one. What it presents is
nothing but what perfectly fits the practice of mankind whenever they have a clear view of their own
interest. What makes (for instance) an article of property, an estate in land, valuable? The pleasures of
all kinds that it enables a man to produce, and (the same thing) the pains of all kinds that it enables him
to avert. But everyone takes the value of such an article of property to rise or fall according to •how
long a man has it, •how certain it is that he will get it, and •how long it will be before he gets it if indeed
he does. The intensity of the pleasures he may derive from it is never thought of, because that depends
on how he in particular chooses to use it, which can’t be estimated till the particular pleasures he may
derive from it or the particular pains he may exclude by means of it are brought to view. For the same
reason, he doesn’t think, either, of the fecundity or purity of those pleasures. So much for pleasure and
pain, happiness and unhappiness, in general.

5. Read the information and complete these tasks

a) What are the circumstances that are to be considered when estimating a pleasure or a pain
considered by itself?

b) What other two other circumstances must be taken in to the account?

c) What does Bentham mean by the extent?

d) Briefly summarise the moral decision making process as described by Bentham.

e) Explain what Bentham means by pleasure and pain

10
Act Utilitarianism: a form of It is a consequentialist theory because . . .
Utilitarianism associated with
Bentham that treats each moral
situation as unique and applies the
hedonic calculus to each ‘act’ to see if
it fulfils the ‘principle of utility’. Any
action is right if it produces the
‘greatest happiness for the greatest
number’

6. Act Utilitarianism
Complete each box

Although Bentham is said to be an act It is a relativist theory because . . .

utilitarian, he did not claim that it was
necessary to calculate the rightness and
wrongness of every act from the hedonic
calculus, just that this was generally the
case.

11
7. An example of the application of the hedonic calculus 1

8. Write it up as a paragraph to use in your essays.

‘Suppose you are a doctor driving to one of your patients, a young mother about to give birth. However,
she is in great pain and difficulty and it looks as though she will need a Caesarean section. It is late at
night and you come across a car accident down a country road. Two cars are involved and both drivers
are injured and unconscious. You discover through trying to establish identities that one of them is the
young pregnant woman’s husband. The other is an elderly man. You don’t quite know the extent of the
internal injuries are of the opinion that without immediate medical help one of them if not both may
die. You are faced now with the moral dilemma of who to help first:

 The young mother about to give birth?

 The young woman’s husband?
 The elderly gentleman?’ Extract from Vardy and Grosch The Puzzle of Ethics

Hedonic Young mother Young woman’s husband Elderly gentleman

Calculus
Criteria

12
 Act Utilitarianism – summary and evaluation

You look at an action to determine what is moral, and from this general rules can be derived. E.g. when
faced with a road traffic accident a paramedic will treat a pregnant woman first. This is because in any
given situation, the pregnant woman and her unborn child have a greater potential for future happiness
than any individual involved in the crash. By deciding how to act in a specific case, the general rule
‘Always treat a pregnant woman first’ can be derived. This rule is only a guideline, and should be
discarded if doing so will bring about more happiness (e.g. if a brain surgeon is in need of treatment).

A big criticism of Act Utilitarianism is that it is impossible to make the sorts of calculations it requires,
although Bentham talked of a 'rule of thumb' which meant that you could repeat a previous decision
under similar circumstances. Another is that people need rules - if you allow people to lie, steal etc. this
could become too great a temptation e.g. to lie to avoid looking bad rather than because it genuinely
brought better consequences.

On the plus side, it has most integrity, as it allows you to stick with the greatest happiness principle
unswervingly – simply do whatever brings the most happiness in any given situation.

9. Why might the fact that we aren’t always able to predict the future be a problem for
utilitarianism? Give an example.

10. Suggest examples of pains that are good and pleasures that are bad. How do these cause
difficulties for utilitarianism?

11. Are affection and honesty good in themselves, or only because they have good results?

Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism

 It is difficult to predict consequences

 There is potential to justify any act
 There is difficulty in defining pleasure
 There is no defence for the minorities
 It is impractical to say that we should calculate the morality of each choice
13
 12. Write 3 paragraphs to explain the problems with Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism. Use 67-
68 of V and G and the Walker article.

1Quantitative__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

2.Predictive value
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

3. What counts as pleasure

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

14
 John Stuart Mill: Rule Utilitarianism

Mill was also a hedonist and accepted that happiness is of great importance. He stressed happiness
rather than pleasure. Mill argued that not all forms of happiness or pleasure were of equal value. He
argued that Bentham’s approach did not recognise higher human values, he saw the advantages of a
utilitarian system, but advocated the quality of happiness as more important: ‘If he (Bentham) thought
at all about the higher values of human nature, it was but as idiosyncrasies of taste.’ In Mill’s view the
flower seller should be educated to enjoy the opera rather than her bottle of gin (remember the
example!).
Mill argued that human beings should seek to fulfil their highest potential and not stoop to the level of
non-human animals: ‘Better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied; better a man dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied.’

According to Mill, quality of pleasure employs the use of the higher faculties. For Mill, it is intellectual
pleasures (e.g. reading, poetry or listening to music) that really count and are more important than such
pleasures as eating, drinking or having sex.

13. Explain, with examples what Mill means by Higher and Lower pleasures.

Higher pleasures
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

Lower pleasures
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

14. How might it be possible to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? Competent judges

_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

15
16
Happiness, he argues, is something that people desire for its own sake, but we need to look at human
life as whole- happiness is not just adding up the units of pleasure but rather the fulfilment of higher
ideals. Therefore his theory is qualitative.

Mill believed that there are principles that work as a general means for securing the greater good. A
popular example is that of lying. While there may be good reasons for lying in specific circumstances, as
an overall principle lying cannot be supported because it cannot support the greatest good for the
greatest number. For example ‘it is wrong to lie’ Mill noted that there is some benefit to this maxim-
without it people would find it hard to trust each other. He therefore proposed a rule that contributes
to the greater happiness. Breaking the rule might contribute to an individual’s short-term happiness, but
is detrimental to long-term happiness for all concerned. Mill wanted to show what was right or wrong
for one person in a situation is right and wrong for all. He argued that:

1. Happiness is desirable since we all desire it

2. Happiness is the only thing desirable as an end, since things are only desirable because they
bring about happiness.
3. Therefore, everyone ought to aim at the happiness of everyone, as increasing the general
happiness will increase my happiness.

This argument support the idea that people should put the interests of the group before their own
interests. Bentham’s principle of utility had focused much more on individual situations and had not
concept of protecting the common good universally. However, it sis always the identification of the
greatest happiness in terms of quality that drives this decision. In essence, as society is made up of
individuals, for society to be happy, individuals need to be happy also. It is therefore the ‘duty’ or ‘rule’
for society that it should protect the happiness of its subjects.
In summary Mill’s revision of utilitarianism allows for the formulation of rules based on utilitarian
principles. These rules promote the happiness of the greatest number, and can be used in making
ethical decisions. It is therefore called rule utilitarianism.

Mill also positively developed Bentham’s approach by the introduction of the harm principle, which
states that the majority may not interfere with the minority unless it is to prevent harm to others. This
principle could allow for a whole society to be provided with happiness rather than a large number
benefiting from a small number of citizens.

15. Why is the ‘harm principle’ so important for Rule Utilitarianism?

_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________

17
Development of Rule Utilitarianism

Mill thought previous experiences did help us make decisions. Humans have already developed some
general principles that are universal in nature, and if applied to any situation, they would lead to the
greatest happiness for the greatest number. From these, certain actions will be ruled out as
unacceptable. The principle of utility is therefore applied to a rule, so the rule will hold if in general
following it leads to greater happiness. This means that in an individual case, even though an injustice
might bring about greater happiness, if it goes against the general principle that injustice tends to lead
to misery and a reduction in happiness, it is deemed wrong. In Rule Utilitarianism, moral actions are
those which conform to the rules that lead to the greatest good. For example, we do not need to use
the hedonic calculus to work out that giving money to the poor is right because it is a well-worked rule
of Utilitarianism.

Bentham is generally seen as an Act Utilitarian, as the Greatest Happiness Principle seems to demand.
As we saw, he is open to the criticism that Utilitarianism goes against justice and human rights, as it
allows abuses of rights if they bring enough happiness. Mill may be seen as a Rule Utilitarian, as he
clearly thinks certain rules have a Utilitarian justification. In his book 'Utilitarianism', Mill defends the
idea of rights:

"To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the
possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought? I can give him no other reason than general
utility."

Ultimately, Mill would break a rule if breaking it leads to the greatest happiness. Elsewhere in the book,
Mill says:

"...to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or
medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner."

Mill has been described as a 'soft'or weak Rule Utilitarian; 'Hard' or strong Rule Utilitarians would
disagree with breaking a rule even if doing so led to the greater good. Many criticise 'soft' Rule
Utilitarians, saying that this is effectively the same as Act Utilitarianism.

Mill strongly believed that the individual is sovereign over himself, which is an unusual principle for a
Utilitarian! This means that, for example, we should allow people to smoke in private (banning smoking
is an attack on the individual's sovereignty) even though smoking leads to terrible illness etc. Mill's belief
in individual sovereignty could be justified by a Rule Utilitarian (can you explain how?)

Mill’s theory is often seen as a deontological and teleological hybrid; that is, it is a mixture of the
application of rules that have been established through the experience of applying Utilitarianism, but
also at times through the consideration of the end goal of his specific form of Utilitarianism without
reference to past experience.

18
Strong and Weak Rule Utilitarianism

The strong form of the theory maintains that rules established through the application of utilitarian
principles should never be broken.

The weak version tries to allow for the possibility that those same utilitarian principles can take
precedence in a particular situation over a general rule. However, the rule would still form part of the
decision-making process.

Weak rule utilitarianism accepts the need to be flexible over the implementation of the rule of utility.
The rule would still need to be taken into account.

15. Write definitions and examples of strong and weak rule utilitarianism.

Strong________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

Weak________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

19
 Utilitarianism Essay

Some Ideas

Explain Bentham’s hedonic calculus as a means of measuring pleasure. [20]

 Introduction – What is Utilitarianism? (Give brief overview – Relative, Teleological and secular approach),
based on the Principle of Utility – the avoidance of pain and the promotion of pleasure/happiness. Its aim
is that the moral agent decides what is the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ in their situation.
Refer to Bentham and Mill as the key early proponents of this theory.
 Describe Bentham’s theory: pleasure based.
 Hedonic Calculus – go through it and give examples of how it might work – or you might want to choose
and ethical issue and go through each element of the calculus applying the condition to the issue.
 Talk about the fact that the Hedonic Calculus allows us to make a quantitative decision about the greatest
good for the greatest number.
 You may also with to refer to the fact that Bentham’s approach is called Act Utilitarianism and as such the
hedonic calculus helps make decisions in every situation because there are not any rules to follow.

‘Rule utilitarianism works better as an ethic than Act Utilitarianism.’ Evaluate this view. [30]

Rule Utilitarianism Works better Act Utilitarianism works better

1. It provides rules which people can This is a better approach because it encourages
follow, therefore giving definitive moral autonomy. People are encouraged to
guidance. This is surely what ethics think for themselves and to make decisions for
should be about. themselves. This also ensures that they are
completely morally responsible for their
actions.
2. It works better because it promotes It can be argued that this approach is much
equality. Everyone is following the more compassionate and flexible. Instead of
same general principles and therefore being bound by rules, the moral agent is able to
this avoids situations being dealt with make decisions that take into account the
unfairly. preferences and needs of others.
3. Rule Utilitarianism works better You can also argue that Act Utilitarianism is
because if we don’t have rules then better than its counterpart as it can never be
people are left to decide for themselves outdated and can be applied to new dilemmas.
how to act. This is a problem as people Followers of rule utilitarianism – in particular
might make mistakes or may make strong rule, may feel that they are stuck in a rut
selfish decisions of always following the same rules which may
be in need of modification.

20
3 F Application of Situation Ethics to animal experimentation for medical research and the use of
nuclear weapons as a form of deterrent.

The Greatest Good Bentham and The Mill and the Overall Do
for the Greatest Hedonic Calculus Higher/Lower you
number pleasures and the agree?
don’t harm
principle
Within Bentham would not It is highly likely that Utilitarianism
Animal Utilitarianism there approve of any action animal is a secular
Experi is the key principle that would cause pain experimentation theory which
mentation that the good thing and suffering, would be would not
is that which brings especially if that pain considered a higher consider the
the greatest and suffering were pleasure as it is in sanctity of life
happiness for the more than any the form of scientific from a
greatest number. pleasure provided to research. religious
the majority. perspective.
Jeremy Bentham Mill would be However,
famously said that He would be concerned with many modern
‘rights are concerned about whether the act of utilitarians,
nonsense on stilts’ certainty – how experimenting on including
and one might certain are we that animals should be Peter Singer
assume that the animal testing will considered to would argue
same is true of bring about a cure for promote the that humans
animals- except humans. greatest happiness need to be
that he for the majority. wary of being
commented “but a He would be speciesist.
full-grown horse or concerned about the Mill’s “Don’t harm
dog is beyond duration of the pain principle” is a social This theory is
comparison a more and suffering caused contract between relative and
rational, as well as to an animal. consenting adults teleological
a more and would not apply and would be
conversable He would be most to animals. driven by the
animal, than an concerned about consequences,
infant of one day whether the pain for and if the pain
or a week, or even the animal is and suffering
a month old. But outweighed by the of a hundred
suppose they were curing of many animals led to
otherwise, what humans through the salvation
would it avail? The experimentation. of thousands
question is not, can of humans it
they reason? Nor would be
can they talk? But morally
can they suffer?” acceptable.

Bentham means
that everyone has
a right to pleasure
and a right to avoid
suffering. This
applies to
everything in
creation.
21
 Nuclear The question here Bentham would not Mill would Utilitarianism
Weapons is – do nuclear approve of any action undoubtedly be is a secular
as a form of weapons as a form that would cause pain concerned that theory which
Deterrent of nuclear and suffering, nuclear weapons as would not
deterrent work and especially if that pain a deterrent can be consider the
successfully create and suffering were argued to bring sanctity of life
the greatest good more than any happiness to the from a
for the greatest pleasure provided to greatest number – if religious
number? the majority. Nuclear they mean that we perspective.
War would mean the always avoid war as
Overall, this is hard annihilation of a result of having However,
to discern as many thousands of people, them. many modern
countries do have for generations and as utilitarians,
nuclear weapons such the pain and However, he would would argue
and so it is hard to suffering may be seriously question that nuclear
judge how secure a considered to be too the use of having weapons pose
country would be high. such weapons as such a great
without them. He would be they bring about threat to
concerned about immense pain and society and to
A Utilitarian certainty – how suffering for a large the majority
undoubtedly will certain are we that group of people and of people that
have issues with nuclear weapons are as such cannot be they are
weapons of Mass the most efficient considered to be unnecessary.
Destruction deterrent? How morally good.
because by their certain are we that His theory is also a This theory is
very nature they they will bring about form of weak rule relative and
threaten such huge pleasure and avoid utilitarianism and it teleological
numbers of people. pain? could be easily said and would be
He would be that the avoidance driven by the
concerned about the of war could be a consequences,
duration of the pain weak rule leading to and if the pain
and suffering caused happiness. and suffering
to creation if nuclear Mill’s “Don’t harm of hundreds of
weapons were used principle” is a social people yet led
as more than just a contract between to the
deterrent. consenting adults salvation of
and would certainly thousands of
apply to us not using humans it
nuclear weapons. It would be
seems logical to morally
suggest that Mill acceptable to
would consider keep weapons
multi-lateral of mass
disarmament to be destruction as
a better prospect. a form of
deterrent.

Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence with reference to Utilitarianism

22
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/766

It is first important to understand the concept of nuclear deterrence and why it is a pressing ethical
issue. Deterrence is a psychological phenomenon. It involves convincing an aggressor not to attack by
threatening it with harmful retaliation. A psychological dimension is involved because the success of
deterrence is not due solely to the retaliators capability, but to how persuasive the message of the
threat is. In other words, in order for deterrence to work, the opponent must perceive the retaliatory
threat as legitimate and serious (Morgan, 1985, p. 125).

John Stuart Mills' idea of utilitarianism provides an interesting framework from which this issue can be
approached. Utilitarianism claims that, "the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of
pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number. "Therefore, the fundamental basis
of this principle is that agents, in this case military strategists, should strive to produce the greatest
amount of long-term satisfaction or pleasure for people as possible.

One key component of this principle that is highly relevant to nuclear deterrence is uncertainty. When
consequences of actions are not known for certain, one should choose whichever action has the
greatest expected utility. This is known as the Expected Utility Principle (Oyshile, 2008, p.65).

The problem with this is that it is nearly impossible to calculate a quantitative outcome by comparing
deterrence with disarmament. This is because it is hard to calculate the probability of what action the
opponent is going to choose. If the opponent is convinced by the threat of retaliation, than nuclear
deterrence is successful and maximum utility is achieved. But what if the aggressor is not persuaded by
the principle and chooses to attack anyway? Here a problem arises. Is it better to retaliate as
forewarned to save the most lives, or continue to be attacked and avoid an immoral act?

When attempting to apply this to nuclear warfare, it initially seemed impossible. Remember, the two
options being compared are nuclear deterrence and unilateral disarmament. It seems here that the
worst outcomes for both options are the extinction of all humans on earth. For example, in both cases
the rival country could continue to attack or other nations that possess nuclear weapons could get
involved. In its most extreme form it is plausible that severe nuclear warfare could end the world.
Though, it should be noted that the probability of this occurring in the case of disarmament is extremely
low.

Though both concepts discussed aim to base ethical decision-making on the best or greatest outcome,
neither discusses the inherent goodness of nuclear deterrence itself. Here it is useful to incorporate yet
another branch of philosophy: deontology. Deontology focuses on the rightness or wrongness of the
action, not on the rightness or wrongness of the consequences (Johnson, 1998, p. 15). From this
framework, one could argue that it is intrinsically wrong to put other human beings, especially innocent
human beings, at risk. Therefore, since the strategy of nuclear deterrence puts innocent lives in both the
opponent and retaliatory countries at risk, then it too is intrinsically wrong.

Though these arguments against nuclear deterrence make sense within each framework, one must also
view the issue from a worldly and militaristic standpoint. As stated in the clip from the Carnegie Council
titled, "Are Nuclear Weapons Useful?" nuclear technology cannot be "disinvented." Even if a country
possesses nuclear weapons, but is against using them, there is nothing preventing aggressor nations
with the same technological capabilities from using them. If it became a reality that the United States
was victim of a nuclear attack, would leaders refuse to retaliate or stand up for the country (through
deterrence), just to sustain moral beliefs? Although in theory nuclear deterrence may be immoral, in its
real world application it might be unavoidable in extreme circumstances.
23
Another option—perhaps with more real-world applicability—is bilateral disarmament, or agreement
from both nations to retreat. On the brink of nuclear war, if bilateral disarmament were achieved, then
nuclear deterrence and unilateral disarmament could be avoided, and it could be the responsibility of a
neutral third party such as the United Nations to intervene if a situation like this were to actually occur.
This would help to lessen any deceptive strategies on both sides.

Nuclear deterrence in itself can be viewed as an immoral act on the grounds that it is putting the lives of
innocent civilians at stake. Further, disarmament can be seen as the moral alternative to deterrence
because the worst possible outcome is less catastrophic than if deterrence proved unsuccessful and the
retaliating country is forced to attack.

Though these conclusions all make sense theoretically, I personally question how applicable they are in
real-world circumstances. And though that doesn’t mean that it has to be used, it does mean that other
countries with less than altruistic motives are able to access it.

Though bilateral disarmament is probably the best solution, what if a nuclear threat arises against the
United States where the opposing country refuses to disarm? Are military personnel expected to disarm
knowing that the other country won't? Or, are they expected to deter: a risk that if successful has the
potential to save millions of lives? Decisions regarding nuclear weapons have enormous effects on the
well-being of all humans. A wrong decision could lead to extinction. By continuing to view this issue
from various perspectives and educating world leaders, the human race can hopefully come a bit closer
to finding an answer for this difficult ethical issue.

24
 Theme 3: Teleological Ethics
Evaluating Utilitarianism A)2

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the
content above, such as:
 The degree to which pleasure can be seen as the sole intrinsic good.
 The extent to which Act and/or Rule Utilitarianism works in contemporary
society.
 The extent to which Rule Utilitarianism provides a better basis for making
moral decisions than Act Utilitarianism.
 Whether Utilitarianism promotes immoral behaviour.
 The extent to which Utilitarianism promotes justice.
 The extent to which Utilitarianism provides a practical basis for making
moral decisions for both religious believers and non-believers.
Strengths Type of theory Weaknesses

25
AO2 Prep - An attempt to show the problems of utilitarianism

8. An example of the application of the hedonic calculus 2

‘Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are a
row of several Indians (native Americans), mostly terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed
men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and,
after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a
botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent
acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protestors of
the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the
captain is happy to offer him a guest’s privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then
as a mark of the special occasion, the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is
no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all.
Jim, with some recollection of school boy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of the gun, he could
hold the Captain and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from the set-up that nothing
of that kind is going to work: any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed
and himself. The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are
obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?’ Bernard Williams Utilitarianism: For and against
1973

Hedonic Accept Don’t accept

Calculus
Criteria

26
Summary of arguments

Strengths

1. It supports the view that human well-being is intrinsically good and actions should be judged
according to their effect on this well-being
2. Supports the teaching of Jesus: ‘Do to others as you would have them do to you’ Matt 7:12
3. A person’s motives may be good or bad, but only consequences have any real effect
4. Act Utilitarianism is pragmatic
5. The principle encourages democracy. The interests of the majority are paramount.
6. The theory treats everyone the same, no one gets special treatment due to their emotional or
social attachments
7. Circumstances can be judged without reference to previous ones
8. It is an approach that does not rely on controversial or unverifiable religious principles
9. It appears to be simple to follow ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number
Weaknesses

1. The theory requires people to predict the long term consequences of an action. However, there
is not guarantee that circumstances will turn out exactly as predicted.
2. Not every action done out of good will is going to result in good consequences
3. The concept of happiness changes from person to person
4. It does not allow for someone doing what they what they believe to be morally right whatever
the consequences
5. The theory cannot be used to decide what is universally good
6. The majority is not always right
7. The theory is too simplistic and can lead to injustice
8. The rights of the individual or group can be ignored if it is not in the interests of the majority –
even if their claim is fair and just
9. It makes no allowances for personal relationships – we have duties and obligations towards
others ‘In practice, none of us is willing to treat all people as equals, for it would require that we
abandon our special relationships with friends and family.’ Rachels
10. People may not be motivated by pleasure and happiness. They may be willing to endure pain,
humiliation or self-sacrifice for a cause they believe to be right
11. The Hedonic Calculus is impractical – it cannot cope with emergency situations

27
Read the sample answers and complete the essays below.

Add scholars

Add examples

Add a conclusion

28
29
 1. The degree to which pleasure can be seen as the sole intrinsic good.

Pleasure is the sole good Pleasure is not the sole good Evaluation

Pleasure is important to many Pleasure is subjective

people and can be measured

HC

Not selfish –for community Minority can suffer

Life is to be enjoyed – pleasure is Some pain is necessary

good for mental health

Compatible with Christianity Love and a relationship with God is

more important

Concept of higher and lower Not everyone would agree which

pleasure – link to Aristotle and the pleasures are more important
noble pursuit of Eudaimonia

Conclusion

30
31
 2. The extent to which Act and/or Rule Utilitarianism works in contemporary society.
They work in contemporary society They do not work in contemporary Evaluation
society
Pragmatic and realistic Lack of absolutes

Encourages democracy Minority could suffer

Flexible Happiness is subjective

Consequences Can’t predict consequences

Advantages of HC Disadvantages of HC

Doesn’t value good motives

Higher and Lower pleasures Competent Judges

32
33
 3. The extent to which Rule Utilitarianism provides a better basis for making moral decisions than
Act Utilitarianism.

Problems with Act Utilitarianism

Strengths of Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism

Problems with Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism

Concluson

34
35
 4. Whether Utilitarianism promotes immoral behaviour.

Agree – it promotes immoral Disagree – it does not promote Evaluation

behaviour/injustice immoral behaviour/ injustice

Rejects moral absolutes that are Flexible and situational (Act)

essential for morality e.g. Christian
teachings

Happiness is subjective therefore . . . HC – takes into account everyone’s

happiness -

Minority suffering e.g. Fair and democratic

Outcome not guaranteed Consequentialist – considers impact

Problems with Rule Utilitarianism Strengths of Rule Utilitarianism

Conclusion

36
37
 5. The extent to which Utilitarianism promotes justice.

Promotes justice

Does not promote justice

Conclusion

38
To what extent is Utilitarianism compatible with the traditional teaching of Christianity?

In order to see how compatible Utilitarianism is with the traditional ethical teachings of Christianity it is
important to firstly outline the main aspects of the theory. In summary, Utilitarianism is:

 Based on utility or usefulness

 Centred on ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’
 Happiness and pain can be measured by the hedonic calculus
 The consequences of the action are the most important thing.

Now we can compare the principles of Utilitarianism with the ethical teaching of Christianity.

Summary

 Utilitarianism is close to the Golden Rule teaching of Jesus to do others what you would want
them to do to you

 happiness is an important biblical ethic

 Utilitarianism has been the basis for much social reform

X However, the pursuit of happiness above all else is incompatible with Christian teaching on love
and duty

X Some Christians believe in the absolute nature of biblical ethical teaching

X Some Christians believe that motives behind actions are more important than consequences

Utilitarianism is only partially compatible because of its emphasis on the highest good. However,
Christians believe in the absolute commandments of God and would not support the great emphasis on
consequences within Utilitarianism.

39
Some more explanations Extract from Joe Jenkins Ethics and Religion 1999

1. Mill believed that his Utilitarian ethic had caught the very spirit of the Golden Rule (to treat
others as you could want them to treat us). However, Christian love knows no limit and is
prepared to go not one mile but two. To love one’s neighbour as if he or she were oneself, to put
oneself in his or her place, is certainly not to treat him or her as one of many. Utilitarians define
‘justice’ as treating ‘similar cases similarly’ whereas Christian ethics means ‘treating similar cases
dissimilarly’, regarding the good of any individual as more than their own.

2. Christian ethics differs from utilitarianism in the importance each gives to the problem ‘Whose
good’? While Utilitarians answer this question with ‘What is the good?, Christian ethics answers
it with ‘Whose?’. For Utilitarians love is subordinate to justice, whereas for Christians love is
primary.

3. A fundamental difference between Utilitarianism and Christian ethics can be seen in the events
around the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas, as recorded in John’s Gospel (Chapter 18). Jesus and
Caiaphas act from totally different ethical principles, even though they might have spoken the
same words: ‘It is expedient that one man should die for the people’ (John 18:14). But Caiaphas
applied this principle to the other person, whereas Jesus applied it to himself. Caiaphas was
concerned to maintain an existing social order, whereas Jesus was concerned to bring
reconciliation and community where before there had been none.

4. While Utilitarianism aims to preserve and create an ordered and just social order, this is not
always sufficient for bringing in an isolated and hostile individual into the community. Christians
believe that only love can penetrate the barriers that often exist between people. It is
relationship that is ultimately important, and only by loving another for their own sake can true
community come into being.

40
41
Complete the table below – use and the information on the previous pages

6. The extent to which Utilitarianism provides a practical basis for making moral decisions for both
religious believers and non-believers.
It provides a practical basis for religious It does not provide a practical basis for religious
believers believers

Jesus’ death can be seen as an example of the Caiaphas is utilitarian – Jesus is more loving
principle of utility

Both value happiness God is the ultimate source of moral obligation –

not happiness

Mill – Golden Rule Christianity would not accept the suffering of the
minority

Strong Rule Utilitarians – absolutist and Christians absolutists as they believe they are
deontological following divine laws

Act Utilitarians might agree with Christians on Some Christians believe some things are
some moral issues e.g. divorce intrinsically wrong – regardless of the
consequences
Similarities with Situation Ethics

42