Page 1 of 6

Utilitarianism
(Rachels, Ch. 7 & 8) I. Jeremy Benthams Utilitarianism (Supplementary material) A. Benthams influence on Mill can be traced directly through Mills father, James Mill, himself a noted philosopher and economist who, along with Bentham, was committed to social and political reform in 18th Century England. James Mill incorporated utilitarian principles into J. S. Mills education, so that he was very familiar with Benthams work and utilitarianism in general. B. Mill makes repeated references to the long tradition of utilitarian ethics throughout his book. While it may be true that many have espoused the utilitarian principle (Mill names, among others, Socrates, Plato, Epicurus and Jesus Christ), none had greater affect upon Mills thought than Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Benthams utilitarian theory grows out the moral sense school of ethics especially as formulated by Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746). According to Bishop Joseph Butler (1692-1752), Hutchesons version of moral sense ethics emphasized benevolence (the common good) as the end of moral action, an end discernable in virtue of the proper functioning of the moral sense. In an interesting bit of foreshadowing, Butlers criticism of Hutcheson (et al) appears to anticipate utilitarianism in the form presented by Bentham, and later, Mill. Butler says, some of great and distinguished merit have, I think, expressed themselves in a manner which may occasion some danger to careless readers of imaging the whole of virtue to consist in simply aiming, according to the best of their judgment, at promoting the happiness of mankind in the present state, and the whole of vice in doing what they foresee, or might foresee, is likely to produce an abundance of unhappiness in it. (Dissertation on the Nature of Virtue, 15; I, pp. 409-410) C. Bentham was also influenced by Humes radical empiricism that focused almost exclusively on the observable (factual) as opposed to the non-observable (metaphysical, e.g. in ethical theory, things like conscience, virtue and motive). This empiricistic strain is detectable in Benthams consequentialist utilitarian theory of ethics. Bentham was, in addition to being a philosopher, a committed political reformer, although he did not hold any official political office. He studied law but never practiced, choosing instead to devote himself to the reform of law and public policy. As always, Benthams focus was on the observable, practical effects of any law or policy.

Page 2 of 6 D. In his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), Bentham explains his utilitarian view. He begins with the observation that nature has placed humanity under two sovereign masters pleasure and pain. These two masters alone, point to what we ought to do and determine what we shall do. By this he means that pleasure and pain provide the standard/criteria for judging right and wrong and also explain the deterministic chain of causes and effects of human action. The principle of utility recognizes this despotic authority of pleasure and pain over all of human activity and thereby distinguished it as a suitable principle for moral judgments. E. Benthams views concerning the centrality of pleasure and pain demonstrate that he was a hedonist of two kinds. First, he was a psychological hedonist. He claimed that all motives toward action, as a matter of fact, reduce to a desire for pleasure and avoidance of pain. It follows then, that he was also an ethical hedonist. In the specific arena of moral action, pleasure is the sole basis for determining the good and actions are right only if they tend to produce pleasure or diminish pain. F. Bentham went on to distinguish 14 species or pleasure (e.g. senses, wealth, skill, amity, good name, power, piety, benevolence, to name a few). He also distinguished 11 different species of pain. In addition to these specific kinds of pleasure and pain, Bentham also described seven ways pleasures and pains might vary. These are: intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty of occurrence, propinquity or remoteness (i.e. near or far), fecundity (the chance of being followed by others of the same kind), purity (chance of being followed by the opposite) and extent (number of persons affected). G. In his Introduction to the Principles of Morals (1789), Bentham offers the following statement of the principle of utility: that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. Later, Bentham would describe his principle as simply the Greatest Happiness principle which simply advocates the greatest happiness for all interested parties. Benthams emphasis on benevolence or the common good suggests that he saw the primary application of the principle of utility to be in realm of law or public ethics and not as a principle for individual moral judgment (although this would seem to follow from his commitment to both psychological and ethical hedonism). H. Bentham was one of the founders of University College from which the University of London eventually developed. In his will he stipulated that his mummified body, seated and dressed in the fashion of 1832, and kept in a wooden cabinet should be present at each meeting of the Board, a practice which continues in effect to this day.

Page 3 of 6 II. John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism A. J. S. Mills father, James Mill, was a friend and follower of Bentham. From a very early age, Mill was schooled in utilitarianism and when he became an adult was one of its most ardent proponents. B. Mills short book, Utilitarianism (1861) is the classic text expounding the utilitarian principle. Mills version of theory differed somewhat from that of Benthams. His view is more refined and nuanced in many regards. Some find this an improvement on Benthams rough and ready hedonistic calculus, while others wonder if the theory that Mill comes to hold is really utilitarian at all. III. The Utilitarian Approach (Ch. 7) This chapter introduces Utilitarian moral theory by means of three examples where moral judgments are made based on the Principle of Utility. It may be helpful to read this chapter and consider the examples before continuing with this lecture. IV. Rachels Discussion of Utilitarianism (Ch. 8) A. Classical Utilitarianism can be summarized in the following three propositions: 1. An actions consequences are the only basis upon which judgments of right and wrong may be made. [Hence the name consequentialism is often used to describe Utilitarianism. Consequences are judged solely on the amount of happiness or unhappiness that results. Each persons happiness counts the same.
(i) The Doctrine of Negative

2. 3. B.

Is Pleasure the Only Thing That Matters? 1. Two different questions: What things are good? andResponsibilityare What actions right? Utilitarians answer the question about right in terms of their answer to the question about good. What is good, and the only thing that is good, for Utilitarians is happiness, and happiness is usually defined in terms of We are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the choices we pleasure.

1.

make.

2.

Sometimes we choose to act, and sometimes we choose not to. Either

way, we are making a choice that has consequences. __________________________________________________________

Page 4 of 6 2. Rachels notes that Utilitarianism has always been attractive as a moral theory because of its simplicity and what he calls the intuitively plausible notion that things are good or bad on account of the way they make us feel. (p. 110) The problem with this tenet of Utilitarianism is that it is quite clear that humans value many other things than happiness/pleasure and that these things are valued not as merely instrumental things but because of their intrinsic value.

3.

C.

Are Consequences All That Matter? 1. Utilitarians (rightly, it seems, despite Kants protest) focus exclusively on the consequences that result from actions as the basis on which moral judgments are appropriately made. But are there other considerations besides consequences? Many philosophers have attacked Utilitarianism at this point, suggesting that there are a number of possible issues that need to be considered as relevant to the making of moral judgments.

2. Some of the possible considerations are: Justice and Rights (See Rachels discussion and illustrations on pp. 111-114) 3. Another possible objection to Utilitarianism: Apparent failure to take into account backward-looking reasons (p. 114). D. Should We Be Equally Concerned for Everyone? 1. Once again, there is initial intuitive plausibility to the claim that we should be concerned for the happiness of others (at least to some extent). But Utilitarians go farther, making the claim that we are morally bound to be thoroughly impartial in all our actions. Objection that Impartiality is Too Demanding: The radical impartiality imposed by Classical Utilitarianism seems to require more than is practically possible the total denial of self-interest as a means of generating the maximum possible happiness for the most people. Such a standard is not only impossible to maintain, it would seem to lead to less moral behavior as people become increasingly frustrated by their inability to fulfill Utilitarianisms demands. Objection that Utilitarianism Disrupts Personal Relationships: Some

2.

3.

Page 5 of 6 relationships seem to be justifiable instances of preferential treatment, e.g. husband/wife, parent/child, family members, etc. Utilitarianisms radical application of impartiality seems to endorse the view that the treatment of a stranger must be equivalent to the treatment of ones child or ones spouse if one is to be a moral person. In this case Utilitarianism seems to undermine our personal relationships, a fault that Rachels explains is considered by many to be the single greatest objection to Utilitarianism. E. The Defense of Utilitarianism 1. All of the anti-utilitarian arguments share a similar strategy: show that the theory of utilitarianism requires a certain action and then argue that the action itself is obviously immoral. Utilitarians respond with what Rachels calls the Denying That the Consequences Would Be Good defense. The defense amounts to an attempt to argue that the immoral acts cited in the counterarguments to Utilitarian theory are not the best possible acts; they may in fact lead to more detrimental consequences. As Rachels notes, this defense contains more bluster than substance. It is on a par with one child saying, Yes, it is! and another child yelling back in response, No, it isnt! No matter what the response of either child the issue is not advanced much or resolved. A second defense offered by some utilitarians is to say that the Principle of Utility is a guide for choosing rules, not acts. This is an attempt to address the particularistic nature of classical utilitarianism that each individual act is judged on the basis of the pleasure/pain it causes. This particularistic emphasis seems to land utilitarianism in trouble where the same acts appear sometimes to be good and sometimes to be bad. This leads to the charge of arbitrariness and violation of the common sense moral point of view that often is leveled against utilitarianism. If the focus is shifted from particular acts to more general rules about what acts are judged good and bad, then this may be a strategy for reformulating utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism, as it is often called, asks what set of rules is optimal, from a utilitarian viewpoint. In other words, what rules should we follow to maximize happiness? (p. 118) As Rachels observes, there is a difficulty in maintaining rule utilitarianism; it has the tendency to either resolve back into act utilitarianism or to become another, nonutilitarian theory depending on how it tries to answer the question whether or not these ideal rules allow for exceptions.

2.

Page 6 of 6 3. A third possible defense of utilitarianism mentioned by Rachels is the hard-nosed or Common Sense is wrong defense. Here the utilitarian theorist simply bites the bullet and admits that some of the judgments made on the basis of the Principle of Utility are, in fact, incompatible with common sense moral consciousness. In response to anti-utilitarian arguments these hard-nosed utilitarians might claim that all values (i.e. socalled non-utilitarian values like honesty, loyalty, etc.) are really valued because they produce optimal happiness and minimize suffering. Another possible argument is that the Principle of Utility offers a better guide for moral action in exceptional cases than the tradition, common sense morality because it can better appreciate the unique aspects of exceptional cases and not be tied up by the absolutist constraints of common sense moral ideals. Finally, these hard-nosed utilitarians might charge that too many of the critiques of utilitarianism do not take into account all the consequences of an action, but focus too much on the bad effects of that action.