Utilitarianism
Recommend on Google+
The theory of Utilitarianism is based on the concept of utility – meaning usefulness. Utilitarianism thus is a system of morality concerned with what is the most useful thing to do.
Utilitarianism however is difficult to define as a single theory as it is more of a family of theories with different variants. Different Utilitarian approaches to morality have emerged each with their own theory of good and community of concerning individuals.
TELEOLOGICAL
One thing that is common to all Utilitarian approaches is its teleological outlook; the theory that morality is dependent on outcomes and not concerned with the motive or intention for an action. A teleological approach thus argues that the end justifies the means.
ABSOLUTIVITY/RELATIVITY
It is difficult to label Utilitarianism with an absolute or relative approach of morality because there are so many different variants of the theory. Invariably, the absolutivity/relativity of a Utilitarian theory depends on which category it falls into; act or rule utilitarianism (see further down).
JEREMY BENTHAM
Jeremy Bentham was an advocate of hedonism; the theory that the most useful thing to do and therefore the moral thing to do is the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. His Principle of Utility thus promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. Bentham composed a hedonic calculus as a tool for weighing up the consequential pleasure and pain of an action in order to be able to deduce the moral course of action. It attempts to quantify seven different variables of pleasure/pain:
? Certainty
How certain is it that there will be pain/pleasure?
? Duration
How long will the sensation last?
? Extent
How wide are its effects?
? Intensity
How intense is the resulting pain/pleasure?
? Remoteness
How near is the resulting pain/pleasure?
? Richness
Will it lead to further pleasure?
? Purity
How free from pain is it?
PROBLEMS
• Many argue that pleasure is not quantifiable and cannot be compared on a measurable scale
• It relies on the capacity to predict outcomes, yet most lack the foresight to be able to do so with accuracy
• If ten rapists were to rape the same woman one might conclude that such an action is morally justified on the basis that the pleasure of the rapists would outweighs the pain of their victim. Utilitarianism has thus been dubbed the ‘Swine Ethic’.
JOHN STUART MILL
Mill recognised the problems with Bentham’s principle of utility and was more careful in his definition of pleasure. Mill shifted the emphasis from the quantity of pleasure to the quality of pleasure and distinguished between higher pleasures (cultural and spiritual pleasures of the mind) and lower pleasures (bodily needs such as sex and food).
ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM
Since the thinking of Bentham and Mill, Utilitarian theories have been categorised into two groups; those that are act-consequentialistic and those that are rule-consequentialistic:
Act (classical) Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarian theories start with specific cases from which general principles can be deduced. This approach to Utilitarianism is generally more concerned with the individual and not protective of minority groups. It advocates a relative approach to morality: the theory that the goodness of an action is circumstantial and variable within different situations.
Rule Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarian theories start with general principles from which specific acts can be prohibited without exception to the rule. This approach is protective of minority groups and less concerned with individual circumstances than the collective good. It advocates an absolutist approach to morality: the theory that there is a universal moral code that can be applied in all circumstances regardless of the situation.
Most scholars place the thinking of Bentham and Mill under the Act Utilitarian classification – hence it is more widely known as Classical Utilitarianism. However, there is room for debate with regards to Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism and the act/rule distinction. Some argue that Mill’s approach is more fitting under the Rule Utilitarian classification since he was primarily concerned with the quality of higher pleasures, which is distinct to Bentham’s emphasis on quantity.
PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM
Preference Utilitarianism is a variant of utilitarianism advocated by Peter Singer which defines utility in terms of preference satisfaction. For Preference Utilitarians, the moral course of action is the one that results in the most preference satisfaction.
CRITICISMS
• Pleasure is not the highest form that people aspire to. Intuitively, we know there is a fundamental moral difference between striving to be a good football player and a selfless, virtuous person.
• Utilitarianism infers that when you bring your wages home you should only spend them on yourself or your family if they wouldn’t bring greater pleasure else where e.g. in a developing country. This is counter-intuitive and impractical.
• W.D. Ross argued that Utilitarianism is a single-factor moral theory – life’s ethical dilemmas cannot be answered with a simple calculus that balances outcomes. According to Ross, we have prima facie duties that take priority over the ‘greater good.’ For example, a father would instinctively choose to save his own son over a stranger who had the ability to cure AIDS. However, a true Utilitarian would be required to save the stranger with the cure to AIDS before his son, because the resulting pleasure derived from eliminating a pandemic that costs thousands of lives every year would outweigh the pain derived from the death of his son.
blog comments powered by Disqus
RELIGIOUS STUDIES TEACHER RESOURCE NEWSLETTER
Sign up for tutor2u's free Religious Studies Teacher Resource Newsletter
