Explain Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Explain Utilitarianism Essay Utilitarianism was developed in the 18th century by Hutcheson, who used the phrase ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ to describe his theory. Hutcheson’s idea, seeks to find a rational means of assessing how best to put this promotion of happiness into practice. It is split into two types; Act Utilitarianism, this is the earliest form in which what is deemed right is based on the assessment of results of a particular action, and Rule Utilitarianism which allows to be taken into account the general benefit to society that occurs when people follow general rules. It is argued that utilitarianism is a relativist, consequentialist and teleological system of ethics, prescribing no fixed moral rules and judging an action by its consequences or end results. Bentham and Mill each argued respectively for these types of Utilitarianism and thus their beliefs differ. Bentham was born in London at time of huge scientific and social change. He looked to produce a modernised approach to morality which would suit the changing society of the industrial age he grew up in. This was also the era of the French and American revolutions. He argued that humans were motivated by pleasure and pain â€Å"nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain†. This later on became known as Act Utilitarianism. Bentham believed that everyone had an equal right to happiness irrespective of their situation or status in life and argued that everyone counted equally in the assessment of the benefits of an action. He believed that overall, this would benefit the individual who did so and this would lead to that persons greatest happiness as well. His theory is democratic as pleasure cannot be for one person alone. Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus this is what Bentham thought was an empirical process for making moral decisions, it weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It asks you to consider seven points: 1. Purity (an act that causes only pleasure is better than one that causes the same amount of pleasure mixed with a little pain. When either pleasure or pain is at its extremes it is more pure however when mixed its purity is less. ) 2. Remoteness (the more distant the benefits, in either space or time, the less weight we should give them in making our decision. For example how long will it take for the pleasure of the action to take effect. ) 3. Intensity (the less intense the pleasure of an action the less valuable that action is. However, if the action leads to intense pleasure then its value goes way up. ) 4. Certainty (the certainty criteria refers to the probability of the pleasure resulting from the act. So basically how likely a certain action will cause a cause a certain action. If you have to choose between an action which might cause pleasure and one that will definately cause the disired pealsure then you go with that action. ) 5. Extent (The more people enjoy the pleasure, the better. This was not among the original criteria described by Bentham, but was added by John Stuart Mill. ) 6. Duration (the duration of the pleasure caused by an act must also be taken into account when assessing the goodness of the act. Short bursts of pleasure or short lasting pleasure is viewed as less valuable than lasting pleasure. So acts which last for long periods of time are preferred to those which are short lasting. ) 7. Consequence (The consequence of an act is the likelihood that the pleasures or pains that it causes will be followed by similar pleasures or pains. If the happiness that an act causes is likely to be followed by more happiness, then that act is better than a similar act that will cause only one instance of happiness. It is basically how many times the pain or pleasure will occur.) For example if five guards were enjoying torturing one prisoner the hedonic calculus would suggest that this is ok because more pleasure is occurring than pain. If the probable pain of an action outweighs its pleasure then Bentham says that it is morally wrong. He believed this was the way of calculating happiness as a result of the course of an action and by this he was making the basis of deciding whether an action should be considered right or wrong. However going back to the guard’s example, is beating up a prisoner morally right because more people are enjoying it than feeling pain from it? During the 19th century Mill changed Bentham’s theory, Bentham implied any pleasure is of equal value â€Å"pushpin is equal to poetry† whereas Mill saw pleasures as higher and lower. He recognised that it was easier to settle for the more immediate and sensual pleasures like eating or drinking rather than the nobler and perhaps more refined ones such as poetry or opera. Mill criticised Bentham for focusing morality on pleasure alone, which seemed rather base to him. Therefore he decided to introduce a theory of utilitarianism for everyone, this replaced pleasure with happiness. He believed in quality not quantity of happiness. For Mill, happiness was defined as something which is cultured and spiritual than just physical. He distinguished this as higher and lower pleasures. He wrote â€Å"it is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied† Mill recognised that there were different ways of assessing the value of happiness. Mill unlike Bentham suggested a positive place for rules within an overall utilitarianist approach. Another difference between Bentham and Mill lies in the difference between Act and Rule theories of utilitarianism. Bentham thought each individual action should be treated separately without any rules to guide the individual; whereas Mill proposed that you should make rules based on the consequences which tend to follow certain actions. For example killing someone tends to cause pain, so we should have a rule against killing people. Therefore Mill and Bentham arrived to two very different approaches of morality. Mills outlook was very different to that of Bentham’s. Overall, however their weaknesses outweigh their strengths. They are not very convincing as ethical systems, and it is my opinion that some other approach to ethics is required in order to do the morally right thing. An advantage of Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism is that it considers the consequences and happiness which result from actions; this seems a sensible approach to ethics. The theory is also flexible and easy to apply; it does not describe many confusing or difficult rules and provides a simple method for decision making. The theory also enables difficult decision making through its relativism. For example it would allow us to sacrifice individuals if it is of great benefit to society. The problem with Bentham’s theory however is that it is truly relativistic, so any conceivable action could be allowed for example, killing prisoners because five guards get pleasure from it. It also justifies the suffering of the innocent under a majority. It further allows cruel or sadistic pleasure, since Bentham regarded all pleasure as equal, this was first thought of by a philosopher called Bernard Williams. Mill’s theory offers many advantages which get around the problems of Bentham and Act Utilitarianism. By distinguishing between the quality of pleasures, Mill rules out the possibility of sadism like in the case of the prison guards enjoying torturing a prisoner. Also, Mill is stating that certain actions are explicitly prohibited because they tend to promote pain. So, he would not allow killing, no matter how much it was enjoyed. However, Mill’s theory lacks the flexibility of Bentham’s, which means that sensible rule breaking is no longer possible. For example you could not tell small lies, even to protect others. There is another weakness in Mill’s idea of different qualities of pleasure this is, how can we judge what makes pleasure higher or lower? As surely this is a subjective matter, as opinions and preferences vary from person to person. It might also be argued that the concept of a competent judge is vague, since it is not clear whether we can really identify one. In conclusion, the theories put forward by Bentham and Mill fail to provide a convincing or useful approach to ethics. On the one hand, Bentham’s views are strikingly relativistic, allowing any pleasure. On the other hand, Mill’s Rule system lacks the flexibility to make sensible choices in difficult situations. It may be that some other and more modern version of the theory can overcome these problems, such as preference utilitarianism put forward by Peter Singer. Preference utilitarianism bases itself on the idea used in act utilitarianism, that the principle of utility is the most important basis of moral decision making. This principle is about maximising pleasure and preventing pain. Preference utilitarianism retains this but simply modifies it to be subjective, that peoples preferences should be maximised not pleasure over pain. This is a simple way to be personal, allowing everyone their own say rather than presuming pleasure is always desirable. For example eating 30 bars of chocolate when obese may not cause pleasure as it is worsening their obesity however it is the persons preference to do this. If we could strike a balance between favouring firm moral principles and paying attention to significant consequences or the all-round wellbeing of society. Such a compromise offers a more promising approach to ethics than the classical forms of Utilitarianism put forward by Mill and Bentham.