Utilitarianism: Prepared By: Mam Bhang Moreno

UTILITARIANISM
Chapter 9
Prepared by: Mam Bhang Moreno
The students should:
 be able to articulate what utilitarianism is;
 critique utilitarianism; and
• make use of utilitarianism.
The most important classical utilitarians are Jeremy
Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-
1873). Bentham and Mill were both important
theorists and social reformers. Their theory has had
a major impact both on philosophical work in moral
theory and on approaches to economic, political,
and social policy. Although utilitarianism has always
had many critics, there are many 21st century
thinkers that support it.
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most
influential moral theories. Like other forms of
consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are
morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More
specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant
are the good and bad results that they produce. Act
utilitarians focus on the effects of individual actions (such
as John Wilkes Booth’s assassination of Abraham
Lincoln) while rule utilitarians focus on the effects of
types of actions (such as killing or stealing)
Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to
make life better by increasing the amount of good things
(such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and
decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and
unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that
consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs,
traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural
beings. Instead, utilitarians think that what makes a
morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution
to human (and perhaps non-human) beings
Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only
one evaluative principle: Do what produces the best consequences. In
fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand
that single principle unless we know (at least) three things:
a.) what things are good and bad;
b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim to
maximize; and
c. ) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their
actual consequences (the results that our actions actually produce) or
by their foreseeable consequences (the results that we predict will
occur based on the evidence that we have).
a. What is Good?
Jeremy Bentham answered this question by adopting the
view called hedonism. According to hedonism, the only
thing that is good in itself is pleasure (or happiness).
Hedonists do not deny that many different kinds of things
can be good, including food, friends, freedom, and many
other things, but hedonists see these as “instrumental”
goods that are valuable only because they play a causal
role in producing pleasure or happiness. Pleasure and
happiness, however, are “intrinsic” goods, meaning that
they are good in themselves and not because they produce
some further valuable thing.
Likewise, on the negative side, a lack of food, friends, or
freedom is instrumentally bad because it produces pain,
suffering, and unhappiness; but pain, suffering and
unhappiness are intrinsically bad, i.e. bad in themselves
and not because they produce some further bad thing.
b. Whose Well-being?
Utilitarian reasoning can be used for many different
purposes. It can be used both for moral reasoning and for
any type of rational decision-making. In addition to applying
in different contexts, it can also be used for deliberations
about the interests of different persons and groups.
Individual Self-interest
Group- “ the greatest happiness for the

greatest number”
Everyone Affected- Peter Singer calls the

“equal consideration of interests.”
• How Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Differ
Both act utilitarians and rule utilitarians agree that our overall
aim in evaluating actions should be to create the best results
possible, but they differ about how to do that.
Act utilitarians believe that whenever we are deciding what
to do, we should perform the action that will create the
greatest net utility. In their view, the principle of utility—do
whatever will produce the best overall results—should be
applied on a case by case basis. The right action in any
situation is the one that yields more utility (i.e. creates more
well-being) than other available actions.
Rule utilitarians adopt a two part view that stresses the
importance of moral rules. According to rule utilitarians, a) a
specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified
moral rule; and b) a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our
moral code would create more utility than other possible rules (or
no rule at all). According to this perspective, we should judge the
morality of individual actions by reference to general moral rules,
and we should judge particular moral rules by seeing whether
their acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-
being than other possible rules.
The key difference between act and rule
utilitarianism is that act utilitarians apply the
utilitarian principle directly to the evaluation of
individual actions while rule utilitarians apply the
utilitarian principle directly to the evaluation of rules
and then evaluate individual actions by seeing if
they obey or disobey those rules whose acceptance
will produce the most utility.
Arguments against Act Utilitarianism
The “Wrong Answers” Objection
•The following cases are among the commonly cited
examples:
* If a judge can prevent riots that will cause many deaths
only by convicting an innocent person of a crime and
imposing a severe punishment on that person, act
utilitarianism implies that the judge should convict and
punish the innocent person. (See Rawls and also
Punishment.)
If a doctor can save five people from death by killing
one healthy person and using that person’s organs for
life-saving transplants, then act utilitarianism implies
that the doctor should kill the one person to save five.
If a person makes a promise but breaking the promise
will allow that person to perform an action that creates
just slightly more well-being than keeping the promise
will, then act utilitarianism implies that the promise
should be broken. (See Ross)
• Possible Responses to Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism
First, they can argue that critics misinterpret act
utilitarianism and mistakenly claim that it is committed to
supporting the wrong answer to various moral questions.
This reply agrees that the “wrong answers” are genuinely
wrong, but it denies that the “wrong answers” maximize
utility. Because they do not maximize utility, these wrong
answers would not be supported by act utilitarians and
therefore, do nothing to weaken their theory.
•Second, act utilitarians can take a different approach by
agreeing with the critics that act utilitarianism supports the
views that critics label “wrong answers.” Act utilitarians
may reply that all this shows is that the views supported by
act utilitarianism conflict with common sense morality.
Unless critics can prove that common sense moral beliefs
are correct the criticisms have no force. Act utilitarians
claim that their theory provides good reasons to reject
many ordinary moral claims and to replace them with
moral views that are based on the effects of actions.
•Why Rule Utilitarianism Maximizes Utility
•The rule utilitarian approach to morality can be illustrated by
considering the rules of the road. If we are devising a code for drivers,
we can adopt either open-ended rules like “drive safely” or specific
rules like “stop at red lights,” "do not travel more than 30 miles per
hour in residential areas,” “do not drive when drunk," etc. The rule
“drive safely”, like the act utilitarian principle, is a very general rule that
leaves it up to individuals to determine what the best way to drive in
each circumstance is. More specific rules that require stopping at
lights, forbid going faster than 30 miles per hour, or prohibit driving
while drunk do not give drivers the discretion to judge what is best to
do. They simply tell drivers what to do or not do while driving.
Rule Utilitarianism Avoids the Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism
1.Judges, Doctors, and Promise-makers
• Critics of act utilitarianism claim that it allows judges
to sentence innocent people to severe punishments
when doing so will maximize utility, allows doctors to
kill healthy patients if by doing so, they can use the
organs of one person to save more lives, and allows
people to break promises if that will create slightly
more benefits than keeping the promise.
•Rule utilitarians say that they can avoid all these charges
because they do not evaluate individual actions separately
but instead support rules whose acceptance maximizes
utility. To see the difference that their focus on rules
makes, consider which rule would maximize utility: a) a
rule that allows medical doctors to kill healthy patients so
that they can use their organs for transplants that will save
a larger number of patients who would die without these
organs; or b) a rule that forbids doctors to remove the
organs of healthy patients in order to benefit other
patients.
Conclusion
• The debate between act utilitarianism and rule
utilitarianism highlights many important issues about
how we should make moral judgments. Act
utilitarianism stresses the specific context and the many
individual features of the situations that pose moral
problems, and it presents a single method for dealing
with these individual cases. Rule utilitarianism stresses
the recurrent features of human life and the ways in
which similar needs and problems arise over and over
again
From this perspective, we need rules that deal with types
or classes of actions: killing, stealing, lying, cheating,
taking care of our friends or family, punishing people for
crimes, aiding people in need, etc. Both of these
perspectives, however, agree that the main determinant
of what is right or wrong is the relationship between what
we do or what form our moral code takes and what is the
impact of our moral perspective on the level of people’s
well-being.
Thank you..
God bless us All!!!

Utilitarianism: Prepared By: Mam Bhang Moreno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilitarianism: Prepared By: Mam Bhang Moreno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utilitarianism: Prepared By: Mam Bhang Moreno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UTILITARIANISM

Group- “ the greatest happiness for the

Everyone Affected- Peter Singer calls the

God bless us All!!!

You might also like