Ethics for A-Level For AQA and OCR Religious Studies

Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher for A-Level

For AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious Studies

by Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher

SAMPLE MATERIAL CONTENTS

PREFACE v 1. Exam Specification Details v 2. Book Structure v References vi

PART I viii CHAPTER 1 1 1. Utilitarianism Introduction 1 2. 1 3. Nozick’s Experience Machine 1 4. The Foundations of Bentham’s Utilitarianism 3 11. Strong v Weak 3 12. Comparing the Classical Utilitarians 4 13. Non-Hedonistic Contemporary Utilitarianism: 5 and Preference Utilitarianism Summary 6 Common Student Mistakes 6 Issues To Consider 6 Key Terminology 7 References 7

PART II METAETHICS 8 CHAPTER 6 METAETHICAL THEORIES 9 1. Metaethics Introduction 9 3. Cognitivism v Non-Cognitivism 10 9. Objections to Intuitionism 12 10. Cognitivist and Anti-Realist Theory One: Moral 14 Error Theory 11. Objections to Moral Error Theory 17 Summary 18 Common Student Mistakes 18 Issues To Consider 19 Key Terminology 20 References 20 Preface

1. Exam Specification Details This book deals with the Ethics components of AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious Studies. It has been written in line with these specifications, covering the material necessary in a way that, we , is engaging for students, teachers and anyone interested in understanding ethical study. Some chapters are, therefore, directly relevant only to one of these two course. Students studying Ethics as part of OCR Religious Studies do not need to read about the ethics of simulated killing, while students studying AQA Philosophy do not need to consider or Situation Ethics. This is not to say that there is not, we hope, some independent value in engaging with these chapters as part of your wider reading. However, the split is not always so clear. Both OCR and AQA require students to engage with the theory of Utilitarianism, for example. However, the specifications differ slightly and so not all of the content is relevant to all students; relevance will depend on the course being sat. We suggest two options in dealing with this: • Early on in your course—engage with the content in the chapter regardless of your specification. This should give you a full and informed context in which to evaluate the theory. • Later in your course and nearer exams—use your specification to focus on the exact content that may figure in your exam. Your teacher is best placed to advise you on this.

2. Book Structure In writing this book we followed Fisher’s approach of focusing on the judgement of the student in evaluating when they are being taught effectively.1 We take the student as authoritative on this matter; we want to create an “engaged” student. To this end we include ways that students can check their judgements on whether the material has taught them anything or not. For example, we include sections on “Common Student Mistakes”, “Key Terminology” and focused “Tasks and Questions” within every chapter.

1 Fisher, ‘What is Teaching?’. This approach can also be found in: Fisher and Tallant, How to Get Philosophy Students Talking. PREFACE 2 and getasexcitedfascinatedbyethicswe are. to thinkwithclearreasoningand with justification about thetopics covered, content neededforyourexams,thatyoupractice andstrengthenyourability cover tocover. Whatever youchoose we hopeyou’ll gainconfidence with the from or readit it, dip into to pickupthisbook you will feel able hope isthat mind we have included an extensive Glossary at theend of the volume. Our although sometimes we needtousespecificphilosophicalterms.With thisin possible we give asmanyexamplespossibleandavoidtechnicaljargon, and ageneralphilosophicalapproach.Where in termsofcontent in ethics,both “But whatisethicalpractice?” life examples.Sandwiched between theseistheMetaethics normative So guidedbythe AQA andOCRexam specifications,youwillfindvarious ethics islikefootball. Metaethics: An Introduction ― Metaethics: An Fisher, Andrew, ‘WhatisTeaching?’, PhilosophicalStudies References difference? with ― and Tallant, Jonathan,HowtoGetStudentsTalking: An InstructorsToolkit Fisher, 2 With allthreetypesofethicscovered we hopetoprovideagoodgrounding • • • Consider ananalogyputforward by Following thespecificationrequirementsof AQA andOCR,thebookdeals org/10.1017/upo9781844652594 normative ethics,thenMetaethicsandfinallyapplied.Whatisthe euthanasia orstealing? areas. Forexample,howshouldwe dealwithissues like meat-eating, under them.Whatintereststhemishowwe shouldactinspecific feet] dirty.”Theytakethegeneralrulesofnormative ethicsand“play” The Applied Ethicistsareliketheplayers. They “gettheirhands[or psychology ofimmoralpeople;oraskwhethermoralpropertiesexist. or commentonthe discuss howpeopleusemorallanguage; might how thevery practiceofethics works. For example,themetaethicist The metaethicistislikeafootball commentator behaviour; howdowe workoutwhatisrightandwrong? play. The normative ethicistislikeareferee Metaethics, pp.1-4. theories explained. You will then find those theories What interests him is the generaltheories that govern our moral (Oxford: Routledge,2011), https://doi. Andrew Fisher interestedintherulesgoverning . Whatinterestsheris (2011). (forthcoming). chapter whichasks: 2 applied to real Imaginethat Introduction

1. Philosophy, Ethics and Thinking Philosophy is hard. Part of the reason it can feel so annoying is because it seems like it should not be hard. After all, philosophy just involves thinking, and we all think—thinking is easy! We do it without… well, thinking. Yet philosophy involves not just thinking, but thinking well. Of course it is true that we all think. But thinking, like football, maths, baking and singing is something we can get better at. Unfortunately, people rarely ask how. If you do not believe us, then just open your eyes. Society might be a whole lot better off if we thought well, more often. Admittedly, doing A-Level Philosophy will not give you the ability to solve the problems of the world; we are not that naive! But if you engage with philosophy, then you will be developing yourself as a thinker who thinks well. This is why A-Level Philosophy is useful not merely to would-be philosophers, but also to any would be thinkers, perhaps heading off to make decisions in law, medicine, structural engineering—just about anything that requires you to think effectively and clearly. However, if Philosophy is hard, then Ethics is really hard. This might seem unlikely at first glance. After all, Ethics deals with issues of right and wrong, and we have been discussing “what is right” and “what is wrong” since we were children. , on the other hand, deals with topics like the nature of consciousness, while deals with the nature of existence itself. Indeed, compared to understanding a lecture in the , arguing about the ethics of killing in video games might seem something of a walk in the park. This is misleading, not because other areas of philosophy are easy, but because the complexity of ethics is well camouflaged.

2. Respecting Ethics When you study A-Level Ethics, and you evaluate what is right and wrong, it can be tempting and comforting to spend time simply defending your initial views; few people would come to a debate about vegetarianism, or abortion, without some pre-existing . If you are open-minded in your ethical approach then you need not reject everything you currently believe, but you INTRODUCTION 4 beliefs anditisthephilosopher’s jobtoreveal andanalysethem. topic see Chapter 14). The point is that therearegood and bad reasons for our unimportant! Thedetailsofthisdebatearenotrelevant here(formoreonthis in thesecasesthe“tastejustification”seems totally or yourdeadaunt;but reason. Presumably itmighttastenice to eatyourpetcat,or your neighbour, it tastes nice. As philosophers we cansaythatthisisnota particularlygood those beliefs? have, to ask whyyou hold those beliefs. What for the beliefs you have. It is the philosopher’s job, whatever beliefs you cannot findsuchgoodreasons.Invirtueofthis,youareprovidingjustification reasons foryourviews,andbepreparedtorethinkthoseviewswhereyou yourself, mighthave onceacceptedthatposition. ask yourselfwhysomeone, presumablyjustasintellectuallyproficient as it maysuggestthatyouhave missed some important stepofanargument— particular positionis obviously false, perhaps take this reaction as a red flag, a that respect. Ifyoumightthink For truesuccess, ethics requiresintellectual is wrong?Ifyouthinkthatgivingtocharitygood,whatdoes “good” mean? enquiry commences. should see thesebeliefsasstartingpoints,orbasecamps, from whichyour learnt philosophyifthey knowwhatisintheboxes. havethings theirplace, we didnotwanthavethey that reader tothink the boxes”, orstatementsofbiographyconcerning the scholars. Although these become cleareraboutwhatyouthinkandaddtothatevolvingdialogue. before you.Learningaboutwhatvariouswill enableyouto philosophersthink you study philosophy you are entering a dialogue with those that have gone Philosophy, and in particularEthics, is a live and evolving subject. When to bothmaneuverer pasttheexamhurdlesandtobecomeabetter ethicist. A-Levelinformation inorder studentneedstodomore thansimplyregurgitate important tolearn some facts, and learn whatothers believed, but a successful from chemistry,mathematics,languages,theologyetc.Itisunique.Sure,it or a“historyofideas.”Itisdifferent just fact-learning, Philosophy ismorethan 3. The A-Level Student 1 For example,imaginethereasonthatyoubelieve itisOKtoeatmeatthat If youarethinkingwell asanethicist,thenyouarelikelytohave good animals isOK,orthatabortion that eating For example,whydoyouthink Youwein thisbook willnoticethat have notincluded“hintsandtips One aim of thisbookis to aid you inengagingwithalivingdiscipline. For Introduction toPhilosophical Analysis.’ an excellent introduction

to good and bad ways of thinking reasons we recommend might you have for John 1

Hospers, ‘An often thannot,suchpointswillbeirrelevant. discussions about ethicsdobewaryabout legalissues.Muchmore of talking used example ofNaziGermanybringstomind this distinction.Therefore, in it helpstheeconomy! Isitrightorwrong?” help uswiththemoralquestion ofslavery. We wouldsay“OK,but sowhatif from slaveryowners. Yet, suchastradersorplantation suchareasondoes not this isareason;itprudential reason,particularlyforthosewhobenefitted fact thatitsupportedthe economyasareasontokeepit.Itistrue,ofcourse, that Prudential reasonsrelatetoourpersonal fordoingthings. Something tokeepseparatearemoralreasons andprudential Reasons 5. DoingEthicsWell: PrudentialReasonsversus Moral which arelegally the land.Itisquiteeasytoseewhy.Imagineacountrywhichhassetofactions answer whethersomethingismorallyrightorwrongbylookingtothelawsof unacceptable mightmean that we have a law against it. Butitis unhelpful to issues might have some implications forthelaw.That childlabourismorally of course,moral Moral questionsaredistinctfromlegalquestions,although, 4. DoingEthicsWell: Legalityversus Morality switching between theterms, sodonotgethunguponthisdistinction. us, nothinghangsonthedifferencebetween them.Inthis bookyouwillseeus have said. cannot reduce to a few key facts, or a simplistic noting of what other people own justifiableconclusion. Philosophy isalivinganddynamic subject thatwe ideas learnedandleadyourselftoyour as aguidetocriticallyanalysethe you needtobeauthenticwithyourselfandaskwhat arguments. Butphilosophyisnotlikethis.Inordertounderstand say theyhave “done Utilitarianism.” They have learnt some key facts and that to“do” ethics is to remember . Thatis why astudentcan study, please?” University! Idid Utilitarianism at A-Level, canIhave somethingdifferentto students oftensaysomethinglikethis:“Ithoughtwe’d do hard stuff at universityethics at authors hastaught one ofthe for manyyears. Philosophy Why? Well,less academicallysuccessfulhabits. students tolosesomeoftheir Consider someexamples.Whendefendingslavery, peopleusedtocitethe Some peopledistinguishbetween “ethics”and“morality.” We donot.For This statementreveals awholehostofthings.Mostimportantistheview In , university Philosophy departments often work with first year acceptable, but morally unacceptableorviceversa—the well- think, usingthis reasons.

INTRODUCTION 5 INTRODUCTION 6 acceptable natural forustoeatmeat,afactused as a reason for thinking thatitis morally Supporters ofmeat-eatingoftenpointtoourincisorteeth.Thisshows that itis leaves itopenastohowpeoplemorallyoughtact. The explanationofwhypeoplefeelandactincertainwaysmorally acceptable. will tellsuswhetheractingviolentlytowards people wearing redtrousers is lots ofscienceshowingthegenesandstatisticalproof.Yet, noneofthis explaining whywe want topunchpeoplewearing redtrousers general ethicalchatthatwe felttheneedtounderlineit. chapters, especiallyChapter6.Butitissuchacommon mistake madein This is sometimes referred toasthe“is/ought”gap.We returntothisinlater Another importantdistinction is between descriptive and 6. DoingEthicsWell: Prescriptive versus Descriptive Claims them morefrequently,and theyareoftenabitmorebizarre. philosophy uses experiments. Itisjustthat most othersubjectsuse thought looked athiswatch nearablackhole, thiswas athoughtexperiment. Infact, that uses thought experiments. WhenEinsteinasked what would happen ifhe Indeed, itisnotjustphilosophy real lifedoesnotstopusdoingthatthinking. devices tohelpusthinkaboutcertainissues. Whethertheyarepossiblein to respond: “yes, but thatcould never happen!” Thoughtexperimentsare tracks. Isthisthemorallyrightthingtodo? could stop it,therebysavingfive people,bythrowingafat manunderthe down atrack.Youthere isatramrunning Or, imaginethat to pullthetrigger? a gunatyourgrandfatherwhenhewas achild.Woulditbepossibleforyou fanciful, examplesthataredesignedtoaidourthinkingaboutanissue. device knownasa“thoughtexperiment.”Thesearehypothetical,sometimes You will alsobeaware, especiallyinreadingthisbook, of the philosophical 7. DoingEthicsWell: Thought-Experiments Nothing. What does this tellus about whetheritis right or wrong toeathumans alive? that dentistsdiscover thatourteethare“designed”toeatotherhumansalive. But thisisnotrelevant tothe evenmight meat, andit easy toeat find it wewhy explain meat. eating like us howwedoes nottell to behave. morallyought wewhy explain Itmight Consider amoreseriousexample,relatingtotheethicsofeatingmeat. Consider some examples. Imaginetheheadline:“Scientistsdiscover agene The details hereareunimportant. Whatis important, is that itis inadequate For example,imaginethatyoucould travel backintime.You arepointing to do so. But this is moral a bad question.Don’tyoubelieve us?Imagine argument. Just because .” Thearticleincludes prescriptive claims. we have incisors Questions/Tasks through Ethics. useful andrewardingfind thistextbook inhelpingyouonyourownjourney any honestphilosopher,canreassureyou—philosophy ishard!We hopeyou progressing foryou.Thiswouldnotbeaweakness! Boththeauthors,and to testyourownlinesofargumentandevaluatewell” how“thinking is worth occasionally revisitingtheideasdiscussed here duringyourstudies, ethics, andsomestrategiestoconsiderinstead.Itmaybe about to thinking in properdetailthefollowingchapters. chapter. Ifanythecontentisspecificallyrelevant toassessment, it isdiscussed You willnotbeassessed, by either AQA orOCR,onthecorecontentofthis 9. Summary Metaethics. this positioninthechapteron Moral ErrorTheoristsdefendexactly then by itself,thatthereisnomoraltruthandanswer tothequestion. just becausedifferentcultureshave differentmoralviews,thisdoesnotshow, So follow intheOlympiccase,anditdoesnotmoraloneeither. euthanasia is morally acceptable? Again, theanswer is no. That answer did not there isnoanswerthere isdisagreement—meanthat tothequestionofwhether different cultures have different views on euthanasia. Does this fact—that morally acceptable.Some say yes, theotherssayno. Eachofyoucitehow is noanswer. Nowconsideraparallelargumentthatwe hearfartoooften. We cannotmove from the factthatpeopledisagreetoconclusion that there has wonthemostOlympicgoldmedals?”No! the questionof“whichcountry ignorance anddisagreement;butdoes this meanthatthereisnotananswer to Max says China, Alastair says the US, Dinh says the UK. There is general are arguingaboutwhichcountryhaswonthemost Olympic goldmedals. want youtobeaware ofthemistakeitleadsto.Imaginethatagroupfriends weFinally, wantto a commonaswe badargument to drawyourattention 8. DoingEthicsWell: UnderstandingDisagreement Still, we hope that we have signposted some errors to avoid when it comes If youareinterestedintheideathatthereisalackofmoraltruthethics, Imagine thatyouand your friends are discussing whether euthanasiais 3. 2. 1. List someethicalquestions. Do youthinkphilosophy isimportant?Ifyes, why?Ifno, why? How wouldyouexplain whatphilosophyistosomeone?

INTRODUCTION 7 INTRODUCTION 8 Hospers, John,AnIntroductiontoPhilosophical Analysis, 4thed.(NewYork References and London:Routledge,1997),http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203714454 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. argument? cannot beanymoraltruth.”Whatdoyouthinkofthisline “Because therearesomanydifferentviewsonmoralissues philosophers? What arethoughtexperiments?Whymighttheybeusefulto What role,ifany,doessciencehave inethicalarguments? when discussingethicalquestions? What ismeantbythe“is/ought”gap?Whyitimportanttoremember What isthedifferencebetween prudentialandmoralreasons? last? type ofethicsdoyouthinkitwouldbebesttostudyfirst,andwhich Is therealinkbebetween Applied, Normative andMetaethics?Which Metaethical? Can youfigureoutifyourquestionsareNormative, Applied, or PART I NORMATIVE ETHICS

CHAPTER 1

Utilitarianism

Music snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery. It forces people who like something a bit mainstream, a bit of pop like Girls Aloud or Take That! or ABBA to say ‘It's my guilty !’ I hate that phrase. It is an to top quality pop. It is also an insult to . Dara Ó Briain (comedian)

1. Utilitarianism: An Introduction

Some things appear to be straightforwardly good for people. Winning the lottery, marrying your true or securing a desired of qualifications all seem to be examples of events that improve a person’s life . As a normative ethical theory, Utilitarianism suggests that we can decide what is morally right or morally wrong by weighing up which of our future possible actions promotes such goodness in our lives and the lives of people more generally.

2. Hedonism

Hedonism is a theory of well-being—a theory of how well a life is for the person living that life. What separates Hedonism from other theories of well- being is that the hedonist that what defines a successful life is directly related to the amount of pleasure in that life; no other factors are relevant at all. Therefore, the more pleasure that a person experiences in their life then the better their life goes, and vice versa. Whereas other theories might focus on fulfilling people have, or an objective list of things such as friendship and health. The roots of Hedonism can be traced back at least as far as (341-270 BC) and Ancient Greece. Epicurus held the hedonistic view that the primary intrinsic good for a person is pleasure; that pleasure is always good for a person in and of itself, irrespective of the cause or context of the pleasure. According to this theory pleasure is always intrinsically good for a person and less pleasure is always intrinsically bad. Hedonism is a relatively simple theory of what makes your life better. If you feel that your life would be better if you won the lottery, married 12 NORMATIVE ETHICS Nozick asks: only goodbytestingourintuitionsviaanowfamousthought-experiment. proportional, asthehedonistwouldclaim. between whatimproves your lifeand what gives pleasure is not directly no pleasure is obtainedfrom it. Certainly,manybelieve thattherelationship qualification improvesa meaningful success ingaining that life even your if value ofthiseventpleasure produced.Manypeopleagree merely the than that youenjoygaininganewqualification,butthereseemstobemorethe affected by more than just the totalpleasure in our lives. It may be thecase One importantproblemforHedonism is thatourwell-being seems to be 3. Nozick’sExperienceMachine gains nothingatall;thepsychologicalresponsestomusicdiffer. one person can gainso much pleasure from a Lady Gaga albumwhileanother understanding of hedonistic pleasure may help toexplainwhy,for example, act of reading and thus acceptthatitcan improve a person’s well-being. This way, ahedonistmayvalue thepsychological pleasure associated with that So, whilereadingabookwouldnotseemtoproducepleasureinphysical that psychologicalpleasurescan count as intrinsically good for aperson. contemporary AttitudinalHedonist if theyprovide you withpleasure.Thepleasures may bephysical,butthe are goodforyouonly these things of thesejudgmentsisthat explanation your truelove orachieved yourdesired qualifications, thenthehedonistic matter tous,otherthan howourlives feel from theinside?” amount ofpleasurethat we experience,then Nozickwonders “what else can if Hedonismiscorrect and ourwell-beingthe by is determinedentirely desirable. However,machine wouldnotbe experience the into plugging that and lifeinfavourofapre-programmedexistence youalsomightconclude yourself ifyouwouldactuallychoose to leave behind yourrealfriends, family consider thispossiblesituationwouldoptnottoplugin.Indeed,ifyouask Nozick’s challenge toHedonism is based on the thoughtthat most people who 2  1 (1938-2002)attackedthehedonisticideathatpleasureis you’re there;you’ll thinkthatit’sallactuallyhappening...wouldyou plugin? ... Ofcourse,whileinthetankyouwon’tknowthat life, pre-programmingyourlifeexperiences? be floating in a tank, with electrodesattached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for writing agreatnovel,book. ormaking a friend,orreadinganinteresting All thetimeyouwould neuropsychologists couldstimulateyourbrainsothatyouwouldthinkand feelyouwereduper wasSuppose there machine thatwouldgive anexperience Super- you desired. you anyexperience Ibid. R. Nozick,‘TheExperience Machine’,p.292. Fred Feldman (1941-)hasalsomadeclear 1 2

Theexperience unhappiness.” or […] toprevent thehappening ofmischief, , evil,or advantage,in anyobject,wherebyittendstoproducebenefit, pleasure,good, Bentham defined itas“[…]thatproperty what ismeantbytheterm“.” theory basedonthebringingaboutofmorepleasure andlesspain. behaviour toanormative claimabouthowwe oughttolive. Hecreatesa moral Bentham moves fromthisempiricalclaimaboutthefactorsthatguideour justified byevidenceintheworlditsfavour. According toBentham: took tobeunjustifiedorarbitrary;forhimHedonism could be empirically utilitarian eventpleasure producedasaresultofthat oraction.Benthamisahedonistic or ,istheamountofpleasurecontainedinthatlife, only thingthatdeterminesthevalue ofalife,orindeedthevalue ofanevent described insectiontwo.ForBentham,the of thetypehedonisticthinking in law,politicsandeconomicsasabstractphilosophising. by agenuinedesire for socialreform, Bentham wanted to beas much involved (1748-1832) was the firstof the “classical utilitarians.” Driven 4. TheFoundationsofBentham’sUtilitarianism of the theory)and say thatanyreticencetoenterthemachine is bullet (accept the apparentlyawkward conclusion as a non-fatal implication suspect thatthingswere notreal.You mayfeelthatthehedonistcouldbite-the- the machinearemisplaced. After all,once inside the machine we would not experiences ofpleasure.Or,youmightbelieve thatoursuspicionsabout may feelthattheexperience machine is desirable justbecauseitguarantees perhaps knowledge orfriendships. is determinedbyotherfactorsinadditiontohowmuchpleasurewe secure, life wherepleasureisfarfromassured.Thismaysuggestthatourwell-being machine guaranteesuspleasureyet we finditunappealingcomparedtoareal extraordinary well! Perhaps thelives ofthosechoosingtobepluggedinthemachinewouldgo 4  3 When firstunderstandingUtilitarianism,itisalso crucialtounderstand Bentham developedof Utilitarianism onthefoundation hismoral theory The hedonistsneednotgive wayon thispoint,ofcourse,asthey entirely It isforthemalonetopointoutwhatwe oughttodo,aswell astodeterminewhatwe shalldo. Nature hasplaced mankind under thegovernance of two sovereign masters,pain and pleasure. Ibid., p.66. Essays, p.65. J. Bentham, . This belief in Hedonism,however,. Thisbelief wasBentham notsomethingthat ‘An 4 Utilityis thus promoted when pleasure is promoted and when Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in Utilitarianism and Other irrational 3

. 13 Utilitarianism 14 NORMATIVE ETHICS the greatestnumberofpeople,inordertoactmorally. for pleasure call hisfundamentalaxiomasarequirementtopromotethegreatest good, forBentham,ispleasure.We canthenrephrasewhatBentham himself greatest goodforthenumberof people. Ofcourse, what counts as measure ofrightandwrongistheextenttowhichanactionproduces the wrongly attributedtoJoseph Priestley the centralutilitarianclaim made by Bentham. Based on aphrase thathe of pleasure,istobeapproved ofandreducingutilityistobedisapproved of. In effect,thisprinciplesimplysaysthatpromotingutility,definedinterms mind, Benthamcommitshimselftothe increase inpainordecreasepleasure.Within thisunderstandingofutility that goodness is just anincrease in pleasure,and evil or unhappiness is just an unhappiness isavoided. Bentham’s commitment to Hedonism means forhim groups suggestthattorture isalways morallyunacceptable whetheritis irrespective ofcontextorconsequences. For example,manycampaigning Absolutist moralviewshold that certainactionswillalways bemorallywrong morally right;choosing“Action B”wouldbemorallywrong. fundamental axiomofUtilitarianism“Action A”and is undertaken shouldbe as aconsequenceof“Action A” ratherthan“Action B”,thenaccording to the word telos Greek The theory is also described as action orevent is determined entirelybytheconsequencesofthatevent. Bentham’s Utilitarianism is In additiontobeinghedonistic,Bentham’sUtilitarianismisalso: 5. TheStructureofBentham’sUtilitarianism 5  4. 3. 2. 1. The Principle of Utility, backed by a commitmenttoHedonism,underpins backed by The PrincipleofUtility, In addition,Bentham’sUtilitarianismisRelativistic promote ortoopposethathappiness. happiness of the party is whose in question: or, what is the samething in other words,to whatsoever,to haveaccording tothetendencywhichitappears toaugmentordiminishthe By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action Ibid., p.65. Impartial Maximising Relativist Consequentialist/Teleological that means “end”or“purpose.”Ifmorepleasurefollows that Consequentialist 5 teleological (1733-1804),Benthamsuggeststhatthe Principle ofUtility

for thesame reason, based on the because the moral value of an rather thanAbsolutist. : status, behaviouroranyothersocialfactor. enemies. In the total calculation of pleasure, we areall equal regardless of our pleasure isexperiencedbyroyalty,presidents, siblings,children,friendsor interests Bentham’s utilitariantheoryisassociated with theideaofequalconsideration which peoplearesupposedtohave access to, orsharein,thattotalpleasure. number ofpeople;thetheorydoesnotgive specialpreferenceregarding maximum maximum amountofpleasureforthe securing the matters issimply possible inthatcircumstance. pleasure becauseitdidnotmaximisethetotalamountofthatwas then buyinganewbookwould be morallywrongeven thoughitled to some produced more pleasure had it beendonated to a local charity for the homeless, pleasure fromspendingmoneyonanewbook,butthatcouldhave pleasure inthatsettingwas rejected.Thus,forexample,ifyougainsome could haveaction that good actsifanother morally be producedeven more is secured. This meansthatsome actions thatleadtopleasurewillstillnot that pleasure is promoted, but thatthegreatest pleasure for the greatest number should goaboutworkingoutwhattodoinspecific cases.Forexample: that nootherfactorsarerelevant. However, itisnotclearhowexactlywe production ofanyactionarewhatdeterminethe moralityofthataction,and Hopefully itis now clear that for Bentham the consequences in terms of pleasure 6. HedonicCalculus action takesplace. certain action is right or wrong is always relative to the situation in which the must believeBenthamite utilitarian this basis,the On atrocity. a whether that less intensepain)overall, suchasinthecasewheretorturestopsaterrorist pain involved intorturemayleadtothepromotionofgreaterpleasure(or act oftortureisabsolutelywronginallcasesandsituations. the attack. Forabsolutiststhen, stop aterrorist information inorderto obtain is authorisedbydemocraticallyelectedgovernmentsit whether seekingto carried outbyvindictive dictatorsseekingtoinstilfearinapopulationor Finally, Bentham’s Utilitarianismisalsoimpartial Finally, Bentham’s Utilitarianism is of viewbecausesometimesthe Bentham cannothold thistype Clearly, fire a missile at the plane. Firing at the plane would kill the passengers but saveat theplanewould killthepassengersbut fire amissileattheplane.Firing alllives on city. You aretaskedwithdeciding howtoactandmust,therefore,choosewhetherornot to that could take iteitherto anairportor, potentially, directly to a major and highly populated seems tohave beenhijackedbyanasyet unknownfigure.Theplaneappears to beonapath You are amilitaryairman flying afighterjetthatis about to interceptapassenger airliner that ; aslongtotalpleasureismaximisedthenitdoesnotmatterifthat maximising becauseitdoes not merelyrequire in the that what inthesensethat 15 Utilitarianism 16 NORMATIVE ETHICS Bentham recognisedthatsuchProblemsofCalculation experience from earlier inyourlife.Itmaybe thatyoucannotsayconfidently pleasurable experiencethat youenjoyed and compare it toahighlypleasurable Hedonic Calculus.Consider themostrecenthighly the existenceof by question andso the problem of calculation is notnecessarily solved simply pleasure” associatedwiththemisactuallyplausible isvery muchanopen However, whether ornotmeasuringpossibleactionsintermsof“units 7. ProblemsforBentham’sUtilitarianism Utilitarianism morallyrequiresofhim. seems that hewould at leasthave some forworkingoutwhat , thefighterpilotwouldstillfaceanagonising moral choice but it factors against therelative certaintyof the possiblepains or . No versus the durationofpaindeath,whilealsoneedingtobalancethese Thus, our fighter-pilotmightconsider the intensityofpleasure surviving who isconfusedastohowactinamorallytrickysituation. for autilitarian The HedonicCalculusisthereforesupposed to provideadecision-procedure pleasures accordingtotheir: Bentham, isbasedonassessing possible The HedonicCalculus,assuggestedby work outhow much pleasure would be created by differingpossible actions. (sometimes known astheFelicificCalculus)inordertohelpanindividual be aworkablemoraltheory.BenthamthereforecreatedtheHedonicCalculus associated with futureactions needed addressing in order for Utilitarianismto 6  7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. decision withsomanyvariables. greatest pleasureforthenumberisnotobviouslyhelpfulinmakingsuchadifficult case. Suggestingthatthepilotweigh uptheoptionsandchooseactionthatsecures more minutesbeforetheplaneisflownintoacityfullofinnocentsandtheyarekilledinany the ground, yet notfiringmay save the passengers, or it may give thepassengers only afew Ibid., p.87. Extent (i.e.howmanypeoplemightbeabletoshareinthatpleasure) Purity (i.e.ifanypainwillbefeltalongsidethatpleasure) pleasures) Fecundity (i.e.howlikelyitisthatpleasurewillgenerateotherrelated Remoteness (i.e.howfarintothefuturepleasureis) Certainty Duration Intensity

relating tothepleasure 6 ‘Can they talk?’, but ‘Can theysuffer?’”‘Can theytalk?’,but “The question(fordecidingmoralrelevance) isnot‘Cantheyreason?’, nor the calculationprocess. pleasure andcanalmostcertainlyexperiencepain,shouldbeexcludedfrom may beabletoexperiencesomeformof then itisnotclearwhyanimals,that pleasures andpains.Yet, ifpleasureisallthatmattersforhowwell alifegoes relevantnot non-human animalsare assumes that this calculation of the to would be secured if the development were permitted to go ahead. However, special problem of calculation; the greatestgood for the greatest number On thesurface,thiscaseshouldbeobviousforutilitarianwithoutany Problem ofRelevant Beings: towards the totalamountofpleasure.However, thefollowingcase raises the all individualswhogainpleasureasaresultofcertainactioncount sense that raised above. RememberthatBentham’sUtilitarianismisimpartialinthe common standardsuchastheHedonicCalculus. measured bya may beincapableofbeing simply beincommensurable—they your firstholiday.Pleasuresmay different innature are sofundamentally that were extremelyvaried; perhaps winningasportingtrophyversus going on that oneprovidedmorepleasurethantheother,especiallyifexperiences destination? Whileyour actionscertainlybroughtaboutdifferingdegrees of of ahigh-rollerandtreat yourselftoataxirideratherthanwalking toyour doughnut atsome point thisyear ortreatyourselftoamagazine?Live thelife acting morallyappearstobesetextremelyhigh. Forexample,didyoubuya promoted but actuallymaximised at all opportunities, then thestandard for Objection Demandingness is investigated.) the moralstatusofanimalsinChapter14when moralityofeatinganimals issue of andpainofnon-humananimals.(Thereismoreonthe the relevant to moral calculationsthensurelyitisatleastplausiblethatsoshould 7 Indeed, Bentham, whenreferringtothemoral value ofanimals,notedthat: In addition,theproblemofcalculationcanbeextendedbeyondissues currently supportingmanybirds,straycatsandrodentsofvarious types. the development willrequirethecullingofseveral badgersandtheremoval ofahabitat workers without anypainbeingexperiencedbyothers.You areaware, however, that the development willcreateagreatdealofpleasureforbothnewresidentsandconstruction unoccupied land outside the currentboundaryof your town. You are clear that, if approved, You areconsideringwhetherornottoapprove anewhousingdevelopment onapieceof Being amaximising ethical theory,Utilitarianismis also open toa Bentham/bnthPML18.html J. Bentham, An IntroductiontothePrinciples of Morals andLegislation,http://www.econlib.org/library/ . If it is not the case that pleasure needstobemerely . Ifitisnotthecasethat 7 Ifthesufferingandpainofhumansis 17 Utilitarianism 18 NORMATIVE ETHICS considering thecasesofDominicandCallum. by open totheProblemofWrongIntentions.Thisproblemcanbehighlighted but itwouldbemorallyrequired. maximising pleasure, such an action would not onlybemorally acceptable to bemorallyjustifiable.Yet, according to Utilitarianism’s commitment to fact thatagreatermajorityofpeoplewouldgainpleasure—does not seem (this is hardly unrealistic).However, such forceful theft—only justified by the country people ofamuchlarger the and exploitedby used freely them tobe be maximised iftheresourcesofasmall countrywere forciblytakenfrom maximising total pleasure.Forexample, imagine thattotalpleasurewould good of greater minority forthe the majority aremorallyrequiredtoexploit as Bentham put it,thenUtilitarianism seems to beopen to cases where the However, ifwe accept that absoluterightsaresimply“nonsense upon stilts” “natural ”as a nonsensical concept masqueraded as a meaningfulone. legal orbasichumanrights.Indeed,Benthamhimselfdismissed the ideaof to democracy,orabsolute right absolute for anymoralabsolutes—suchasthe Remember thatasarelativisticmoraltheory,Utilitarianismdoesnotallow to avoidasitissoutterlydemandingonourbehaviour. maximising moraltheory,Utilitarianismseems to makeimmoralityvery hard hardships orresidinginpoverty aroundtheworld. As aresultofbeing up yourmoneyandensuringitreached those sufferingextremefinancial you could havedecision, itseemsthat saving createdmuchmorepleasureby pleasure tobothyourselfandthosewhogainedeconomic benefit fromyour the familiar moral dilemma of being stuck on a life raftwiththreeother people ignores intentionsandfocuses onlyonconsequences. wasbut in hisoutcome.Utilitarianism, asaconsequentialisttheory, unlucky outcome, while Dominic acted wronglywhenhisintentionwas tosave others when hehadjustintendedto saverightly he hadalucky himself, although tragic pain.However, itseems unfair andwrongtosuggest thatCallumacted pleasure whileDominic acted wrongly because the consequence of his act was According to theutilitariancalculation,Callum acted inaway thatmaximised As a consequentialist/teleological moral theory Utilitarianism is also A furtherproblemforUtilitarianismrelatestotheTyrannyofMajority Utilitarianism alsofaces the allowing hispeacefuldetentionuntilpolicearrive. ducks forcover heaccidentlytripsintothe would-bethief,knockinghimunconscious thus customers tofendforthemselves.rest of the and leavingthe LuckilyforCallum,when he than tryingtointervene,ducks forcover immediately of saving himself withtheintention Now, consider a second case where anintruderburstsinwithagunbutCallum, rather the ensuingstruggle,intruder’s gunisaccidentlyfiredandaninnocentperson killed. shop. Dominic, with theintentionofsavinglives, attempts tostoptheintruder but sadly,in Dominic is satinacoffeeshopwhenmasked intruder burstsinthreateningtorobthe Problem ofPartiality . Thisisclearifwe consider . may The pointofthisexampleisnottoestablishwhat therightactionis.You Williams describesthefictionalcaseofJimand theIndians. of integrity.Inordertomakeclearthepotentialworryassociated with this, sense own ,characterandgeneral impact ofanactionupontheir to the or loved ones.Inaddition, nopersoncangivewhen itcomes upimpartiality action upontheirfamily the impactofapotential comes tojudgementsabout 2003). theory, nopersoncangiveAs an agent-neutral upimpartialitywhenit Integrity Objection more thanone. emotional attachments, becauseeach must count forone and no observer wouldandnotgive specialpreferencetoanyoneirrespective ofyour requires not onlyover-demandingalso overly but coldandcalculating.Utilitarianism no specialdifferencetoyourjudgmentregardinghowact.This seems to be the utilitarian,perhaps,statusasabeloved familymembershouldmake allow youtogive extramoralweight tothelifeofaloved one.Unfortunatelyfor morality mightcallforyourownself-sacrifice,itseemsextremelyunfairnotto of maximising total pleasureinsuch a scenario. Yet, even ifyoubelieve thatthe sibling joins you in the freezingwater withno hope of survival; this is the way not onlytogiveyour parentor ensure that upyourownspaceontheraftbut raft. Inthiscircumstance, Utilitarianismwouldseemtorequireyou on the your parentorsiblingisnothingspecialincomparisontootherindividuals for thepurposesofthisexample, parents orsiblings.Iamafraidtoreportthat, class violinist who brings pleasuretomillions each year, and one of your who isconfidentthathecanpassonacureforcancerifsurvives, aworld with onlyenoughsupplies fortwopeople.Ontheraftwithyouisadoctor but quickly forces ustoreachthisconclusion too Utilitarianism example istoshowthat one prisonerinorderto save thelives oftherest.Rather, purposeofthe 8 successfully freeanyprisoners.Hehasonlythetwooptions laidout. that heispowerlesswith anyone,andnorcanheuseaweapon tobargain ornegotiate to Finally, Bentham’s Utilitarianismalsocomes under attackfromtherelated Finally, as of celebration, or he can refuse the offer in which case all twenty prisoners will be executed Jim Jim offered a difficultchoice by theIndian chief who is eager toimpress his foreign traveller. people. B. Indians.pdf find was can is Williams, . Given an planned. Jim Agent-neutrality—you must look atthesituationasany neutral either yourself explorer knows ‘Jim the shoot It and , framed most prominentlybyBernardWilliams (1929- is commitment in who nothing one key the agreement stumbles of Indians’, to the note of their prisoners that https://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/Jim_and_ upon to possible with Jim Agent-neutrality, an himself does utilitarians Indian crimes not and have leader or then any control who the who other Jim rest suggest of is factors must the about will 8 situation be treat involved, Jim to set execute free must himself in as the but a twenty shoot sense mark he as is 19 Utilitarianism 20 NORMATIVE ETHICS acquired, notbecauseit,by itselfandinisolation,makeslifegobetter. about happiness.Knowledge isdesiredonlybecauseitprovideshappinesswhen areonlyvaluable insofarastheybring goods thatmightmakealifegobetter) claim bysuggestingthatknowledge, healthandfreedometc.(asotherplausible of happinessistheonlythingthatmakesourlives gobetter.Milldefendsthis happiness ingeneralmustbeworthpursuing. To put itanotherway, ifindividual happiness is agood worth pursuingthen the totalofhappiness of allpersons, then generalhappiness is also good. persons.” of all person, andthegeneralhappiness,therefore,agoodtoaggregate happiness isdesirable.Millsays“…eachperson’sagoodtothat such since peopledesiretheirownhappiness,thisisevidencethat claim that people their ownhappiness. This observation offactsupportsMill’s empirical defenceofHedonism,reliesontheevidencefromobservation that deepest convictions. a moraltheoryifitfailstorecogniseorrespectperson’s most sincereand unfortunate consequenceofaterriblesituation,butitmaybeproblemfor any compromising and self-identity.Youof hisintegrity mayacceptthisasan that hemust shoot one of the prisoners then hemust shoot with noregardto If theutilitariancalculationsuggests for prisonerreformandrehabilitation. always besecured for thegreatestnumber. availablehappiness/pleasure should the greatest tosupporttheprinciplethat Utilitarianism because he believed that therewas an empirically backed proof Hedonistic Utilitarianism. the Benthamiteutilitariantheoryinordertocreateasuccessful version of theory rejected.Millsoughttorefineandimprovewish toseethe did not facing theutilitariantheoryputforward by Bentham, but as a hedonist he John StuartMill(1806-1873)was concernedbymanyoftheproblems 8. Mill’sUtilitarianProof it own feelingsthanhewouldgive tothefeelingsofanyotherandtherefore for thegreatestnumber.Morally,heisnotentitledtogive moreweight tohis a neutralobserver workingoutwhich action willproduce the greatestgood 10 9 does In order to justify Hedonism, Mill sought to justify the claim that the good In order to justify Hedonism, Mill sought to justify the claim thatthegood Mill was so confident about the prospects for a version of Hedonistic J. S.Mill,‘Utilitarianism’, in chapter. of this This slippagefromtalkof“pleasure” totalkof“happiness”isexplainedinsectioneight not 10 Since our happiness is good for us, and general happiness isjust Sinceourhappinessisgoodforus,andgeneral matter whether Utilitarianism and OtherEssays Jim is a pacifist 9 Mill’s proof, much like Bentham’s and , p.308. has been a lifelong advocate Higher pleasuresarethose pleasuresoftheintellectbroughtaboutviaactivities claim thatSocrateshasthe betterlifeeven byhedonisticstandards. of pleasuremattersandcanthereforedefendthe quantity, quality, notmerely with morevalue thanthehappierfool. Mill,ontheotherhand,believes that Bentham could not admit that theunhappySocrates would be livinga life value withtheartsandsciencesofmusicpoetry.” pleasure. Thus, he says that “Prejudice apart, thegameof push-pin is of equal of total focusses onisthemaximisationofhedonicallycalculatedquantities also crucialtodecidingwhatismoral. the wasthought tomove awaymattered wasall that fromBentham’sideathat to redrawBentham’sUtilitarianism,Mill’smostsubstantial In attempting 9. Mill’sQualitative Utilitarianism However, Millintroduces aqualitycriterionforpleasure.Millsaysthat: if youplaytheconsole. then Benthamwouldviewyourlifeasgoingbetter If playingonaconsoleaffordsyoumorepleasurethanreadingShakespeare, Bentham isproducingpleasureandtheway thisisachieved isunimportant. you mayhave acounterexampletoMill’sclaim. value from knowledge withoutanyassociated pleasure orhappiness? If so, extremely controversial; can youimagineasituationinwhichgained health, areonlyvaluable inso far as they promotehappiness/pleasureis that we wouldwant themtodesireit. it (itispossibletodoso—itanactionthatdesire-able),butnotinthesense to killanotherperson.Thisisdesirableinthesensepeoplecouldanddodesire should is desirableifitdesiredtothenormativesense thatsomething it sense that desirable. is it claim that the something isdesireddoesnotseemtojustify fact that the maximising totalhappinessis,however, opentocriticism.Foronething, 12 11 According to Mill, higher pleasures areworthmore thanlowerAccording toMill,higher pleasures. Bentham’s Utilitarianism is quantitative inthesense that allBentham In addition,theideathatotherapparentgoods,suchasknowledge and Mill’s proof ofUtilitarianismintermsthegeneraldesirability know theirownsideofthequestion. than afool satisfied. And if the fool, or thepig,isof a different opinion, it isonlybecausethey It isbetterto be a human beingdissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be dissatisfied of total pleasure. Instead, Mill thought that qualityofpleasurewaspleasure. Instead,Millthought quantity oftotal J. S.Mill,‘Utilitarianism’, p.281. J. Bentham,TheRationaleofReward , p.206,https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6igN9srLgg8C be desiredwithoutanyjustification.Itispossible,forexample,todesire G. E.Moore(1873-1958)pointsoutthatMillmoves fromthefactual 12 11 All thatmattersfor 21 Utilitarianism 22 NORMATIVE ETHICS Utilitarianism 10. Mill’sRuleUtilitarianismversus Bentham’s Act out even if thetotal pleasure (hedonically calculated via Bentham’s calculus) turns sun-lounger. Whatwe should seek tomaximise are thehigherquality pleasures on a having sexorlazing beer, drinking and base;pleasuresassociatedwith like poetry,readingorattendingthetheatre.Lower pleasuresareanimalistic if followed,happiness. In the amount oftotal greatest wouldproducethe wedecision-procedure. Their viewisthat a setofrules that, should create your owndetailstosecure thisconclusionfortheactutilitarian). is requiredinordertomaximisetotalpleasure(justadd that suchakilling in thecase as simply described the actutilitarianappearspowerless to deny such actions, for typically theywilllead to unforeseen painful consequences, While Bentham does suggest thatwe should have “rulesofthumb”against surgeon.” examples. outcome ofindividualactscansometimes lead tooddandobjection-raising moral judgments.However,individual actionswhenmaking thisfocus onthe is typicallyconsideredaruleutilitarianandBenthamanactutilitarian. Utilitarianism andalthoughsuchtermsemergedonlyafterMill’s death, Mill a pleasure,MillandBenthamarealsoseparatedbyreferenceto Act andRule In additiontoadifferenceinviewsregardingtheimportanceofquality pleasures issuccessfulanopenquestionforyourevaluation andanalysis. defence of hissupposedlynon-prejudiced distinction ofhigherandlower beer andthatifgiven thechoicewouldchooselatter.WhetherornotMill’s Mill isopentothecriticismthatmanypeoplehave bothreadbooksanddrunk overpleasures oftheintellect thebasepleasuresofbody.Onthisbasis, are higherandlower. Suchcompetentjudges,saysMill,wouldand dofavour experienced bothtypesofpleasure,arebestplacedtoselectwhichpleasures of hisowntastes,Millsaysthatcompetentjudges,thosepeoplewhohave and lowerhigher and notjustanexpression pleasures asnon-arbitrary quality 13 Rule utilitarians,inwhose campwe canplace Mill,adoptadifferentmoral An actutilitarian,suchasBentham,focusesonlyontheconsequencesof saving theotherfive lives; theirpleasureoutweighs thecost to theformerlyhealthypatient. pleasure is best promoted by killingtheone healthy patient,harvesting his organs and undergoing aroutinecheck.Inthiscase,itwouldseemthattotal and onehealthypatient Imagine acasewheredoctorhadfivedeath new organsto stop their requiring patients to J. Thomson,‘The TrolleyProblem’,p.1396. be 13 quantitatively Judith JarvisThomson(1929-)raisedtheproblemof“transplant

lower as a result. Justifying this distinction between 2012) describedas“Rule Worship.”Nolongerfocussingontheconsequences appears tosufferfromwhat J.C.Smart(1920- The strongruleutilitarian justified setofrules.Yet, ruleutilitariansfaceatroublingdilemma: of minoritygroupswould,perhaps,failtobesupportedbythebestutilitarian- overcome objections basedonthetreatmentofminoritiesbecauseexploitation rules thatreflecttheHarmPrinciple.This fact wouldalsohelpruleutilitarians rights basedon able tosupportandupholdindividualhumanlegal and be Rule utilitarians may seem to avoid troubling cases like the transplantsurgeon 11. Strongversus Weak RuleUtilitarianism would notbemorallypermitted. pleasure overall.best promotestotal the setofrulesthat by action As such,the increase intotalpleasureonasingleoccasion, that actmaynotbecondoned Evenabout an ifaparticularactof harminganotherpersonmightbring That principleis: Principle”. According toMill,thereis: total happinesswouldnotbepromotedoverall. Therefore, ifarulepermittingkillingwas allowed thenthemaximisationof that peoplewouldverybe life! stop comingtohospitalsforfeartheir likely happiness; oneoutcome,forexample,would would notseemtopromotetotal patients of utilitarian-justifiedrulessincearuleallowingthekillinghealthy transplant case, killing thehealthyman would not seemtobepartofthebestset 15  14 2. 1. It isthroughRuleUtilitarianismthatwe canmakesenseofMill’s “Harm is notasufficientwarrant. community, against hiswill,istoprevent harmtoothers.Hisowngood,eitherphysical or moral, The onlypurpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized individual intheway ofcompulsionandcontrol. …one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the Ibid. J. S.Mill,OnLiberty , http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html breaking therule. ignored incircumstanceswheremorehappiness wouldbeproducedby followed, wouldpromotethegreatestamountoftotalhappinesscanbe Weak RuleUtilitarianism always befollowed. followed, wouldpromotethegreatestamountoftotalhappinessmust Strong RuleUtilitarianism 15 : Guidancefromthesetofrulesthat,if : Guidancefromthesetofrulesthat,if 14 23 Utilitarianism 24 NORMATIVE ETHICS examples orpreviousinthischapter. guidance? This issomethingyoushould consider in thelightofyourown Utilitarianism andWeak RuleUtilitarianismactuallyprovidedifferent moral version of RuleUtilitarianismgainsauniqueidentity.Inwhatcases would Act or utility in general, such as killing healthy patients,itis not clear where this tend nottoproducemaximumgoodness “rules ofthumb”againstactionsthat guidelines thatcanbebroken,andgiven thattheactutilitariancanalsooffer it appearstocollapseinto nature .Therulesprovide saved fromtroublingimplicationsonlybydenyingcorefeatures. on toateleological,relativisticutilitariantheory.Utilitarianismseems to be and humanrights,butitisnotclearthattheysurvive theseproblemsholding avoid problemsbasedontreatmentofminoritiesoralackabsolutelegal relative rule regarding howtoact.The strong ruleutilitarianmaybeableto option tomaximisetotalhappinessinfavouroffollowingageneralandnon- of theactionbeforethem,strongruleutilitarianappearstoignore century. However, fewcontemporary philosophers canclaimasmuch and Sidgwick (1838-1900)isconsidered tohave takenover thebatonafterMill, Utilitarianism isnota dead theoryanditdidnotendwithMill.Henry Peter Singer andPreferenceUtilitarianism 13. Non-HedonisticContemporaryUtilitarianism: Mill Bentham 12. ComparingtheClassicalUtilitarians • • • • • • • • • On theotherhand,whileWeak RuleUtilitarianismretainsateleological R. M.Hare(1919-2002)was perhapschiefadvocate inthemidtwentieth Impartial, maximisingtheory If strongruleutilitarian,notclearifteleological or relativistic Viewed asrule utilitarian Quality ofpleasurematters:intellectualversus animalistic Hedonist Teleological, impartial,relativistic,maximising Act Utilitarian All pleasureequallyvaluable Hedonist ensure On thisbasis,whenmakingmoraldecisionswe shouldconsiderhowbestto better If you satisfy yourpreferencetoachieve agood qualification yourlifegoes person’s life is entirely determined by thesatisfaction of their preferences. in eitherraworhigherforms.Instead,Singerbelieveswhat improves that a claim thatthegreatestgoodfornumbercanbereduced to pleasure theory is teleological, maximising, impartial and relativistic buthedoes not Peter Singer(1946-). influence inpubliclifeoutsidephilosophyascanthepreferenceutilitarian, individual characterstherefore beingsustainedeven aftersuchtherapy. whether ornotsomeunnerving preferencesmightformthecoreofcertain However, thereisaquestionas to howarbitrarythisrequirementis and rational preferences were those that mightsurvive cognitive psychotherapy. of certainpreferences,suggestedthat the rationality about Brandt, writing for example), we mightlooktotheideas of as amoralachievement (considerthepreferences ofanationpaedophiles, bloodthirsty orapparentlyimmoral preferences, andcountingsuchsatisfaction animals, iftheyarealsorelevant). of othersinatleastsomedifficultmoralcases (letalonethepreferencesof relevant, because it isnot obvious how you could work out the preferences to sacrificeourintegrity.Further,theproblemofcalculationalsoseemsbe preferences ofthemajorityseemtothreatenaminoritygroup,orrequireus regarding circumstanceswherepartialityseemsdesirable,orwhenthe leaves SingeropentothesameissuesthatplaguedBentham.Namely, preference satisfaction;allpreferencesaretoweigh equally.Thispotentially weighing of preferences when deciding which action better promotes greater follow Bentham’scommitmenttoimpartiality,Singeralsosupportsequal if ourpreferencesatisfactionfailstoprovidepleasureforus.Continuing be atthecoreofmoralthinking: their preferenceandgainemployment.,accordingtoSinger,must rather thancontinueineducation, their life goes for better them if they secure . Brandt, R. 17 16 Singer advocatesanon-hedonisticversion ofUtilitarianism.Hisutilitarian my ideasandtheway Ilive. Itwouldbehighlydiscordantifthatwas notthecase. point about doingethicsistothinkabouttheway tolive. Mylifehasakindofharmonybetween whole The ethics didnotmakeanydifferencetoyourlife.Itwoulditanacademic exercise. would besomethingincoherentabout living There a life where theconclusions you came to in In response to aconcern regarding themoral relevance of satisfying nov/06/weekend.kevintoolis K. Toolis,‘TheMostDangerousMan intheWorld’, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/ in virtueofsatisfyingthatpreference the maximisation Ethical Theory. of total preference . Ifsomeoneelsedesirestogetajob satisfaction―it Richard Brandt does 16 (1910-1997). not matter 17

25 Utilitarianism 26 NORMATIVE ETHICS COMMON STUDENTMISTAKES SUMMARY ISSUES TOCONSIDER • • • • • 1. 2. people isultimatelythemorallyrightthingtodo. Utilitarianism simplybecauseyoujudgekillingthefewer numberof Suggesting that“JimandtheIndians”isnotacounterexampleto Imprecision inuseofexamplestodefend/challengeUtilitarianism. Utilitarianism. Imprecise understandingofthehedonic/non-hedonicsplitin pain production. Minimising thelong-termimpactofactionswhenitcomestopleasure/ may accountfor. Not reflectingtheattitudinalaspectofpleasurethatBentham’stheory decision? machine whiletheywere asleep,sothattheynever hadtomakethe would notcomeout?Wouldyouputsomeone careaboutintothe Would youenterNozick’sexperiencemachineif youknew to eitherpleasureorpreferencesatisfaction? Is thereanythingthatwouldimprove yourlifethatcannotbereduced philosopher todecide. their objections is very much up toyouas a critically-minded different versionsto whichthe extent ofUtilitarianismsurvive pose seriousproblemsforutilitarians.The cases that hypothetical givessome intuitivetheory the supportevenof light inthe consequences matter that rule formulations.Thecoreinsight non-hedonistic advocates, as well assupportersofbothactand Utilitarianism remains a living theoryand retains hedonistic and KEY TERMINOLOGY 3. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. preferences ever matter? If yourpreferenceschangeafterpsychotherapy,didtheoriginal theory? Does StrongRuleUtilitarianismdeserve tobelabelledasautilitarian name? Is Weak RuleUtilitarianismmerely Act Utilitarianismbyanother raise problems? just talkintermsofpromotingsufficientpleasure?Wouldthissolve or Why doutilitariansnotgive upontheideaofmaximisingpleasureand the greatergood,shouldyouever beforcedto? Do youhave convictionsorbeliefsyouwouldnotwant tosacrificefor possible thatsomepleasuresareinferiorinvalue toothers? Look atthequotestartofchapterbyDaraÓBriain—isit this goodforyou?Why? Are youever toldtostopwatching televisionanddosomethingelse?Is way? Does Millsuccessfullyimprove Bentham’s Act Utilitarianisminany Utilitarianism? Canitbeovercome? Which isthemostseriousproblemfacingBentham’s Act Can pleasurebemeasured?DoesBenthamgoaboutthistaskcorrectly? Principle ofUtility Consequentialist Teleological Relativistic Normative Intrinsic Utility Hedonic Calculus Agent-neutrality 27 Utilitarianism 28 NORMATIVE ETHICS Thomson, JudithJarvis,‘TheTrolleyProblem’, Nozick, Robert,‘TheExperienceMachine’,in ― Utilitarianism ― ‘Utilitarianism’,inUtilitarianismandOtherEssays Mill, JohnStuart,OnLiberty(London:Longman,Roberts,Green&Co.,1869), Brandt, Richard,EthicalTheory:TheProblemsofNormative andCriticalEthics ―, AnIntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation ―, ‘An IntroductiontothePrinciplesofMoralsandLegislation’,in Bentham, Jeremy,TheRationaleofReward (London:RobertHeward, 1830), References Williams, Bernard,‘JimandtheIndians’,inhis Toolis, Kevin,‘TheMostDangerousManintheWorld’, Shafer-Landau (Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,2007). (London: Penguin Books,2004). freely available athttp://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html (Englewood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall,1959). http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML18.html 2004). Utilitarianism andOtherEssays freely available athttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6igN9srLgg8C Jim_and_Indians.pdf freely available athttps://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/ lifeandstyle/1999/nov/06/weekend.kevintoolis November 1999),freelyavailable athttps://www.theguardian.com/ (1985): 1395-1415,https://doi.org/10.2307/796133 , freelyavailable athttps://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm , ed.by Alan Ryan (London:Penguin Books, Ethical Theory,ed.byRuss The Yale LawJournal , 94.6 A CritiqueofUtilitarianism , ed.by Alan Ryan the Guardian(6 , freelyavailable at ,