Utilitarianism
There are two dominant approaches in ethical theory today. One approach maintains that we judge actions by their consequences and the other maintains that we judge actions by appeal to rules. The second theory, called deontology, will be addressed later. The first theory, utilitarianism, we will consider in this lecture.
The idea of applying utility to ethics has its roots in 18th-century philosophy. David Hume mentions it in his Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals and Adam Smith devotes a portion of his Theory of Moral Sentiments to the concept. However, as a fully formed ethical theory, utilitarianism was the product of two philosophers in the 19th century. The first of these was British philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
Bentham began with what he considered to be a self-evident psychological principle. Human beings act by two motives: the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This being the case, the principle of utility can be formulated as "the doctrine that we ought to act to promote the greatest balance of pleasure over pain." However, there are two problems with this initial formulation. First, it seems overly concerned with pleasure as opposed to the right action or behavior. The second problem is that this principle of utility doesn't address whose pleasure we should be concerned with.
From Bentham's perspective, the first problem was not a problem at all. Good, strictly speaking, is equated with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure simply is the pursuit of good. And as we'll see momentarily, for Bentham what counts is the quantity of pleasure. However, the second problem needs addressing. Bentham was concerned not only with self-satisfaction but also with social reform. This being the case, Bentham reformulated the principle of utility to say "that we ought to act to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Note also, the change in terminology from pleasure to happiness. This is to remind us that the utilitarians are not only concerned with physical pleasure and pain but all types of pleasure.
Bentham's version of utilitarianism emphasized the quantity of pleasure and he developed a way of calculating the quantity to determine the correctness of any given action. This "hedonic calculus" consisted of seven points which included the intensity of the pleasure, its duration, certainty, and extent. So from a purely quantitative perspective, various pleasures were identical as long as their numerical value on the calculus was identical. This is what led Bentham to say that "the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnish more pleasure, it is more valuable than either.
If you’re curious about Bentham’s calculus here’s the complete list of attributes:
Intensity: or how strong the pleasure is
Duration: how long the pleasure lasts
Certainty: how likely it is to occur
Propinquity: how near at hand the pleasure is
Fecundity: the ability of one pleasure to produce others
Purity: how free the pleasure is from pain
Extent: how many people are affected by the pleasure
Bentham even composed a poem to help remember the list:
“intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure
Such marks in pleasures and pains endure.
Such pleasures seek if private be thy end:
If it is public, wide let them extend.
Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view:
If pains must come, let them extend to few.”
As inviting as it might be to quantify ethical theory, there may be problems with this approach. First, how can pleasure or happiness be quantified? Whatever scale we might use seems inherently arbitrary. Even the choice of which scale to use is arbitrary. Plus, if we were to formulate some objective criteria to evaluate and quantify pleasure and pain, it would seem that this would be the foundation of ethical theory instead of utility. A second problem is that this quantitative approach implies a sort of relativism of values. Between two competing goods, for example, reading poetry and playing a game, is there no way to distinguish them? If so, then there seems to be no way of making sense out of the central normative feature of any ethical theory. For example, if I were to say that you ought, to tell the truth, but you get just as much quantitative value out of lying, then you are perfectly justified in lying. To say the least, this seems odd. There may be an alternative.
The alternative was offered by a student of Bentham named John Stuart Mill. While he was deeply impressed by the utilitarian theory of Bentham, he did think that certain modifications were needed. In particular, Mill wanted to de-emphasize quantity in favor of quality about happiness. To illustrate the difference Mill asked whether anyone would rather be a pig satisfied than a human being dissatisfied. The idea is that when it comes to happiness quantity is not enough. It's not the amount of happiness that counts but the kind of happiness. Another way of putting this is to say that some pursuits are inherently better than others. How can Mill justify this claim?
The answer goes back to an idea developed by Aristotle. To be truly happy, human beings must fulfill their potential. Part of this potential is to be rational agents. So any pursuits which require a rational component are inherently better than those pursuits which do not require such capacity. Here, better means more effective at creating happiness. So Mill's point is that the conditions for human happiness are different and related to our rational capacity. Still, we need clear criteria for deciding which actions to take to achieve happiness. For example, how can we decide between two activities if we've only tried one? The answer, for Mill, is simple. We rely on the expertise of those who have tried both. According to Mill, those who have tried both inevitably choose for the higher pleasure thus illustrating that it is the correct choice.
Utilitarianism has great potential for practical application and some form of reasoning based on utility is an important part of many decision models which address public policy questions.
Also, utilitarian principles are not restricted to human beings. The unifying criterion of morality for utilitarians is whether an action involves suffering or not. As Bentham points out the important consideration is not whether animals (or humans for that matter) can reason or talk, but “can they suffer.” If so, we cannot justify actions that cause their suffering. This ethical theory has major implications.
The idea of applying utility to ethics has its roots in 18th-century philosophy. David Hume mentions it in his Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals and Adam Smith devotes a portion of his Theory of Moral Sentiments to the concept. However, as a fully formed ethical theory, utilitarianism was the product of two philosophers in the 19th century. The first of these was British philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
Bentham began with what he considered to be a self-evident psychological principle. Human beings act by two motives: the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This being the case, the principle of utility can be formulated as "the doctrine that we ought to act to promote the greatest balance of pleasure over pain." However, there are two problems with this initial formulation. First, it seems overly concerned with pleasure as opposed to the right action or behavior. The second problem is that this principle of utility doesn't address whose pleasure we should be concerned with.
From Bentham's perspective, the first problem was not a problem at all. Good, strictly speaking, is equated with pleasure. The pursuit of pleasure simply is the pursuit of good. And as we'll see momentarily, for Bentham what counts is the quantity of pleasure. However, the second problem needs addressing. Bentham was concerned not only with self-satisfaction but also with social reform. This being the case, Bentham reformulated the principle of utility to say "that we ought to act to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Note also, the change in terminology from pleasure to happiness. This is to remind us that the utilitarians are not only concerned with physical pleasure and pain but all types of pleasure.
Bentham's version of utilitarianism emphasized the quantity of pleasure and he developed a way of calculating the quantity to determine the correctness of any given action. This "hedonic calculus" consisted of seven points which included the intensity of the pleasure, its duration, certainty, and extent. So from a purely quantitative perspective, various pleasures were identical as long as their numerical value on the calculus was identical. This is what led Bentham to say that "the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnish more pleasure, it is more valuable than either.
If you’re curious about Bentham’s calculus here’s the complete list of attributes:
Intensity: or how strong the pleasure is
Duration: how long the pleasure lasts
Certainty: how likely it is to occur
Propinquity: how near at hand the pleasure is
Fecundity: the ability of one pleasure to produce others
Purity: how free the pleasure is from pain
Extent: how many people are affected by the pleasure
Bentham even composed a poem to help remember the list:
“intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure
Such marks in pleasures and pains endure.
Such pleasures seek if private be thy end:
If it is public, wide let them extend.
Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view:
If pains must come, let them extend to few.”
As inviting as it might be to quantify ethical theory, there may be problems with this approach. First, how can pleasure or happiness be quantified? Whatever scale we might use seems inherently arbitrary. Even the choice of which scale to use is arbitrary. Plus, if we were to formulate some objective criteria to evaluate and quantify pleasure and pain, it would seem that this would be the foundation of ethical theory instead of utility. A second problem is that this quantitative approach implies a sort of relativism of values. Between two competing goods, for example, reading poetry and playing a game, is there no way to distinguish them? If so, then there seems to be no way of making sense out of the central normative feature of any ethical theory. For example, if I were to say that you ought, to tell the truth, but you get just as much quantitative value out of lying, then you are perfectly justified in lying. To say the least, this seems odd. There may be an alternative.
The alternative was offered by a student of Bentham named John Stuart Mill. While he was deeply impressed by the utilitarian theory of Bentham, he did think that certain modifications were needed. In particular, Mill wanted to de-emphasize quantity in favor of quality about happiness. To illustrate the difference Mill asked whether anyone would rather be a pig satisfied than a human being dissatisfied. The idea is that when it comes to happiness quantity is not enough. It's not the amount of happiness that counts but the kind of happiness. Another way of putting this is to say that some pursuits are inherently better than others. How can Mill justify this claim?
The answer goes back to an idea developed by Aristotle. To be truly happy, human beings must fulfill their potential. Part of this potential is to be rational agents. So any pursuits which require a rational component are inherently better than those pursuits which do not require such capacity. Here, better means more effective at creating happiness. So Mill's point is that the conditions for human happiness are different and related to our rational capacity. Still, we need clear criteria for deciding which actions to take to achieve happiness. For example, how can we decide between two activities if we've only tried one? The answer, for Mill, is simple. We rely on the expertise of those who have tried both. According to Mill, those who have tried both inevitably choose for the higher pleasure thus illustrating that it is the correct choice.
Utilitarianism has great potential for practical application and some form of reasoning based on utility is an important part of many decision models which address public policy questions.
Also, utilitarian principles are not restricted to human beings. The unifying criterion of morality for utilitarians is whether an action involves suffering or not. As Bentham points out the important consideration is not whether animals (or humans for that matter) can reason or talk, but “can they suffer.” If so, we cannot justify actions that cause their suffering. This ethical theory has major implications.