utilitarianism a level essay

Model Essay – Utilitarianism

August 14, 2018.

To what extent, if any, is Utilitarianism a good theory for approaching moral decisions in life? (30/40 Grade B)

Below is a sample essay from our book on Model Essays available in the shop. If you have an essay you’d be happy for us to include in our next selection please email it to me (preferably grade A or B standard). I will mark it with detailed comments for free if we use it. Other essays can be marked for £10 an essay – please buy an essay marking credit in the shop.

Arguably, the use of utilitarianism for the making of moral decisions is more detrimental to a society than it is beneficial. Indeed the very basis on which utilitarianism is founded, ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure’, proves to be the first stumbling block. The ‘paradox of hedonism’ suggests that pleasure itself cannot be directly obtained. Instead, we must aim for more substantial conclusions, such as wealth or power – pleasure is merely a symptom that follows. This idea is most acutely explained by politician William Bennett: ‘Happiness is like a cat, If you try to coax it or call it, it will avoid you; it will never come. But if you pay no attention to it and go about your business, you’ll find it rubbing against your legs and jumping into your lap.’

Good. Excellent summary of the utilitarian problem that once you pursue happiness or pleasure as an end in itself it tends to elude you.

Therefore, to base one’s entire ethical approach to life on happiness, something which is so fleeting and indistinct, suddenly seems irrational. You need to mention a philosopher here such as Mill and ground the argument in what he says . If we cannot amass pleasure within ourselves, how can we be so vain as to assume we can recognise its form in others, particularly those we don’t know (e.g. in the case of a politician forming their policies on utilitarian principles.) That is not to say that the ‘pursuit of happiness’ in a wider sense will always be futile, but that one should make decisions independently, on grounds other than those utilitarian, and allow happiness to follow.

Is it not true to say we can assess polices looking backwards with hindsight because all the consequences are known, but not forwards when there are often unintended consequences? This paragraph is too general to be of much analytical quality – make sure you go straight into a philosophical theory.

On the other hand, rule utilitarianism appears to offer a resolution. If one chooses to implement a pre-determined set of rules (e.g. to avoid lying, to be pacifistic, to be modest,) which predominantly bring about the most ‘pleasure’/good for society, then focus can be diverted away from pursuing you mean personal happiness here happiness, and instead towards living a righteous life.

Yes, but again, you need to give this a theoretical grounding in Mill’s so-called ‘weak rule utilitarianism’ – Mill’s point is we are foolish to ignore the experience of people who have gone before us in terms of general rules or guidelines for creating the happy society. But when moral dilemmas occur we revert to being act utilitarians.

Jeremy Bentham (the father of modern utilitarianism) was somewhat of a polymath – to suggest that he was solely a ‘philosopher’ would be a vast understatement. This kind of comment is irrelevant to the question and a waste of time. Undoubtedly, he was also a great social reformer, basing his beliefs on the underlying principle of egalitarianism (i.e. equality for all.) However, in many ways, utilitarianism innately contradicts ‘egalité . ’

This paragraph is a good example of the kind of paragraph a highly analytical essay never contains because you are merely describing the life and times of Mr Bentham and not adding anything to the argument.

Initially a thought experiment experiment devised by the American philosopher Robert Nozick, ‘the utility monster,’ undermines the very equality for which Bentham’s philosophy once fought. Visualise a situation in which the hedonic calculus is being employed. In such a case, the intensity (quality) of the perceived happiness must be acknowledged. For illustration’s sake, imagine rations are being distributed amongst a group of isolated individuals. However, one of these individuals appears to gain a disproportionately high intensity of pleasure on receiving food, despite all other individuals being of an equally critical state of health (e.g. starvation.) To apply the hedonic calculus would not only (unfairly) favour the minority, but also pose a great risk to the majority (assuming that the individual’s pleasure is greater than the collective pleasure of the majority.)

Ye s this is a good point but it wouldn’t apply to Mill’s theory because social utility would mean we need principles of justice, otherwise any of us would be permanently miserable at just the thought of a utility monster.

The most valid counterargument to which is proposed by the British philosopher Derek Parfit, arguing that the scale of happiness should be seen as asymptotic rather than linear. That is, the happiness of a utility monster cannot perpetually increase, but will eventually reach a point near enough to ‘complete’ happiness. Hence, such a being is not conceivable. This argument bears a strong resemblance to prioritarianism, which suggests that individuals on the lower end of the ‘pleasure spectrum’ will obtain a greater amount of happiness (‘per unit of utility’) than those closer to the reverse end.

Again a good point and actually illustrating what economists call the principle of diminishing marginal utility – we eventually have less and less satisfaction as an individual until at some point we experience no satisfaction at all.

Or, to some extent, the intensity of happiness could thereby be omitted from the hedonic calculus to account for the utility monster. However, there is also a troubling flaw with the seventh principle – ‘extent,’ or the amount of people that a particular moral choice may affect. Counterintuitively, the one society which utilitarianism does not appear to permit, is a microcosmic ‘utopia.’ When summating the pleasure of individuals, the greatest amount will be achieved, theoretically, by an extremely populous group with indifferent levels of happiness rather than a very small but extremely contented group. This is known as the ‘repugnant conclusion.’

Interesting and unusual point. Which philosopher talks about this problem?

In counterargument one might say, ‘the average pleasure should supersede the total amount of pleasure’ for this particular instance. Yet this line of argument spawns issues of its own. A simple average can easily be skewed by extremities. Such that one individual in a state of euphoria would significantly raise the average happiness of his miserable counterparts. Under the aforementioned, atrocities such as slavery could feasibly be justified. What’s the suffering of one thousand imprisoned subordinates if the overseer is delighted by the recent success of his cotton farm? Utilitarianism, in this context, seeks to diminish the more valuable pursuits (charity, liberal arts) over the happiness one gains through materialism (e.g. the wealth garnered from a cotton farm.)

Even if all the preceding shortcomings were to be deemed permissible, there is still a flaw which is perhaps the most pertinent of all. Humans, by their very nature, are unable to reliably predict consequence, and without consequence, the principle of utilitarianism is worthless. Given the nature of the ‘ripple effect,’ it would be naive to assume that every possible consequence of even the simplest of decisions could be accounted for. Or moreover, to predict the ways in which people would (potentially dangerously,) apply utilitarianism if it were to be adopted as a global ethic.

Yes, again a very good point.

Even attempting to apply such a primitive, nebulous philosophy to an infinite diversity of ethical decisions seems rather unrefined. Despite superficially appearing succinct and rational, the impracticalities of achieving ‘the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people’ cannot be overlooked. Indeed, utilitarianism is theoretically sound but there are far too many exceptional cases for it to be one’s ruling principle.

‘Primitive’ and ‘nebulous’ are rather emotive (rude) words to use of a philosophy that has guided Government policy for years.  Welfare is another word for happiness (just a little more neutral!).In Politics and Economics we use social welfare measures to evaluate our decisions – as it is impartial.

Overall 30/40 75% Grade B

The essay has some very interesting points to make.   However, it would not achieve an A* because the establishment of how the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill actually works is rather thin. Particularly, there is little substance about how Mill’s weak rule utilitarianism actually works, and how some argue that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism. In terms of social benefits versus individual benefits the candidate needs to bring out how this operates in Mill’s theory, and how he grounds the final chapter of his essay on justice as a fundamental prerequisite of the happy society. Mill also moves his whole argument much closer to Aristotle as he writes his essay – leading some to call him an inconsistent utilitarian because he can’t quite decide whether to go for qualitative pleasures or another concept of long-term welfare that is closer to eudaimonia in Aristotelean thought. It is lighter on AO1 marks than AO2 but seems to miss some of the analytical steps necessary to be a really compelling argument.

AO1 Level 4 10/16

A good demonstration of knowledge and understanding. Addresses the question well. Good selection of relevant material, used appropriately on the whole. Mostly accurate knowledge which demonstrates good understanding of the material used, which should have reasonable amounts of depth or breadth. A good range of scholarly views.

It is ‘good’ because it contains a very strong critical thesis. But it is neither very good nor excellent because the precise detail of how Bentham’s and Mills theories work is lacking – it is assumed rather than stated and established and analysed. For example, there is an interesting relationship in Mill between higher and lower pleasures and act and rue utilitarianism whereby we should, Mill argues, generally follow a rule which past experience suggest will maximise social happiness but when we face a moral dilemma we revert to being an act utilitarian. There is also an ambiguity in the question which is never considered – moral decisions for whom?

AO2 level 5 20/24

A very good demonstration of analysis and evaluation in response to the question. successful and clear analysis, evaluation and argument. Views very well stated, coherently developed and justified. There is a well–developed and sustained line of reasoning which is coherent, relevant and logically structured.

It would have been excellent if there had been a little more engagement with the academic philosophers who produce the arguments, rather than just the arguments themselves.

Study with us

Practise Questions 2020

Religious Studies Guides – 2020

Check out our great books in the Shop

Leave a Reply Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Utilitarianism

Introduction to Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory, meaning the morality of actions is judged by the outcomes they produce.
• Created by Jeremy Bentham and later developed by John Stuart Mill , it proposes that the greatest good is whatever brings the most happiness to the most number of people.
• Central to utilitarianism is the concept of utility , or usefulness. Actions are morally right if they maximise overall utility.

Key Principles of Utilitarianism

• Greatest Happiness Principle : Proposes that actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce the reverse of happiness.
• Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus : An algorithm for measuring pleasure or pain coming from a specific action, considering factors such as intensity, duration, certainty, and more. Used to predict and evaluate consequences.
• John Stuart Mill’s Qualitative Hedonism : Redirects the scope of utilitarianism from merely quantity of pleasure to include the quality of pleasures, distinguishing between higher and lower pleasures.

Two Variations of Utilitarianism

• Act Utilitarianism : Examines the utility of each individual action. An action is morally permissible if it maximises utility. This form of utilitarianism is more closely associated with Bentham.
• Rule Utilitarianism : Considers the utility of rules of conduct. An action is morally permissible if it follows the rule that would lead to the greatest utility if generally adopted. This variation is more associated with Mill.

Strong and Weak Utilitarianism

• Strong Utilitarianism : Argues that one should always act in a way that maximises utility. It’s an absolute, with no exceptions.
• Weak Utilitarianism : Proposes that maximising utility is generally a good thing, but it doesn’t always need to be the determining factor. It allows exceptions.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

• Criticism regarding predicting consequences : It’s often impossible to accurately predict all the consequences of an action.
• Criticism around tyranny of the majority : Utilitarianism could lead to injustice if the happiness of the majority is gained at the expense of the minority.
• Criticism about reduces human experience : Critics argue that utilitarianism reduces every facet of human experience to a calculation of pleasure or pain.
• Criticism related to moral obligations : Utilitarianism’s focus on outcomes undermines moral obligations and rights; it could justify immoral actions if they lead to overall happiness.

Defenses of Utilitarianism

• Practicality : It provides a clear method to make decisions, particularly in complex moral situations.
• Communal Focus : It encourages actions that benefit the group rather than the individual, promoting a socially cohesive society.
• Flexibility : As a consequentialist theory, utilitarianism can accommodate a wide range of circumstances and moral dilemmas.

Open Book Publishers

• Language and Literature
• History and Culture
• Economics and Politics

Ethics for A-Level

Part i. normative ethics.

Chapter 1. Utilitarianism

Texte intégral.

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 pleasure!” I hate that phrase. It is an insult to top quality pop. It is also an insult to guilt. Dara Ó Briain (comedian)

1. Utilitarianism: An Introduction

1 Some things appear to be straightforwardly good for people. Winning the lottery, marrying your true love or securing a desired set 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

2 Hedonism is a theory of well-being — a theory of how well a life is going for the person living that life. What separates Hedonism from other theories of well-being is that the hedonist believes 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 desires people have, or an objective list of things such as friendship and health.

3 The roots of Hedonism can be traced back at least as far as Epicurus (341–270 BC) and Ancient Greece. Epicurus held the hedonistic view that the primary intrinsic good for a person is pleasure; meaning 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.

4 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 your true love or achieved your desired qualifications, then the hedonistic explanation of these judgments is that these things are good for you only if they provide you with pleasure. Many pleasures may be physical, but Fred Feldman (1941–) is a defender of a theory known as Attitudinal Hedonism. According to this theory, psychological pleasures can themselves count as intrinsically good for a person. So, while reading a book would not seem to produce pleasure in a physical way, a hedonist may value the psychological pleasure associated with that act of reading and thus accept that it can improve a person’s well-being. This understanding of hedonistic pleasure may help to explain why, for example, one person can gain so much pleasure from a Lady Gaga album while another gains nothing at all; the psychological responses to the music differ.

3. Nozick’s Experience Machine

5 One important problem for Hedonism is that our well-being seems to be affected by more than just the total pleasure in our lives. It may be the case that you enjoy gaining a new qualification, but there seems to be more to the value of this event than merely the pleasure produced. Many people agree that success in gaining a meaningful qualification improves your life even if no pleasure is obtained from it. Certainly, many believe that the relationship between what improves your life and what gives pleasure is not directly proportional, as the hedonist would claim.

6 Robert Nozick (1938–2002) attacked the hedonistic idea that pleasure is the only good by testing our intuitions via a now famous thought-experiment. Nozick asks:

1 R. Nozick, ‘The Experience Machine’, p. 292. Suppose there was an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book. All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain. Should you plug into this machine for life, pre-programming your life experiences? […] Of course, while in the tank you won’t know that you’re there; you’ll think that it’s all actually happening […] would you plug in? 1

7 Nozick’s challenge to Hedonism is based on the thought that most people who consider this possible situation would opt not to plug in. Indeed, if you ask yourself if you would actually choose to leave behind your real friends, family and life in favour of a pre-programmed existence you also might conclude that plugging into the experience machine would not be desirable. However, if Hedonism is correct and our well-being is determined entirely by the amount of pleasure that we experience, then Nozick wonders “what else can matter to us, other than how our lives feel from the inside?” 2 The experience machine guarantees us pleasure yet we find it unappealing compared to a real life where pleasure is far from assured. This may suggest that our well-being is determined by other factors in addition to how much pleasure we secure, perhaps knowledge or friendships.

8 The hedonists need not give way entirely on this point, of course, as they may feel that the experience machine is desirable just because it guarantees experiences of pleasure. Or, you might believe that our suspicions about the machine are misplaced. After all, once inside the machine we would not suspect that things were not real. You may feel that the hedonist could bite-thebullet (accept the apparently awkward conclusion as a non-fatal implication of the theory) and say that any reticence to enter the machine is irrational . Perhaps the lives of those choosing to be plugged in to the machine would go extraordinary well!

4. The Foundations of Bentham’s Utilitarianism

9 Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) was the first of the “classical utilitarians”. Driven by a genuine desire for social reform, Bentham wanted to be as much involved in law, politics and economics as abstract philosophising.

10 Bentham developed his moral theory of Utilitarianism on the foundation of the type of hedonistic thinking described in section two. For Bentham, the only thing that determines the value of a life, or indeed the value of an event or action, is the amount of pleasure contained in that life, or the amount of pleasure produced as a result of that event or action. Bentham is a hedonistic utilitarian . This belief in Hedonism, however, was not something that Bentham took to be unjustified or arbitrary; for him Hedonism could be empirically justified by evidence in the world in its favour. According to Bentham:

3 J. Bentham, ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in Utilitarianism and O (...) Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. 3

11 Bentham moves from this empirical claim about the factors that guide our behaviour to a normative claim about how we ought to live. He creates a moral theory based on the bringing about of more pleasure and less pain.

4 Ibid. , p. 66.

12 When first understanding Utilitarianism, it is also crucial to understand what is meant by the term “utility”. Bentham defined it as “[…] that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness […] or […] to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness”. 4 Utility is thus promoted when pleasure is promoted and when unhappiness is avoided. Bentham’s commitment to Hedonism means for him that goodness is just an increase in pleasure, and evil or unhappiness is just an increase in pain or decrease in pleasure. With this understanding of utility in mind, Bentham commits himself to the Principle of Utility :

5 Ibid. , p. 65. By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. 5

13 In effect, this principle simply says that promoting utility, defined in terms of pleasure, is to be approved of and reducing utility is to be disapproved of.

14 The Principle of Utility, backed by a commitment to Hedonism, underpins the central utilitarian claim made by Bentham. Based on a phrase that he wrongly attributed to Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), Bentham suggests that the measure of right and wrong is the extent to which an action produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Of course, what counts as good, for Bentham, is pleasure. We can then rephrase what Bentham himself call his fundamental axiom as a requirement to promote the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people, in order to act morally .

5. The Structure of Bentham’s Utilitarianism

15 In addition to being hedonistic, Bentham’s Utilitarianism is also:

• Consequentialist/Teleological

16 Bentham’s Utilitarianism is consequentialist because the moral value of an action or event is determined entirely by the consequences of that event. The theory is also described as teleological for the same reason, based on the Greek word telos that means “end” or “purpose”. If more pleasure follows as a consequence of “Action A” rather than “Action B”, then according to the fundamental axiom of Utilitarianism “Action A” should be undertaken and is morally right; choosing “Action B” would be morally wrong.

17 In addition, Bentham’s Utilitarianism is Relativistic rather than Absolutist . Absolutist moral views hold that certain actions will always be morally wrong irrespective of context or consequences. For example, many campaigning groups suggest that torture is always morally unacceptable whether it is carried out by vindictive dictators seeking to instil fear in a population or whether it is authorised by democratically elected governments seeking to obtain information in order to stop a terrorist attack. For absolutists then, the act of torture is absolutely wrong in all cases and situations.

18 Clearly, Bentham cannot hold this type of view because sometimes the pain involved in torture may lead to the promotion of greater pleasure (or less intense pain) overall, such as in the case where torture stops a terrorist atrocity. On this basis, the Benthamite utilitarian must believe that whether a certain action is right or wrong is always relative to the situation in which the action takes place.

19 Bentham’s Utilitarianism is maximising because it does not merely require that pleasure is promoted, but that the greatest pleasure for the greatest number is secured. This means that some actions that lead to pleasure will still not be morally good acts if another action that could have produced even more pleasure in that setting was rejected. Thus, for example, if you gain some pleasure from spending money on a new book, but that money could have produced more pleasure had it been donated to a local charity for the homeless, then buying a new book would be morally wrong even though it led to some pleasure because it did not maximise the total amount of pleasure that was possible in that circumstance.

20 Finally, Bentham’s Utilitarianism is also impartial in the sense that what matters is simply securing the maximum amount of pleasure for the maximum number of people; the theory does not give special preference regarding which people are supposed to have access to, or share in, that total pleasure. Bentham’s utilitarian theory is associated with the idea of equal consideration of interests ; as long as total pleasure is maximised then it does not matter if that pleasure is experienced by royalty, presidents, siblings, children, friends or enemies. In the total calculation of pleasure, we are all equal regardless of our status, behaviour or any other social factor.

6. Hedonic Calculus

21 Hopefully it is now clear that for Bentham the consequences in terms of pleasure production of any action are what determine the morality of that action, and that no other factors are relevant. However, it is not clear how exactly we should go about working out what to do in specific cases. For example:

You are a military airman flying a fighter jet that is about to intercept a passenger airliner that seems to have been hijacked by an as yet unknown figure. The plane appears to be on a path that could take it either to an airport or, potentially, directly to a major and highly populated city. You are tasked with deciding how to act and must, therefore, choose whether or not to fire a missile at the plane. Firing at the plane would kill the passengers but save all lives on the ground, yet not firing may save the passengers, or it may give the passengers only a few more minutes before the plane is flown into a city full of innocents and they are killed in any case. Suggesting that the pilot weigh up the options and choose the action that secures the greatest pleasure for the greatest number is not obviously helpful in making such a difficult decision with so many variables.

22 Bentham recognised that such Problems of Calculation relating to the pleasure associated with future actions needed addressing in order for Utilitarianism to be a workable moral theory. Bentham therefore created the Hedonic Calculus (sometimes known as the Felicific Calculus) in order to help an individual work out how much pleasure would be created by differing possible actions. The Hedonic Calculus, as suggested by Bentham, is based on assessing possible pleasures according to their:

• Remoteness (i.e. how far into the future the pleasure is)
• Fecundity (i.e. how likely it is that pleasure will generate other related pleasures)
• Purity (i.e. if any pain will be felt alongside that pleasure)
• Extent (i.e. how many people might be able to share in that pleasure) 6

23 The Hedonic Calculus is therefore supposed to provide a decision-procedure for a utilitarian who is confused as to how to act in a morally tricky situation. Thus, our fighter-pilot might consider the intensity of the pleasure of surviving versus the duration of the pain of death, while also needing to balance these factors against the relative certainty of the possible pains or pleasures. No doubt, the fighter pilot would still face an agonising moral choice but it seems that he would at least have some methodology for working out what Utilitarianism morally requires of him.

7. Problems with Bentham’s Utilitarianism

24 However, whether or not measuring possible actions in terms of “units of pleasure” associated with them is actually plausible is very much an open question and so the problem of calculation is not necessarily solved simply by the existence of the Hedonic Calculus. Consider the most recent highly pleasurable experience that you enjoyed and compare it to a highly pleasurable experience from earlier in your life. It may be that you cannot say confidently that one provided more pleasure than the other, especially if the experiences were extremely varied; perhaps winning a sporting trophy versus going on your first holiday. Pleasures that are so fundamentally different in nature may simply be incommensurable — they may be incapable of being measured by a common standard such as the Hedonic Calculus.

25 In addition, the problem of calculation can be extended beyond the issues raised above. Remember that Bentham’s Utilitarianism is impartial in the sense that all individuals who gain pleasure as a result of a certain action count towards the total amount of pleasure. However, the following case raises the Problem of Relevant Beings :

You are considering whether or not to approve a new housing development on a piece of unoccupied land outside the current boundary of your town. You are clear that, if approved, the development will create a great deal of pleasure for both new residents and construction workers without any pain being experienced by others. You are aware, however, that the development will require the culling of several badgers and the removal of a habitat currently supporting many birds, stray cats and rodents of various types.

26 On the surface, this case should be obvious for the utilitarian without any special problem of calculation; the greatest good for the greatest number would be secured if the development were permitted to go ahead. However, this assumes that non-human animals are not relevant to the calculation of pleasures and pains. Yet, if pleasure is all that matters for how well a life goes then it is not clear why animals, that may be able to experience some form of pleasure and can almost certainly experience pain, should be excluded from the calculation process.

• 7 J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , http://www.econlib.org/li (...)

27 Indeed, Bentham, when referring to the moral value of animals, noted that: “The question (for deciding moral relevance) is not ‘Can they reason?’, nor ‘Can they talk?’, but ‘Can they suffer?’” 7 If the suffering and pain of humans is relevant to moral calculations then surely it is at least plausible that so should the suffering and pain of non-human animals. (There is more on the issue of the moral status of animals in Chapter 14 when the morality of eating animals is investigated.)

28 Being a maximising ethical theory, Utilitarianism is also open to a Demandingness Objection . If it is not the case that pleasure needs to be merely promoted but actually maximised at all opportunities , then the standard for acting morally appears to be set extremely high. For example, did you buy a doughnut at some point this year or treat yourself to a magazine? Live the life of a high-roller and treat yourself to a taxi ride rather than walking to your destination? While your actions certainly brought about differing degrees of pleasure to both yourself and to those who gained economic benefit from your decision, it seems that you could have created much more pleasure by saving up your money and ensuring it reached those suffering extreme financial hardships or residing in poverty around the world. As a result of being a maximising moral theory, Utilitarianism seems to make immorality very hard to avoid as it is so utterly demanding on our behaviour.

29 A further problem for Utilitarianism relates to the Tyranny of the Majority . Remember that as a relativistic moral theory, Utilitarianism does not allow for any moral absolutes — such as the absolute right to democracy, or absolute legal or basic human rights. Indeed, Bentham himself dismissed the idea of “natural rights” as a nonsensical concept masqueraded as a meaningful one. However, if we accept that absolute rights are simply “nonsense upon stilts” as Bentham put it, then Utilitarianism seems to be open to cases where the majority are morally required to exploit the minority for the greater good of maximising total pleasure. For example, imagine that total pleasure would be maximised if the resources of a small country were forcibly taken from them to be used freely and exploited by the people of a much larger country (this is hardly unrealistic). However, such forceful theft — only justified by the fact that a greater majority of people would gain pleasure — does not seem to be morally justifiable. Yet, according to Utilitarianism’s commitment to maximising pleasure, such an action would not only be morally acceptable but it would be morally required.

30 As a consequentialist/teleological moral theory Utilitarianism is also open to the Problem of Wrong Intentions . This problem can be highlighted by considering the cases of Dominic and Callum.

Dominic is seating in a coffee shop when a masked intruder bursts in threatening to rob the shop. Dominic, with the intention of saving lives, attempts to stop the intruder but sadly, in the ensuing struggle, the intruder’s gun is accidentally fired and an innocent person is killed. Now, consider a second case where an intruder bursts in with a gun but Callum, rather than trying to intervene, immediately ducks for cover with the intention of saving himself and leaving the rest of the customers to fend for themselves. Luckily for Callum, when he ducks for cover he accidentally trips into the would-be thief, knocking him unconscious thus allowing his peaceful detention until police arrive.

31 According to the utilitarian calculation, Callum acted in a way that maximised pleasure while Dominic acted wrongly because the consequence of his act was tragic pain. However, it seems unfair and wrong to suggest that Callum acted rightly when he had just intended to save himself, although he had a lucky outcome, while Dominic acted wrongly when his intention was to save others but was unlucky in his outcome. Utilitarianism, as a consequentialist theory, ignores intentions and focuses only on consequences.

32 Utilitarianism also faces the Problem of Partiality . This is clear if we consider the familiar moral dilemma of being stuck on a life raft with three other people but with only enough supplies for two people. On the raft with you is a doctor who is confident that he can pass on a cure for cancer if he survives, a world class violinist who brings pleasure to millions each year, and one of your parents or siblings. I am afraid to report that, for the purposes of this example, your parent or sibling is nothing special in comparison to other individuals on the raft. In this circumstance, Utilitarianism would seem to require you not only to give up your own space on the raft but ensure that your parent or sibling joins you in the freezing water with no hope of survival; this is the way of maximising total pleasure in such a scenario. Yet, even if you believe that the morality might call for your own self-sacrifice, it seems extremely unfair not to allow you to give extra moral weight to the life of a loved one. Unfortunately for the utilitarian, perhaps, the status as a beloved family member should make no special difference to your judgment regarding how to act. This seems to be not only over-demanding but also overly cold and calculating. Utilitarianism requires Agent-Neutrality — you must look at the situation as any neutral observer would and not give special preference to anyone irrespective of your emotional attachments, because each individual must count for one and no more than one.

• 8 B. Williams, ‘Jim and the Indians’, https://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/Jim_and_In (...)

33 Finally, Bentham’s Utilitarianism also comes under attack from the related Integrity Objection , framed most prominently by Bernard Williams (1929–2003). As an agent-neutral theory, no person can give up impartiality when it comes to judgements about the impact of a potential action upon their family or loved ones. In addition, no person can give up impartiality when it comes to the impact of an action upon their own feelings, character and general sense of integrity. In order to make clear the potential worry associated with this, Williams describes the fictional case of Jim and the Indians. 8

Jim is an explorer who stumbles upon an Indian leader who is about to execute twenty people. Jim knows nothing of their possible crimes or any other factors involved, but he is offered a difficult choice by the Indian chief who is eager to impress his foreign traveller. Jim can either shoot one of the prisoners himself and then the rest will be set free as a mark of celebration, or he can refuse the offer in which case all twenty prisoners will be executed as was planned. It is key to note that Jim does not have control of the situation in the sense that he is powerless to bargain or negotiate with anyone, and nor can he use a weapon to successfully free any prisoners. He has only the two options laid out.

34 The point of this example is not to establish what the right action is. You may find yourself in agreement with utilitarians who suggest Jim must shoot one prisoner in order to save the lives of the rest. Rather, the purpose of the example is to show that Utilitarianism forces us to reach this conclusion too quickly . Given the commitment to Agent-Neutrality, Jim must treat himself as a neutral observer working out which action will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Morally, he is not entitled to give more weight to his own feelings than he would give to the feelings of any other and therefore it does not matter whether Jim is a pacifist and has been a lifelong advocate for prisoner reform and rehabilitation. If the utilitarian calculation suggests that he must shoot one of the prisoners then he must shoot with no regard to any compromising of his integrity and self-identity. You may accept this as an unfortunate consequence of a terrible situation, but it may be a problem for a moral theory if it fails to recognise or respect a person’s most sincere and deepest convictions.

8. Mill’s Utilitarian Proof

35 John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) was concerned by many of the problems facing the utilitarian theory put forward by Bentham, but as a hedonist he did not wish to see the theory rejected. Mill sought to refine and improve the Benthamite utilitarian theory in order to create a successful version of Hedonistic Utilitarianism.

• 9 This slippage from talk of “pleasure” to talk of “happiness” is explained in section eight of this (...)

10 J. S. Mill, ‘Utilitarianism’, in Utilitarianism and Other Essays , p. 308.

36 Mill was so confident about the prospects for a version of Hedonistic Utilitarianism because he believed that there was an empirically backed proof available to support the principle that the greatest happiness/pleasure should always be secured for the greatest number. 9 Mill’s proof, much like Bentham’s empirical defence of Hedonism, relies on the evidence from observation that people desire their own happiness. This observation of fact supports Mill’s claim that since people desire their own happiness, this is evidence that such happiness is desir able . Mill says “… each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons”. 10 Since our happiness is good for us, and general happiness is just the total of the happiness of all persons, then general happiness is also good. To put it another way, if individual happiness is a good worth pursuing then happiness in general must be worth pursuing.

37 In order to justify Hedonism, Mill sought to justify the claim that the good of happiness is the only thing that makes our lives go better. Mill defends this claim by suggesting that knowledge, health and freedom etc. (as other plausible goods that might make a life go better) are only valuable in so far as they bring about happiness. Knowledge is desired only because it provides happiness when acquired, not because it, by itself and in isolation, makes life go better.

38 Mill’s proof of Utilitarianism in terms of the general desirability of maximising total happiness is, however, open to criticism. For one thing, the fact that something is desired does not seem to justify the claim that it is desirable. G. E. Moore (1873–1958) points out that Mill moves from the factual sense that something is desirable if it is desired to the normative sense that it should be desired without any justification. It is possible, for example, to desire to kill another person. This is desirable in the sense people could and do desire it (it is possible to do so — it is an action that is desire- able ), but not in the sense that we would want them to desire it.

39 In addition, the idea that other apparent goods, such as knowledge and health, are only valuable in so far as they promote happiness/pleasure is extremely controversial; can you imagine a situation in which you gained value from knowledge without any associated pleasure or happiness? If so, you may have a counter example to Mill’s claim.

9. Mill’s Qualitative Utilitarianism

40 In attempting to redraw Bentham’s Utilitarianism, Mill’s most substantial thought was to move away from Bentham’s idea that all that mattered was the quantity of total pleasure. Instead, Mill thought that quality of pleasure was also crucial to deciding what is moral.

11 J. Bentham, The Rationale of Reward , p. 206, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6igN9srLgg8C

41 Bentham’s Utilitarianism is quantitative in the sense that all Bentham focusses on is the maximisation of hedonically calculated quantities of total pleasure. Thus, he says that “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry”. 11 All that matters for Bentham is producing pleasure and the way this is achieved is unimportant. If playing on a console affords you more pleasure than reading Shakespeare, then Bentham would view your life as going better if you play the console. However, Mill introduces a quality criterion for pleasure. Mill says that:

12 J. S. Mill, ‘Utilitarianism’, p. 281. It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question. 12

42 Bentham could not admit that the unhappy Socrates would be living a life with more value than the happier fool. Mill, on the other hand, believes that quality , not merely quantity, of pleasure matters and can therefore defend the claim that Socrates has the better life even by hedonistic standards.

43 According to Mill, higher pleasures are worth more than lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are those pleasures of the intellect brought about via activities like poetry, reading or attending the theatre. Lower pleasures are animalistic and base; pleasures associated with drinking beer, having sex or lazing on a sun-lounger. What we should seek to maximise are the higher quality pleasures even if the total pleasure (hedonically calculated via Bentham’s calculus) turns out to be quantitatively lower as a result. Justifying this distinction between higher and lower quality pleasures as non-arbitrary and not just an expression of his own tastes, Mill says that competent judges , those people who have experienced both types of pleasure, are best placed to select which pleasures are higher and lower. Such competent judges, says Mill, would and do favour pleasures of the intellect over the base pleasures of the body. On this basis, Mill is open to the criticism that many people have both read books and drunk beer and that if given the choice would choose the latter. Whether or not Mill’s defence of his supposedly non-prejudiced distinction of higher and lower pleasures is successful is an open question for your evaluation and analysis.

10. Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism versus Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism

44 In addition to a difference in views regarding the importance of the quality of a pleasure, Mill and Bentham are also separated by reference to Act and Rule Utilitarianism and although such terms emerged only after Mill’s death, Mill is typically considered a rule utilitarian and Bentham an act utilitarian.

13 J. J. Thomson, ‘The Trolley Problem’, p. 1396.

45 An act utilitarian, such as Bentham, focuses only on the consequences of individual actions when making moral judgments. However, this focus on the outcome of individual acts can sometimes lead to odd and objection-raising examples. Judith Jarvis Thomson (1929–) raised the problem of the “transplant surgeon”. 13

Imagine a case where a doctor had five patients requiring new organs to stop their death and one healthy patient undergoing a routine check. In this case, it would seem that total pleasure is best promoted by killing the one healthy patient, harvesting his organs and saving the other five lives; their pleasure outweighs the cost to the formerly healthy patient.

46 While Bentham does suggest that we should have “rules of thumb” against such actions, for typically they will lead to unforeseen painful consequences, in the case as simply described the act utilitarian appears powerless to deny that such a killing is required in order to maximise total pleasure (just add your own details to secure this conclusion for the act utilitarian).

47 Rule utilitarians, in whose camp we can place Mill, adopt a different moral decision-procedure. Their view is that we should create a set of rules that, if followed, would produce the greatest amount of total happiness. In the transplant case, killing the healthy man would not seem to be part of the best set of utilitarian-justified rules since a rule allowing the killing of healthy patients would not seem to promote total happiness; one outcome, for example, would be that people would very likely stop coming to hospitals for fear for their life! Therefore, if a rule permitting killing was allowed then the maximisation of total happiness would not be promoted overall.

48 It is through Rule Utilitarianism that we can make sense of Mill’s “harm principle”. According to Mill, there is:

14 J. S. Mill, On Liberty , http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html … one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control. 14

49 That principle is:

15 Ibid. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. 15

50 Even if a particular act of harming another person might bring about an increase in total pleasure on a single occasion, that act may not be condoned by the set of rules that best promotes total pleasure overall. As such, the action would not be morally permitted.

11. Strong versus Weak Rule Utilitarianism

51 Rule utilitarians may seem to avoid troubling cases like the transplant surgeon and be able to support and uphold individual human and legal rights based on rules that reflect the harm principle. This fact would also help rule utilitarians overcome objections based on the treatment of minorities because exploitation of minority groups would, perhaps, fail to be supported by the best utilitarian-justified set of rules. Yet, rule utilitarians face a troubling dilemma:

• Strong Rule Utilitarianism : Guidance from the set of rules that, if followed, would promote the greatest amount of total happiness must always be followed.
• Weak Rule Utilitarianism : Guidance from the set of rules that, if followed, would promote the greatest amount of total happiness can be ignored in circumstances where more happiness would be produced by breaking the rule.

52 The strong rule utilitarian appears to suffer from what J. J. C. Smart (1920–2012) described as “Rule Worship”. No longer focussing on the consequences of the action before them, the strong rule utilitarian appears to ignore the option to maximise total happiness in favour of following a general and nonrelative rule regarding how to act. The strong rule utilitarian may be able to avoid problems based on treatment of minorities or a lack of absolute legal and human rights, but it is not clear that they survive these problems holding on to a teleological, relativistic utilitarian theory. Utilitarianism seems to be saved from troubling implications only by denying core features.

53 On the other hand, while Weak Rule Utilitarianism retains a teleological nature it appears to collapse into Act Utilitarianism. The rules provide guidelines that can be broken, and given that the act utilitarian can also offer “rules of thumb” against actions that tend not to produce maximum goodness or utility in general, such as killing healthy patients, it is not clear where this version of Rule Utilitarianism gains a unique identity. In what cases would Act Utilitarianism and Weak Rule Utilitarianism actually provide different moral guidance? This is something you should consider in the light of your own examples or previous examples in this chapter.

12. Comparing the Classical Utilitarians

• All pleasure equally valuable
• Act Utilitarian
• Teleological, impartial, relativistic, maximising
• Quality of pleasure matters: intellectual versus animalistic
• Viewed as rule utilitarian
• If strong rule utilitarian, not clear if teleological or relativistic
• Impartial, maximising theory

13. Non-Hedonistic Contemporary Utilitarianism: Peter Singer and Preference Utilitarianism

56 Utilitarianism is not a dead theory and it did not end with Mill. Henry Sidgwick (1838–1900) is considered to have taken over the baton after Mill, and R. M. Hare (1919–2002) was perhaps chief advocate in the mid twentieth century. However, few contemporary philosophers can claim as much influence in public life outside philosophy as can the preference utilitarian, Peter Singer (1946–).

57 Singer advocates a non-hedonistic version of Utilitarianism. His utilitarian theory is teleological, maximising, impartial and relativistic but he does not claim that the greatest good for the greatest number can be reduced to pleasure in either raw or higher forms. Instead, Singer believes that what improves a person’s life is entirely determined by the satisfaction of their preferences. If you satisfy your preference to achieve a good qualification your life goes better in virtue of satisfying that preference . If someone else desires to get a job rather than continue in education, their life goes better for them if they secure their preference and gain employment. Individuals, according to Singer, must be at the core of moral thinking:

16 K. Toolis, ‘The Most Dangerous Man in the World’, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/%2 (...) There would be something incoherent about living a life where the conclusions you came to in ethics did not make any difference to your life. It would make it an academic exercise. The whole point about doing ethics is to think about the way to live. My life has a kind of harmony between my ideas and the way I live. It would be highly discordant if that was not the case . 16

58 On this basis, when making moral decisions we should consider how best to ensure the maximisation of total preference satisfaction — it does not matter if our preference satisfaction fails to provide pleasure for us. Continuing to follow Bentham’s commitment to impartiality, Singer also supports equal weighing of preferences when deciding which action better promotes greater preference satisfaction; all preferences are to weigh equally. This potentially leaves Singer open to the same issues that plagued Bentham. Namely, regarding circumstances where partiality seems desirable, or when the preferences of the majority seem to threaten a minority group, or require us to sacrifice our integrity. Further, the problem of calculation also seems to be relevant, because it is not obvious how you could work out the preferences of others in at least some difficult moral cases (let alone the preferences of animals, if they are also relevant).

17 R. Brandt, Ethical Theory .

59 In response to a concern regarding the moral relevance of satisfying bloodthirsty or apparently immoral preferences, and counting such satisfaction as a moral achievement (consider the preferences of a nation of paedophiles, for example), we might look to the ideas of Richard Brandt (1910–1997). Brandt, writing about the rationality of certain preferences, suggested that rational preferences were those that might survive cognitive psychotherapy. 17 However, there is a question as to how arbitrary this requirement is and whether or not some unnerving preferences might form the core of certain individual characters therefore being sustained even after such therapy.

SUMMARY Utilitarianism remains a living theory and retains hedonistic and non-hedonistic advocates, as well as supporters of both act and rule formulations. The core insight that consequences matter gives the theory some intuitive support even in the light of hypothetical cases that pose serious problems for utilitarians. The extent to which the different versions of Utilitarianism survive their objections is very much up to you as a critically-minded philosopher to decide.

COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES

• Not reflecting the attitudinal aspect of pleasure that Bentham’s theory may account for.
• Minimising the long-term impact of actions when it comes to pleasure/pain production.
• Imprecise understanding of the hedonic/non-hedonic split in Utilitarianism.
• Imprecision in use of examples to defend/challenge Utilitarianism.
• Suggesting that “Jim and the Indians” is not a counterexample to Utilitarianism simply because you judge killing the fewer number of people is ultimately the morally right thing to do.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER

• Is there anything that would improve your life that cannot be reduced to either pleasure or preference satisfaction?
• Would you enter Nozick’s experience machine if you knew you would not come out? Would you put someone you care about into the machine while they were asleep, so that they never had to make the decision?
• Can pleasure be measured? Does Bentham go about this task correctly?
• Which is the most serious problem facing Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism? Can it be overcome?
• Does Mill successfully improve Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism in any way?
• Are you ever told to stop watching television and do something else? Is this good for you? Why?
• Look at the quote at the start of the chapter by Dara Ó Briain — is it possible that some pleasures are inferior in value to others?
• Do you have convictions or beliefs you would not want to sacrifice for the greater good, should you ever be forced to?
• Why do utilitarians not give up on the idea of maximising pleasure and just talk in terms of promoting sufficient pleasure? Would this solve or raise problems?
• Is Weak Rule Utilitarianism merely Act Utilitarianism by another name?
• Does Strong Rule Utilitarianism deserve to be labelled as a utilitarian theory?
• If your preferences change after psychotherapy, did the original preferences ever matter?

KEY TERMINOLOGY Normative Relativistic Teleological Consequentialist Principle of Utility Agent-Neutrality Hedonic Calculus Utility Intrinsic

Bibliographie

Bentham, Jeremy, The Rationale of Reward (London: Robert Heward, 1830), freely available at https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6igN9srLgg8C

―, ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in Utilitarianism and Other Essays , ed. by Alan Ryan (London: Penguin Books, 2004).

―, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , freely available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML18.html

Brandt, Richard, Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1959).

Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (London: Longman, Roberts, Green & Co., 1869), freely available at http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html

―, ‘Utilitarianism’, in Utilitarianism and Other Essays , ed. by Alan Ryan (London: Penguin Books, 2004).

―, Utilitarianism , freely available at https://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm

Nozick, Robert, ‘The Experience Machine’, in Ethical Theory , ed. by Russ Shafer-Landau (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007).

Thomson, Judith Jarvis, ‘The Trolley Problem’, The Yale Law Journal , 94.6 (1985): 1395–415, https://doi.org/10.2307/796133

Toolis, Kevin, ‘The Most Dangerous Man in the World’, the Guardian (6 November 1999), freely available at https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/nov/06/weekend.kevintoolis

Williams, Bernard, ‘Jim and the Indians’, in his A Critique of Utilitarianism , freely available at https://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/Jim_and_Indians.pdf

1 R. Nozick, ‘The Experience Machine’, p. 292.

3 J. Bentham, ‘An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, in Utilitarianism and Other Essays , p. 65.

5 Ibid. , p. 65.

6 Ibid. , p. 87.

7 J. Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , http://www.econlib.org/library/%20Bentham/bnthPML18.html

8 B. Williams, ‘Jim and the Indians’, https://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/plcy/240/001/Jim_and_Indians.pdf

9 This slippage from talk of “pleasure” to talk of “happiness” is explained in section eight of this chapter.

12 J. S. Mill, ‘Utilitarianism’, p. 281.

14 J. S. Mill, On Liberty , http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty1.html

16 K. Toolis, ‘The Most Dangerous Man in the World’, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/1999/%20%20nov/06/weekend.kevintoolis

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0 . Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

For AQA Philosophy and OCR Religious Studies

Vérifiez si votre institution a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books. Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque/établissement d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publié(s) sur OpenEdition Books. N'hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : OpenEdition - Service Freemium [email protected] 22 rue John Maynard Keynes Bat. C - 13013 Marseille France Vous pouvez également nous indiquer à l'aide du formulaire suivant les coordonnées de votre institution ou de votre bibliothèque afin que nous les contactions pour leur suggérer l’achat de ce livre.

Merci, nous transmettrons rapidement votre demande à votre bibliothèque.

Volume papier

Référence électronique du chapitre, référence électronique du livre, collez le code html suivant pour intégrer ce livre sur votre site..

OpenEdition est un portail de ressources électroniques en sciences humaines et sociales.

• OpenEdition Journals
• OpenEdition Books
• OpenEdition Freemium
• Mentions légales
• Politique de confidentialité
• Gestion des cookies
• Signaler un problème

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• Religious Studies & Philosophy
• Philosophy & Ethics

Utilitarianism practice paper essay plan.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

• Author Type Student
• Word Count 895
• Page Count 3
• Level AS and A Level
• Subject Religious Studies & Philosophy

Related Essays

Assess Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism vs Rule utilitarianism

Utilitarianism. Identify the main problems of Utilitarianism. To what exte...

UTILITARIANISM In this paper I will be discussing utilitarianism. Utilitar...

rsrevision.com/ethical theory

Utilitarianism.

• Biographies
• Theory in detail
• Applied ethics

Find out more

Test yourself.

• Games and Quizzes

Exam practice

• Act Utilitarianism
• Rule Utilitarianism
• Other forms of Utilitarianism
• You may get asked to explain Bentham's Hedonic Calculus or Mill's Utilitarianism
• You may be required to evaluate the theory or compare it to another theory.
• You may be asked to apply Utilitarianism to one of the issues studied.

Have a look at 'Evaluating the Theories' and TICKETs (pdfs), as well as each of the ethical theories on War (AS) and the Environment (A2) .

a. Explain how Utilitarians might approach euthanasia. [25] b. ‘Helping a terminally ill patient to die is morally wrong.’ Discuss. [10]

• Explain some of the different forms of Utilitarianism. [25]
• Assess the view that Utilitarianism is the best approach to the right to a child. [10]
• Explain the main principles of the classical forms of Utilitarianism. [25]
• ‘Utilitarianism is not a good guide for resolving ethical dilemmas.’ Discuss. [10]

January 2013:

• Explain how Mill's Utilitarianism might be used to decide the right course of action. [25]
• Assess the extent to which Utilitarianism is a reliable method of making decisions about abortion. [10]

January 2012:

• Explain the main differences between the Utilitarianism of Bentham and that of Mill. [25]
• 'MIll's Utilitarianism is superior in every way to the Utilitarianism of Bentham.' Discuss. [10]

This question came up in January 2011:

Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism . [25]

• To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method of making decisions about euthanasia? [10]

This was from June 2010 :

Explain the main strengths of Mill's Utilitarianism. [25]

‘Utilitarianism can lead to wrong moral decisions.' Discuss. [10]

This question was from the January 2009 AS Ethics paper :

Explain how Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism can be used to decide on the right course of action.

‘Utilitarianism is the best approach to euthanasia.’ Discuss.

This question was from the OCR Website :

Explain the main strengths of a Utilitarian ethical system.

• Assess the extent to which Utilitarianism is a useful method of making decisions about abortion.

(a) Describe and explain the main principles of Utilitarianism. [33] (b) ‘Utilitarianism has nothing at all in common with religious ethics’.  Discuss. [17]   (a) Explain a Utilitarian approach to issues raised by fertility treatment. [33] (b) ‘A Utilitarian approach to issues raised by fertility treatment leads to wrong moral choices.’ [17] (a) Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. [33] (b) To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method of making decisions about euthanasia? [17]

This A2 exam question is from June 2006:

'Utilitarianism is the best approach to environmental issues.' Discuss. [45]

This question is from June 2005:

Compare and contrast Utilitarianism with the ethics of the religion you have studied. [45]

(taken from the OCR website )

We now have an interactive diagram showing how to answer an ethics exam question, The 'structure' of the paragraph will be different for 'ethical theory' questions, but the basic principles are the same. Try filling it in yourself and print out the completed diagram.

A Level Religious Studies: various exemplar answers to Edexcel Paper 2 questions

Explore the key concepts of Act Utilitarianism. (8 marks)

Act utilitarianism is a teleological (goal or outcome-oriented), hedonistic ethical theory that was first explained in depth by Jeremy Bentham in his Principles of Morals and Legislation . For Act Utilitarians, only the consequences of our moral decisions matter and the aim is to produce feelings of physical pleasure in as many people as possible who fall within the sphere of the choice we are about to make. Act utilitarianism therefore appeals primarily to Bentham’s famous utility principle, which aims to promote ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’.

More specifically, Act Utilitarians would deploy Bentham’s famous hedonic calculus. Their decision would take into account the purity of the anticipated pleasure, its remoteness (how far away it is in time), its intensity , its certainty , its extent (how many people are affected by the decision), its duration (how long the pleasure might last for), and its fecundity (how likely the anticipated feelings of pleasure are to give rise to further feelings of pleasure).

For example, let’s imagine that a group of act utilitarians are about to order from a set menu in a French restaurant. If that set menu contains foie gras, a delicacy produced from force feeding ducks, the purity of the pleasure experienced by the diners may be contaminated by feelings of guilt resulting from any awareness of the process involved in making foie gras, especially if they are also aware of Bentham’s dictum in relation to animals that the issue when it comes to animals is not whether they can reason but whether they can suffer. Bentham was aware that, like humans, animals are also in possession of nervous systems and are therefore capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.

The extent of the anticipated pleasure may also therefore need to embrace not just humans but animals too. Furthermore, the fecundity of the experience may also be affected by this knowledge. The diners may not wish to return to the same restaurant to repeat the experience if they know that animals suffered considerably in order for this delicacy to be available. The duration of any pleasure may also be short-lived, unless the group of act utilitarians are unaware of the methods used to create foie gras. Finally, Act Utilitarianism takes no account of human rights or the quality of a particular pleasure. Only the quantity of pleasure resulting from a moral decision matters.

Explore the key concepts of Rule Utilitarianism. (8 marks)

Rule utilitarianism (like Act Utilitarianism), is a teleological, hedonistic ethical theory which was developed by the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill in response to the perceived weaknesses of Jeremy Bentham’s version of act utilitarianism. Mill agreed with Bentham that a correct ethical action is one that promotes the Utility Principle i.e. it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However, Mill thought that rules were required to uphold this principle. One such rule was his famous ‘Harm Principle’. According to this principle, we should be allowed as much freedom as possible to pursue happiness and pleasure in life as long as we do not run the risk of physically harming others in doing so. This addresses a weakness of Bentham’s hedonic calculus that would permit the victimization of a minority by a majority if a greater amount of happiness was produced by doing so. In theory, the Harm Principle therefore protects minorities.

Mill also believed that the quality of the pleasure produced by a moral decision counted for more than its quantity. He thought that intellectual or ‘higher’ pleasures were more morally worthy than mere ‘lower’ or physical pleasures. In other words, studying Philosophy was to be preferred to going to the gym. In terms of rules, this would mean that society would be governed by rules that promote higher pleasures e.g. TV channels might be compelled to broadcast more Shakespeare plays and operas at the expense of, say, Strictly Come Dancing.

Mill is also classified as a weak rule utilitarian. This means that exceptions can be made to rules that would ordinarily promote the general happiness if the Utility Principle is upheld by doing so. For example, if a person would starve if they did not steal, then breaking a rule or law in a given society against stealing may be justifiable. This contrasts with Richard Brandt’s later form of rule utilitarianism, which is of a type known as strong rule utilitarianism. For Brandt, once the rules have been decided on (they are first formulated by a group of rule-makers acting rationally) they should not be broken, provided that utility would be maximised if everyone followed them.

Assess/Analyse the weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism. (12 marks)

The main perceived weakness of Act Utilitarianism is that it can lead to human rights violations e.g. if a majority gain pleasure from watching a minority suffer (as spectators in the Roman arena did from watching gladiatorial combat), this would be justifiable according to Bentham’s hedonic calculus. John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle was designed to correct this deficiency and protect minorities from physical harm.

For Bentham the sheer quantity of pleasure generated by a hedonic calculation was all that mattered. Again Mill queried this and thought that higher, intellectual pleasures counted for more than mere physical ones. Mill would have disagreed with Bentham that ‘pushpin’ (a mindless pub game) was as good as poetry.

Additionally, Act Utilitarianism is based on a calculation of the predicted consequences of an action. But perhaps this is misguided, as our predictions can turn out to be inaccurate, and there is the additional issue that pleasure is, in the first place, not easy to accurately measure as it is an essentially subjective experience.

For Bentham, pleasure was a motivating factor in human psychology. He therefore thought that it provided a sound basis for an atheistic ethical theory. However, Utilitarian philosophers have generally struggled to justify the ‘greatest number’ aspect of the Utility Principle, as all that Bentham’s insight into human psychology seems to warrant are moral decisions that promote ethical egoism, or individual happiness for me only.

Nozick’s famous ‘pleasure machine’ thought experiment also suggests that human beings are motivated by more than mere pleasure and pain, as almost nobody would choose to remain in his imagined virtual reality generator that guarantees an unending sequence of pleasurable experiences.

Bernard Williams’ famous example of ‘Jim and the Indians’ also demonstrates that although the greatest happiness may result from shooting one Indian rather than all twenty dying, that in taking this path we lose our human dignity, which in turn suggests that the Utility Principle does not provide a suitable foundation for moral decision-making.

Finally, there is an intuitive objection to Act Utilitarianism which arguably helps to highlight a further weakness of this system: imagine that two courses of action produce the same outcome in terms of Bentham’s hedonic calculus but that one of them involves betraying a close friend. Intuitively, this suggests that the exclusive emphasis on outcomes or consequences in Act Utilitarianism may not be desirable.

Analyse the claim that in Situation Ethics, there is no absolute right or wrong though it does have principles.

Situation Ethics is a teleological Christian ethical theory that was developed by Joseph Fletcher and most fully set out in his book Situation Ethics: the New Morality i n 1966. Barclay was a famous critic of SE and in this brief extract is drawing attention to a standard criticism of it, namely, that as a system it is too elastic, meaning that an appeal to agape or selfless concern for others (as taught by Jesus in the form of love of neighbour and enemy) can be used to justify anything. For example, at one point in his book, Fletcher strongly implies that the atomic bombing of Japan was justifiable according to what he refers to as an ‘agapeic calculus’.

The ‘principles’ that Barclay refers to are the Six Fundamental Principles that guide moral decision-making in SE: love only is always good, love is the only norm, love and justice are the same, love is not liking, love is the only means, and love decides there and then. These principles, along with the Four Presumptions of Pragmatism, Personalism, Positivism and Relativism are designed to equip a follower of SE with the tools to make a sound moral decision. However, they are not prescriptive and do not provide a ready-made answer to a moral dilemma. They are merely intended to steer the Situationist in the right direction. For example, the principle ‘love is not liking’ reminds them that agape should be exhibited to all, regardless of our personal feelings about a person or group. Meanwhile, the presumption of Personalism highlights the fact that for Fletcher, people not objects matter. For example, if one had to make a choice between saving a known terrorist or the Mona Lisa from a fire in the Louvre Art Gallery, this presumption suggests that we should save the terrorist.

Although Barclay claims that ‘there is no absolute right and wrong’ in SE, he goes on to mention ‘the command to love your neighbour’. There seems to be a contradiction here, as Fletcher insists in his book that love is ‘objectively valid’, so contra Barclay, agape is a moral absolute for Fletcher.  Barclay is probably concerned that SE runs the risk of sliding into antinomianism, as the fact that agape trumps all other moral considerations worries more traditionally inclined Christians like him, who might wish to adhere to other rules that promote the sanctity of life, such as the sixth of the Ten Commandments.

Assess the weaknesses of religious ethical perspectives on disability.

Throughout the gospel narratives, Jesus is portrayed as performing miracles, some of which involve curing disabilities e.g. blindness, paralysis.

On the day of Pentecost as described in the book of Acts, the disciples are also conferred with the ability to heal the sick as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In modern Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian worship, it is not unusual for attempts to be made to cure those with disabilities by channelling the power of the Spirit.

The problems with adopting a religious perspective based of this outlook are twofold:

• Although God’s power is allegedly being demonstrated through healing miracles, it is implied that people who are disabled are – at least prior to being healed – sinful and perhaps in some way deserving of their disabilities. Although the healing through faith they receive brings them back into the Christian community or signifies membership of the Kingdom of God in the case of Biblical healings, the suggestion is that they lack something.
• There are additional philosophical problems to do with miracles that have been explored by sceptical philosophers like David Hume. Richard Dawkins, for example, has noted the lack of examples of limbs getting regrown at places like Lourdes.

Given that Christianity on the whole tends to be an inclusive faith, disabled Christians like Joni Earekson Tada have campaigned for greater recognition within the Church. They would argue that their physical disabilities do not prevent them from acquiring spiritual wholeness through their faith.

However, there are other weaknesses that are also worthy of note. For example, disability raises issues to do with the problem of evil and why an omnipotent God would permit disability in the first place, though Earekson Tada would see herself as demonstrating that suffering and infirmity can be overcome with faith, which serves for her and others as a kind of theodicy.

Additionally, there are implications for Christian theology in relation to the afterlife: if we acquire a spiritually resurrected body in heaven, what are the implications for those who are presently disabled? Will they be restored to physical wholeness? Or will they retain their disability but be free from suffering (in the same manner in which the resurrected Jesus still bore the marks of his crucifixion)?

Overall, there do seem to be significant problems and issues that have arisen from the manner in which disability has been handled within Christianity, though these difficulties are, at least, starting to be addressed.

Assess the strengths of religious ethical perspectives on sustainability and waste management.

According to the book of Genesis, humans have been given ‘dominion’ over the natural world. This entails an attitude of benevolent stewardship on the part of Christians: God is the creator and therefore the ‘owner’ of everything that he has made. Human beings are therefore only looking after the world for him. Implicit in this view is that we should behave responsibly and attempt to preserve the environment for the benefit of ourselves and future generations. So, in theory, Christians would be supportive of the concept of sustainability, in the sense that they might recycle (which relates to waste management), and limit their carbon footprint in order to maintain the earth’s capability to support life. They might also support organisations like Greenpeace that oppose the dumping of toxic waste and plastic in the oceans.

However, the problem with this is that although most Christian churches endorse this type of stewardship, not all do. So-called ‘end timer’ Christians in the USA are depicted in Mark Dowd’s documentary ‘God is Green’ as readily indulging in practices like Mountaintop removal mining and justify doing so because they interpret the word ‘dominion’ to mean that the earth’s resources have been given to them by God to do with as they please. Additionally, they are unconcerned about sustainability because they believe that if fossil fuels are eventually used up and the natural world becomes degraded and polluted, this will hasten the second coming of Jesus.

This inconsistency is mirrored elsewhere in the Bible. For example, many animals die in the Flood (even if Noah’s Ark can be seen as an ancient attempt to ‘sustain’ some kind of animal population), Genesis 9 informs humans that ‘The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.’ This sounds like an instruction to terrorise animals. And even Jesus curses a fig tree causing it to wither in the New Testament.

So perhaps a secular approach might be more effective e.g. perhaps we should become ‘oikophiles’ who care about our local environment as recommended by Roger Scruton, or embrace the implications of Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis which sees the earth as a living organism that will eradicate us if we fail to treat it well. And with regard to waste management, perhaps we should adopt the attitude recommended by Slavoj Zizek (NOTE: see the bottom of this post for a YouTube video in which Zizek explains his ideas) . Instead of avoiding contact with all the garbage that we generate, Zizek argues that we should learn to love it, to not shy away from acknowledging it, rather in the manner that we come to accept the imperfections of a loved one.

Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of one religious and one secular perspective on medical ethics.

Typically, religious responses to issues in medical ethics (like those proffered by Christianity) tend to emphasise the sanctity of human life. This is the teaching that human life is sacred and special. For example, according to the book of Genesis we are all created in God’s ‘image’. For many Christians, this means that we are in receipt of an eternal soul that other species lack. Originally, the Catholic Church taught that men receive this soul after 40 days and women after 90, though in 1974 ‘ensoulment’ was moved to the moment of conception.

Accompanying this is the idea that life is a gift from God and it is up to Him to decide when we die rather than us. This is reflected in teachings like that found in the book of Job (‘…the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away’). Meanwhile, further Biblical support for the sanctity of life can be found in passages like the one in Jeremiah: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you’. The famous papal encyclical Humanae Vitae reinforces this message: human life is sacred.

A strength of this perspective is that it emphasises the dignity of human life and the putative rights of the unborn child. Even atheists might support this perspective on the grounds that this life is the only one we are going to get and aborting a fetus denies us the opportunity to exist. Further, by focusing of these rights, ‘Pro-life’ supporters are drawing attention to the fact that the decision to abort a fetus or end a human life prematurely should never be taken lightly. We should never get in to a situation where abortion, euthanasia or even IVF treatment (which results in discarded embryos) is available ‘on demand’.

On the other hand, the beliefs of those who adopt a pro-life perspective are predicated on both the existence of God and that of the human soul. Religious experience, especially Near Death Experiences, may possibly lend support to these beliefs, along with famous arguments for the existence of God like the Ontological argument. However, the evidence for for the veridicality of NDE’s is inconclusive, and no argument for the existence of God has yet proved to be fully persuasive.

A further weakness of sanctity of life teaching is that it is inconsistent. For example, the Catholic re-location of the time of ensoulment does not appear to be a move that can be rationally defended. So why was it changed? Additionally, if it is maintained by Christians that God gave us free-will, why deny a pregnant woman or a terminally patient the right to exercise it?

An opposing secular perspective is one which focuses on the quality of life rather than its sanctity. This perspective emphasises that it is the anticipated quality of a fetus or person’s future life that should be foregrounded in ethical debate, a point which goes hand in hand with an emphasis on autonomy.

For example, if a woman is found to be carrying an unborn child that is likely to be severely handicapped (e.g. anencephalic) then aborting that child may not be seen as morally wrong. This point may also extend to an unborn child afflicted with Down’s syndrome or the Zika virus. Although children born with these conditions may be capable of experiencing happy lives, their effect on the quality of life of their carers may be significant as they may be dependent on them for life.

As far as terminally ill patients are concerned, supporters of the sanctity of life claim that palliative care can alleviate the pain that accompanies the end stages of terminal illness, which obviates the need for the legalization of euthanasia. However, as Peter Singer has pointed out, palliative care may not be sufficient to overcome the distress of patients who have lost control of their bowels and bladder or who are in a state of near total paralysis resulting from conditions like motor neurone disease.

A weakness of the quality of life perspective is that – in the case of abortion – it has resulted in abortion on demand. Something similar might occur – it is also alleged – if euthanasia was to be legalized in the UK. Concerns have also been expressed about the boundaries of euthanasia being extended to non-terminal conditions or even chronic mental health issues if it was introduced here.

However, when the trouble has been taken to find out how women actually feel retrospectively about their decision to abort (e.g. by the US academic Carol Sanger), it has been discovered that this decision is almost never made flippantly. Feelings of regret are also often offset by the knowledge that abortion was the least worst of the choices available to the women who made that decision, many of whom have already had children and so are very much aware of the consequences of their course of action. And in countries where some form of euthanasia is already legal, Dr Penney Lewis has found no evidence for any ‘slippery slope’ effect.

Overall then, it would seem that the perspective offered by those who support the sanctity of life is weaker and more difficult to defend.

A strength of the Christian ‘sanctity of life’ perspective is that it emphasises the sacredness and dignity of human life and the rights of the unborn child. Human life is deemed to be thus because we are all made in God’s ‘image’ and conferred with eternal souls.

Even atheists might support this perspective on the grounds that this life is the only one we are going to get and aborting a fetus denies us the opportunity to exist. Further, by focusing of these rights, ‘Pro-life’ supporters are drawing attention to the fact that the decision to abort a fetus or end a human life prematurely should not be taken lightly. We should never get in to a situation where abortion, euthanasia or even IVF treatment (which results in discarded embryos) is available ‘on demand’.

A further weakness of sanctity of life teaching is that it is inconsistent. For example the Catholic teaching on ensoulment used to maintain (taking its cue from Aquinas) that men received their souls after 40 days and women after 90. The re-location of the time of ensoulment to the moment of conception in 1974 does not appear to be a move that can be rationally defended. So why was it changed? Additionally, if it is maintained by Christians that God gave us free-will, why deny a pregnant woman or a terminally patient the right to exercise it?

An opposing secular perspective is one which focuses on the quality of life rather than its sanctity. This perspective emphasises that it is the anticipated quality of a fetus or person’s future life that should be foregrounded in ethical debate, a point which goes hand in hand with an emphasis on autonomy and personal choice (the ‘Pro-Choice’ perspective).

For example, a strength of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous ‘unconscious violinist’ thought experiment is that – although it grants that the fetus is a person (in the same way that a comatose violinist would be) – it also further demonstrates that a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body trumps the fetus’s right to life in situations where she has not consented to become pregnant (e.g. through rape or failure of contraception). This is brought out by the fact that the patient was kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and did not consent to be hooked up to the violinist. This right may also be extended to women who discover that they are carrying a child with a serious abnormality as they may not have consented to carry an unhealthy fetus. Thomson’s experiment might also be deployed in criticism of the Catholic view (maintained by the politician Jacob Rees Mogg) that aborting a child conceived through rape is morally unacceptable.

Aborting a fetus with a severe handicap may also not be seen as morally wrong on other grounds (a point that may also extend to a fetus afflicted with Down’s syndrome or the Zika virus). Although children born with these conditions may be capable of experiencing happy lives, the effect on the quality of life of their carers may be significant as they may be dependent on them for life.

The sanctity of life perspective is further undermined by another famous thought experiment devised by George Annas: there is a fire in a fertility lab and one is faced with a choice between saving a tray of 20 fertilised human embryos or a 5 year old child. A Christian who maintains a sanctity of life perspective would presumably be committed to saving the embryos, which seems intuitively odd. The embryos also arguably lack ‘personhood;, a knowledge that they have a life to lose. For Peter Singer, personhood plays a decisive role in the abortion debate as a fetus never possesses it.

However, when the trouble has been taken to find out how women actually feel retrospectively about their decision to abort (e.g. the US academic Carol Sanger has researched this), it has been discovered that this decision is almost never made flippantly. Feelings of regret are also often offset by the knowledge that abortion was the least worst of the choices available to the women who made that choice, many of whom have already had children and so are very much aware of the consequences of their course of action. And in countries where some form of euthanasia is already legal, Dr Penney Lewis has found no evidence for any ‘slippery slope’ effect.

Evaluate the view that Virtue Ethics continues to offer a useful way of resolving moral dilemmas.

Use knowledge and understanding from across your course of study to answer this question. In your response to this question, you must include how developments in Religion and Ethics have been influenced by one of the following:

• Philosophy of Religion

• New Testament Studies

• The study of a religion.

NOTE: it took an hour to write this not 45 minutes. The bits in bold type could potentially be edited out, making it possible to get most of the other points down on paper within the time limit.

In recent years, Virtue Ethics has undergone something of a revival in terms of its popularity among modern ethicists. This renewed interest can be traced back to a famous 1958 essay by GEM Anscombe called ‘Modern Moral Philosophy.’ In the essay, Anscombe argued that VE offered a way out of an impasse that had been reached because of the perceived shortcomings of previously popular teleological theories like Utilitarianism, and deontological theories like Kantian ethics. The latter has been regarded as inflexible and counterintuitive (Who wouldn’t lie to Kant’s famous would-be murderer?), while Utilitarianism in its Benthamite version rides roughshod over human rights and – in terms of his famous Utility principle – struggles to find sufficient justification for the claim that we should seek the happiness of the greatest number.

Against this background, Anscombe argued that these theories suffer from an additional problem: ethicists like Kant and Bentham spend their time wondering what is right or wrong in various circumstances without, it seems, having anyone in mind who might do the permitting or forbidding. God used to fill this position but if he does not exist, or is not acceptable, then nothing can be either permitted or forbidden. In other words, ethics consists of laws (like Kant’s categorical imperative, Bentham’s Utility principle, or Mill’s Harm principle) that remain incoherent in the absence of a lawmaker.

For Anscombe, Aristotelean Virtue Ethics could help to resolve these issues because it does not depend on God (the emphasis is on character, becoming a virtuous kind of person, rather than following divine commands). So it might appeal to a constituency comprised of New Atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and their followers. Having said this, VE also has appeal for theists (Anscombe herself was a Catholic), as the virtues favoured by Aristotle also tend to be those shared by religious believers e.g. courage, generosity.

In other words, VE offers the prospect of having the potential to resolve moral dilemmas because it can seem credible to a wide audience, regardless of whether they believe in God or not.

Following on from Anscombe, MacIntyre has also argued that VE is a viable theory that can overcome the failings of its competitors. For MacIntyre, Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are products of the Enlightenment. Both theories are grounded in rationality but fail precisely because of this. MacIntyre believed that since these two theories were diametrically opposed they entail that we have suffered a loss of moral vocabulary, as they cannot both be correct. Somewhere along the line, the very coherence of moral philosophy has been lost. Again, MacIntyre believes that VE can help to restore a sense of coherence to Ethics.

Are Anscombe and MacIntyre correct? Firstly, in support of their view, it could be said that VE extracts us from an undue emphasis on rationality when it comes to moral decision-making because Aristotle’s system allows emotions to play a role in resolving moral dilemmas. For example, in pursuit of the Golden Mean he encourages us to temper excessive fear in order to cultivate courage, and to avoid outbursts of anger in favour of assertiveness.

So it could be said that at a time when many of us are struggling with fears, phobias, addictions, road rage, and what not, which can lead to many seeking help to manage these issues, VE provides a model for psychotherapists, counsellors and life coaches to adopt when it comes to assisting their clients.

VE has also been taken up by politicians and educators. For example, there are echoes in David Cameron’s vision of a ‘Big Society’ of Aristotle’s view that the virtues can only be effectively cultivated through active citizenship, through participation in the polis . Meanwhile, experts in the field of education have been suggesting that the modern ‘snowflake’ generation of pupils are very much in need of having greater resilience instilled in them, a virtue surely favoured by Aristotle.

However, in conclusion, it needs to be pointed out that Aristotle’s notion of phronesis or practical wisdom can be hopelessly vague. For example, if a previously anorexic friend invites someone to state whether they look ‘big’ in their prom dress, and they do, should the friend exhibit the virtue of honesty or tact? Additionally, courage is a virtue famously promoted by Aristotle. But it might sometimes be hard to tell whether it is courageous to stay in a marriage to see whether it can still be made to work, or to leave in order to go it alone.

Additionally, VE does not have enough to say about motive, a point noted by Philippa Foot. Bank robbers and terrorists might require courage to do what they do, but one could hardly describe their actions as moral.

Furthermore, VE has been dealt a devastating blow by famous studies undertaken by social psychologists like Milgram and Zimbardo. For example, Milgram’s famous study of obedience to authority has repeatedly demonstrated that two thirds of us would willingly electrocute a stranger, in spite of the fact that we might consider ourselves to be incapable of harming another human being. For the philosopher John Doris, examples like this demonstrate that any virtues that we may consider ourselves to be in possession of are not stable, and that our immediate environment may more readily determine our moral behaviour.

Finally, it has been claimed that that VE can appeal to a broad spectrum of people. However, for those who derive a good deal of fulfilment in life from engaging in activities that Aristotle might have thought to be reckless, for example, playing dangerous sports or attempting to pull off a risky but potentially highly profitable business deal, this is not going to be the case.

Overall then, VE might be said to be useful for resolving moral dilemmas, and it does seem to offer a potential alternative to its excessively rational competitors. However, as a theory, it still needs to overcome some of the problems and issues highlighted towards the end of this essay.

Overview – Ethical Theories

Ethics is the study of morality – i.e. right and wrong, good and bad.

The syllabus looks at 3 ethical theories:

Utilitarianism

Kant’s deontological ethics.

• Aristotle’s virtue ethics

Each theory provides a framework intended to guide moral behaviour. We can apply these theories to ethical dilemmas such as ‘is it ok to steal?’

For utilitarian theories, what matters is the consequence of an action. If your stealing a loaf of bread, say, prevents your family from dying of starvation, then the annoyance of the shopkeeper is likely to be outweighed by your happiness that your family is still alive. So stealing the bread is morally permissible.

Kant’s deontological ethics takes a rule-based approach. According to Kant, there are certain moral laws that are universal and we have a duty to follow them. He provides two tests to determine what these laws are. Based on these tests, Kant would say stealing is always wrong, regardless of the consequences.

Aristotle’s virtue theory takes a different approach to both Kant and utilitarianism. Kant and utilitarianism both give formulas for what to do , whereas Aristotle is more concerned with what sort of person we should be . So, if a virtuous person would not steal in a particular set of circumstances, then it is wrong to steal in those circumstances.

Utilitarian ethical theories are consequentialist. They say that it’s the consequences of an action that make it either right or wrong.

The most obviously relevant consequences are pain and pleasure . Generally speaking, utilitarian theories look to minimise pain and maximise pleasure.

For example, a utilitarian might argue that it is justified for a poor person to steal from a rich person because the money would cause more happiness for the poor person than it would cause unhappiness for the rich person. Similarly, a utilitarian might argue that murder is justified if the victim is himself a murderer and so killing him would save 10 lives.

The syllabus looks at 3 different versions of ultilitarianism:

• Act utilitarianism : we should act so as to maximise pleasure and minimise pain in each specific instance
• Rule utilitarianism : we should follow general rules that maximise pleasure and minimise pain (even if following these rules doesn’t maximise pleasure in every specific instance)
• Preference utilitarianism : we should act to maximise people’s preferences (even if these preferences do not maximise pleasure and minimise pain)

Act utilitarianism

“The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.” –  Jeremy Bentham

Jeremy Bentham is widely considered to be the first utilitarian philosopher. His act utilitarianism can be boiled down to three claims:

• Whether an action is right/good or wrong/bad depends solely on its consequences
• The only thing that is good is happiness
• No individual’s happiness is more important than anyone else’s

The felicific calculus

Act utilitarianism is sometimes called quantitative utilitarianism . It’s called quantitative because it’s about quantifying happiness – adding up all the happiness and subtracting all the pain – and then deciding how to act based on the numbers. Bentham provides the felicific calculus as a way to calculate utility in this way.

• Intensity: how strong the pleasure is
• Duration: how long the pleasure lasts
• Certainty: how likely the pleasure is to occur
• Propinquity: how soon the pleasure will occur
• Fecundity: how likely the pleasure will lead to more pleasure
• Purity: how likely the pleasure will lead to pain
• Extent: the number of people affected

So, for example, if two different courses of action lead to two different intensities of pleasure, then the ethically right course of action is the one that leads to the more intense pleasure. It gets complicated, though, when comparing intensity with duration, say.

Anyway, the felicific calculus should (in theory) provide a means to calculate the total happiness: add up all the pleasures and minus all the pains.

Act utilitarians would agree that the morally good action is the one that maximises the total happiness.

Note: Many of the problems with act utilitarianism below inspired the alternative versions of utilitarianism (e.g. rule and preference ). If you are writing an essay (i.e. 25 marks) on utilitarianism you can use these to argue against act utilitarianism but for an alternative type of utilitarianism.

Difficult to calculate

Although act utilitarianism may seem simple in principle , in practice there are all sorts of difficulties with calculating utility.

For one thing, you can’t predict the future . For example, saving a child’s life would presumably a good way to maximise pleasure. But if that child went on to become a serial killer as an adult, saving their life could have actually been a bad thing according to utilitarianism – but how were you to know?

But even if we could predict the future, Bentham’s felicific calculus seems impractically complicated to use every single time one has to make a decision:

• First, how do you quantify each of the seven variables? For example, how do you measure the intensity of pleasure? Are we supposed to hook everyone up to brain scanners?!
• Second, how do you compare these seven variables against each other? For example, how do you decide between, say, a longer-lasting dull pleasure and a short-lived but more intense pleasure?
• Finally, which beings do we include in this calculation? Animals can feel pleasures and pains too, so are we supposed to include them in our calculation? If so, is a dog’s pain equal to a human being’s? What about a mouse? Or a spider?

It all gets very complicated. Are we really supposed to predict all future outcomes, quantify all these variables, compare them, and calculate which act maximises utility most effectively? And every single time we act?! That’s just not practical!

Tyranny of the majority

There are some things that just seem wrong regardless of the consequences.

For example, imagine a scenario where a nasty murder has taken place and an angry crowd are baying for blood. In other words, it would make the crowd happy to see the perpetrator apprehended and punished for his crimes.

But what if the police can’t catch the murderer? They could just lie and frame an innocent man instead.

If the crowd believe the murderer has been caught (even if it’s not really him) then they would be just as happy whether it was the actual perpetrator or not.

And let’s say the crowd is 10,000 people. Their collective happiness is likely to outweigh the innocent man’s pain at being falsely imprisoned. After all, there are 10,000 of them and only one of him (hence, tyranny of the majority ).

In this situation an act utilitarian would have to say it’s morally right to imprison the innocent man. In fact, it would be morally wrong not to!

Possible response: rule utilitarianism.

Moral status of particular relationships

Certain people – namely, friends and family – are more important to us than others.

But act utilitarianism is concerned only with the greatest good for the greatest number. There are no grounds, then, to justify acting to maximise their happiness over some random person on the street.

This means, for example:

• That £10 you spend buying your mum a birthday present made her happy, sure, but it would have made Joe Bloggs in Mozambique happier. So, buying your Mum a birthday present was morally wrong according to utilitarianism.
• The time you spent with your friends made them happy, but volunteering at the local soup kitchen would have increased the greatest good for the greatest number more effectively. So, you acted wrongly by spending time with your friends because this did not maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

You get the idea. If we sincerely followed act utilitarianism we would never be morally permitted to spend time and money with our loved ones.

This objection can be used to show that act utilitarianism is too idealistic and doesn’t work in practice. Or, you could argue that certain relationships have a unique moral status and that act utilitarianism forces us to ignore these moral obligations.

Higher and lower pleasures

We saw above how Bentham’s felicific calculus seeks to quantify happiness. However, we can argue that this quantitative approach makes utilitarianism a ‘doctrine of swine’ in that it reduces the value of human life to the same simple pleasures felt by pigs and animals.

Possible response:

However, in response to this objection, utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill rejects Bentham’s felicific calculus and argues that not all pleasures and pains are equally valuable. Mill argues that people who have experienced the higher pleasures of thought, feeling, and imagination always prefer them to the lower pleasures of the body and the senses. Higher pleasures, he says, are more valuable than simple pleasures.

So, Mill takes a qualitative approach to happiness rather than Bentham’s purely quantitative approach. Returning to the ‘doctrine of swine’ objection, Mill argues that humans prefer higher pleasures over lower pleasures because they value dignity – and dignity is an important component of happiness. Thus, Mill famously says:

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Other values/preferences beyond happiness

There are situations where we might prefer something even if it makes us less happy, and situations where we might prefer something not happen even though it would make us more happy.

Yet despite maximising happiness, many people would prefer not to enter the experience machine . These people would prefer to live a real life and be in contact with reality even though a real life means less happiness and more pain compared to the experience machine.

According to act utilitarianism, everyone should enter the experience machine (because all that matters is maximising happiness). But it seems morally wrong to ignore a person’s preferences and, say, force them to enter the experience machine in order to increase happiness.

This example illustrates a problem with Bentham and Mill’s hedonism (the idea that happiness and pleasure are the only things of value). We realise there are things in life more important than simple pleasure – such as being in contact with reality – but act utilitarianism ignores our preferences for these things.

Possible response: preference utilitarianism.

Rule utilitarianism

“though the consequences in the particular case might be beneficial—it would be unworthy of an intelligent agent not to be consciously aware that the action is of a class which, if practiced generally, would be generally injurious, and that this is the ground of the obligation to abstain from it.” John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of general rules rather than specific actions ( act utilitarianism ).

This provides a response to the tyranny of the majority objection to act utilitarianism above . Although in this specific instance punishing the innocent man leads to greater happiness, as a general rule it would lead to more unhappiness.

For example, if you lived in a society where you knew innocent people were regularly framed, you would worry that it might happen to you. There would also be no satisfaction in seeing criminals ‘brought to justice’ as there would be no way to know whether they were guilty.

Preference utilitarianism

Preference utilitarianism is a non-hedonistic form of utilitarianism. It says that instead of maximising happiness (hedonistic utilitarianism), we should act to maximise people’s preferences .

This provides a response to the experience machine objection to act utilitarianism above. Act utilitarianism says we should shove everyone into the experience machine – whether they want to go in or not – because doing so would maximise their happiness. However, preference utilitarianism can reject this by saying we should respect people’s preference to live in the real world (even if living in the real world means less happiness).

A related example would be carrying out the wishes of the dead. It can’t increase the happiness of a deceased person to carry out their will (because they’re dead). However, if a deceased person expressed a preference for their money to be donated to the local cat shelter, say, then it seems there is a moral obligation to honour this preference. Act utilitarianism, though, would say we should ignore the preferences of the deceased and just spend the money in whichever way maximises happiness – but this seems wrong. Preference utilitarianism can avoid this outcome and say we should respect the preferences of the dead.

Preference utilitarianism can also tie in with Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures . Mill claims that higher pleasures are just inherently more valuable than lower pleasures, but preference utilitarianism can explain this in terms of preference: We prefer higher pleasures over lower pleasures, and so should seek to maximise those.

Kant’s theory is quite long-winded, but it can be summarised as:

• The only thing that is good without qualification is good will.
• Good will means acting for the sake of duty.
• You have a duty to follow the moral law.
• Moral laws are universal .
• You can tell is a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative.
• Contradiction in conception
• Contradiction in will
• Finally, do not treat people as means to an end (the humanity formula ).

The good will

Good will is one that acts for the sake of duty . This, according to Kant, is the source of moral worth.

So, if you save someone’s life because you expect to be financially rewarded, this action has no moral worth. You’re acting for selfish reasons, not because of duty.

However, if you save someone’s life because you recognise that you have a duty to do so, then this action does have moral worth.

Deontology (as in Kant’s deontological ethics) is the study of duty.

Kant argues that we each have a duty to follow the moral law. The moral law, according to Kant, is summarised by the categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” – Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

There are two kinds of maxims (rules): categorical and hypothetical .

• E.g. “you should do your homework if you want to do well in the exam. “
• E.g. “you shouldn’t steal” is a rule that applies to everyone, i.e. it applies universally.

According to Kant, moral laws are categorical, not hypothetical. Kant gives two ways to test whether a maxim/rule passes the categorical imperative: contradiction in conception and contradiction in will . He also gives another formula for the categorical imperative, called the humanity formula.

Test 1: contradiction in conception

For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception.

A contradiction in conception is something that is self-contradictory.

Example: we might ask Kant whether it is morally acceptable to steal. I.e., we might ask whether “you should steal” is a universally applicable maxim.

If stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument against it. In fact, the very concept of ownership wouldn’t make sense – as everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do.

So, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, the concept of private property disappears. If there is no such thing as private property, then stealing is impossible.

Therefore, Kant would say, the maxim “you should steal” leads to a contradiction in conception . Therefore, stealing is not morally permissible.

If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a perfect duty not to follow that maxim. It is always wrong.

Test 2: contradiction in will

Assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, we must then ask whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will – i.e. whether we can rationally will a maxim or not.

Example: can we rationally will “not to help others in need”?

There is no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone else. But we cannot rationally will it , says Kant. The reason for this is that sometimes we have goals (Kant calls these ends ) that cannot be achieved without the help of others. To will the ends, we must also will the means .

So, we cannot rationally will such goals without also willing the help of others (the means).

Of course, not all goals require the help of others. Hence, Kant argues this results in an imperfect duty. In other words, it is sometimes wrong to follow the maxim “not to help others in need”.

The humanity formula

Kant gives another formulation of the categorical imperative :

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity […] never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” – Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

Treating someone as a means to your own end means to use them. So Kant is basically saying don’t use people.

Example: tricking someone into marrying you.

If you pretend to love someone to marry them and take their money, you treat them as a means to make money.

According to Kant, it’s the deception that is the problem here as it undermines the rational agency of the other party. By withholding your true intentions, you prevent the other party from rationally pursuing their own ends (e.g. to find a loving partner).

But if you’re honest with the other party, the other party can make an informed choice on whether this fits with their ends. Their goal might be to get married to anyone , regardless of whether it’s love or not. In this case you can both (rationally) use each other for mutual benefit. You acknowledge each others ends , even if they are not the same.

Not all universal maxims are moral (and vice versa)

Kant argues that ignoring a perfect duty leads to a contradiction in conception . As we saw in the stealing example, the very concept of private property couldn’t exist if stealing was universally permissible. But by tweaking the maxim slightly, we can avoid this contradiction in conception and justify stealing.

For example, instead of my maxim being ‘to steal’, I could claim my maxim is ‘to steal from people with nine letters in their name’ or ‘to steal from stores that begin with the letter A’.

Both of these maxims can be universalised without undermining the concept of private property. They would apply rarely enough that there would be no breakdown in the concept of private property.

For Kant, if a maxim can be universalised, it is morally acceptable. But this shows that universalisable maxims are not necessarily good or moral.

You can also make this objection the other way round by appealing to maxims that can’t be made into universal laws and yet aren’t morally wrong.

For example, my maxim ‘to be in the top 10% of students’ can’t be made universal law because only 10% of people (by definition) can achieve this. And yet, it’s not morally wrong to try to be in the top 10% of students.

In the ‘stealing from people with nine letters in their name ‘ example, Kant would likely argue that modifying your maxim in this way is cheating because the extra conditions – such as the number of letters in a person’s name or the name of the store – are morally irrelevant to this situation.

The categorical imperative is concerned with the actual maxim I am acting on and not some arbitrary one I just made up.

Ignores consequences

There is a strong intuition that consequences (i.e. utilitarianism ) are important when it comes to moral decision making.

This intuition can be drawn out by considering ethical dilemmas such as the trolley problem:

Is it right to kill one person to save five people? Kant would say no, a utilitarian would say yes.

But what about 100 people? Or the entire population of the world? Surely if the consequences are significant enough we should consider breaking certain rules?

Another example is stealing. Many people would have the utilitarian intuition that it’s morally acceptable to steal food in some situations – for example, stealing food to save your starving family’s life. However, Kant says we have a perfect duty never to steal and so you should just let your family starve to death – but this doesn’t seem right.

The problem with such rigid rules is drawn out further in the lies section of applied ethics . Kant argues that we have a perfect duty not to lie – even if telling a lie would save someone’s life.

These thought experiments seem to draw out absurd and morally questionable results from following rules too strictly.

Ignores other valuable motivations

In the discussion of the good will , we saw how Kant argues that acting for the sake of duty is the source of moral worth.

In other words, being motivated by duty is the only motivation that has moral worth.

So, imagine a close friend is ill in hospital. You pay them a visit because you genuinely like them and want to make sure they’re ok. According to Kant, this motivation (concern for your friend) has no moral value.

However, if you didn’t really care about your friend but begrudgingly went to visit purely out of duty, this would have moral value according to Kant.

But this seems absurd. Kant seems to be saying we should want to help people because of duty, not because we genuinely care.

Kant would respond by making a distinction between acting for the sake of duty and acting in accordance with duty. There is nothing wrong with being motivated by motivations such as love, but we shouldn’t choose how to act because of them. Instead, we should always act out of duty, but if what we want to do anyway is in accordance with duty then that’s a bonus.

Conflicts between duties

Kant argues that it is never acceptable to violate our duties .

But what if you find yourself in a situation where such a situation was unavoidable? For example, Kant would say we have a duty to never lie . But what happens if you make a promise to someone but then find yourself in a situation where the only way to keep that promise is by telling a lie? Whichever choice you make you will seemingly violate one of your duties.

Kant claims that a true conflict of duties is impossible. Our moral duties are objective and rational and so it is inconceivable that they could conflict with one another. If it appears that there is a conflict in our duties, he says, it must mean we have made a mistake somewhere in formulating them. After all, you can’t rationally will a maxim to become a universal law if it conflicts with another law you rationally will – that would be contradictory .

So, if we think through our duties carefully, Kant says, a true conflict is irrational and inconceivable. Applied to the example above, Kant could say we shouldn’t make a promise that could conflict with our moral duties.

Foot: Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives

Philippa Foot argues that moral laws are not categorical  in the way Kant thinks – there is no categorical reason to follow them. Instead, she argues, morality is a system of hypothetical imperatives:

The motivation for hypothetical imperatives is obvious: I should do my homework because I want to do well in the exam. I should leave now because I want to catch the train on time. These desires provide a rational reason why I should act according to these imperatives.

However, the reason for categorical imperatives is not so clear. Why shouldn’t I steal? Why shouldn’t I tell lies? If I don’t care about these rules – if I have no desire to follow them – then why should I? Kant would say following moral laws is a matter of rationality and that reason tells us we should follow the categorical imperative but Foot argues that:

“The fact is that the man who rejects morality because he sees no reason to obey its rules can be convicted of villainy but not of inconsistency. Nor will his action necessarily be irrational. Irrational actions are those in which a man in some way defeats his own purposes […] Immorality does not necessarily involve any such thing.” – Philippa Foot, Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives

In other words, there is nothing irrational about disobeying the categorical imperative if you never accepted it in the first place. The categorical imperative does not itself provide any rational reason to follow it. We might feel that there is some moral force that compels us not to steal or tell lies but this feeling is just that: a feeling. In reality, there is no real reason to follow moral laws any more than there is reason to follow the rules of etiquette, such as “handshakes should be brief”.

Instead, Foot argues that we should see morality as a system of hypothetical , rather than categorical, imperatives. For example:

• You shouldn’t steal if you don’t want to upset the person you’re stealing from
• You shouldn’t tell lies if you care about having integrity
• You shouldn’t murder if you want to be a just and virtuous person

Aristotle’s virtue theory

Like Kant, Aristotle’s ethics are somewhat long-winded. Aristotle also makes a bunch of different arguments that can sometimes seem a bit unconnected.

The first thing to say is that Aristotle starts by answering a slightly different question to Kant and utilitarianism . Instead of answering “what should I do?” (action-centred) he addresses a question more like “what sort of person should I be?” (agent-centred). It’s basically the other way round: Instead of defining a good person as someone who does good actions, Aristotle would define good actions as those done by good people.

The following is a brief summary of his main points:

• Eudaimonia = the good life for human beings
• The good life for a human being must consist of something unique to human beings
• Human beings are rational animals, and reason is their unique characteristic activity (ergon)
• The good life (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to reason
• Virtues are character traits that enable us to act according to reason
• The virtue is the middle point between a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess
• Virtues are developed through habit and training

You can have good food, good friends, a good day. Aristotle’s ethical enquiry is concerned with the good life for a human being . The word Aristotle uses for this is eudaimonia , which is sometimes translated as ‘human flourishing’.

Aristotle has in mind the good life for a human in a broad sense. Eudaimonia is not just about following moral laws (e.g. Kant), or being happy (e.g. utilitarianism), or being successful – it’s about all these things together and more. It’s a good life in the moral sense as well as in the sense that it’s the kind of desirable and enjoyable and valuable life you would want for yourself.

Eudaimonia is a property of someone’s life taken as a whole. It’s not something you can have one day and then lose the next. Good people sometimes do bad things, but this doesn’t make them bad people. Likewise, people who have good lives (eudaimons) can sometimes have bad days.

Aristotle says that eudaimonia is a final end . We don’t try to achieve eudaimonia as a means to achieve some goal but instead it is something that is valuable for its own sake.

Arête, ergon, and virtue

While fleshing out this concept of eudaimonia, Aristotle uses the words arête and ergon . These roughly translate as:

• Ergon: function/characteristic activity of a thing
• Arête: property/virtue that enables a thing to achieve its ergon

Aristotle argues that eudaimonia must consist of something unique to humans. The ergon of humans, says Aristotle, is to use reason . Reason is what makes us unique from trees, plants, books, knives, animals – everything else in the world. However, this does not mean that we achieve eudaimonia by doing nothing but idly thinking and reasoning. Instead, Aristotle’s claim is that humans always choose their actions for some reason – good or bad. So, what Aristotle actually says is that the good life for a human being (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to good reason.

Virtues are character traits that enable us to choose our actions according to good reason. So, just as the arête of sharpness helps a knife fulfil its ergon to cut things, the arête of virtues help humans fulfil their ergon, which is to choose actions according to reason.

A bit like eudaimonia, virtues are not something you have one day but not the next. If someone has a virtuous character but slips up one day and does something unvirtuous, this doesn’t make them a bad person. Likewise, a bad person whose character is prone to vice doesn’t suddenly develop virtuous character through committing one virtuous act. So, again, virtues are character traits – they are part of what we are.

The doctrine of the mean

Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean (also called the golden mean) provides more detail about what virtuous character traits actually are. The doctrine of the mean says that virtues are the intermediate or average (the mean) between two extremes.

For example, if you never stand up for yourself then you are cowardly (vice of deficiency). But if you go too far the other way and start fights with anyone for the slightest reason then you are reckless (vice of excess). The correct and virtuous way to act is somewhere in between these two extremes.

Some other examples:

Again, virtues are character traits. So, for example, just because you have a good-tempered character in general this doesn’t mean you should always be good-tempered in every situation.

There are times when anger is the appropriate (and virtuous) response. The virtuous person is not someone who never feels angry or other extremes of emotions. Instead, the virtuous person is someone whose character disposes them to feel these extreme emotions when it is appropriate to do so. As Aristotle says:

“For instance, both fear and confidence and appetite and anger… may be felt both too much and too little, and in both cases not well; but to feel them at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way, is what is both intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of virtue.” Aristotle, The Nichomachean Ethics Book II.VI

The skill analogy

Acquiring virtues is somewhat analogous to acquiring skills such as learning to ride a bike or play the piano:

• Nobody is born knowing how to play the piano, but we are born with the capacity to know how to play the piano. Likewise, nobody is born virtuous, but they have the capacity to become virtuous
• You don’t learn to play the piano by simply reading books and just studying the theory, you have to actually do it. Likewise, it’s not enough to just read and learn about virtue, you have to actually act virtuously until it becomes part of your character.
• When you first start learning to play the piano, you follow the rules and try not to press the wrong keys – but you don’t really understand what you’re doing. In the case of virtue, we start by teaching children rules for behaviour (e.g. “don’t eat too many sweets” or “if you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”) and they just follow these rules because they’re told to – not because they understand why.
• But as you progress with playing the piano, you become able to play automatically without thinking and, eventually, you might become so comfortable playing the piano that you’re able to improvise and understand what sounds good, what doesn’t, and why. Likewise, by following rules for acting virtuously, it eventually becomes part of our character (e.g. we develop the virtue of temperance by repeatedly refusing to indulge until it eventually becomes habit). Further, we begin to understand what virtue is and this enables us to improvise according to what the situation demands.

Another of Aristotle’s terms is phronesis , which translates as something like ‘practical wisdom’ .

Aristotle’s virtue ethics is not like Kant’s deontological ethics where what is good/right can be boiled down to a list of general rules . For Aristotle, what’s good/right will depend on the specific details of the situation. In one situation (out with your friends, say) it might be virtuous to tell a joke whereas in another situation (e.g. at a funeral) it would be inappropriate. Knowing what virtue requires according to the specific details of the situation requires a practical wisdom. For Aristotle, this means:

• Having a general understanding of what is good for human beings ( eudaimonia ).
• Being able to apply this general understanding to the specific details of the situation – the time, the place, the people involved, etc.
• Being able to deliberate (i.e. think through) what is the virtuous goal according to these specific details.
• And then acting virtuously according to this deliberation to achieve this virtuous outcome.

As the name suggests, practical wisdom is not the sort of thing you can learn from books – it’s practical . The skill analogy illustrates how virtuous actions become habit over time, leading to virtuous character that enables us to act virtuously in the wide variety of situations we find ourselves.

Moral responsibility

Aristotle says we should only praise or condemn actions if they are done voluntarily. In other words, you can’t criticise someone for acting unvirtuously if their actions weren’t freely chosen.

• Voluntary: acting with full knowledge and intention
• Compulsion (i.e. in voluntary): being forced to do something you don’t want to do – e.g. sailors throwing goods overboard to save the boat during a storm
• Ignorance (i.e. non -voluntary): doing something you don’t want to do by accident – e.g. slipping on a banana skin and spilling a drink on someone

Aristotle says a person is only morally responsible for their voluntary actions.

No clear guidance

Aristotle describes virtues in the middle of the two extremes ( the doctrine of the mean ) and that this varies depending on the situation. But this isn’t very helpful as a practical guide of what to do.

For example, Aristotle would say it is correct to act angrily sometimes – but when exactly? And how angry are you supposed to get before it crosses over from a virtue to a vice of excess?

Kant gives the categorical imperative as a test to say whether an action is moral or not. And even utilitarianism has the felicific calculus . But with Aristotle, we have no such criteria against which to judge whether one course of action is better than another. The doctrine of the mean doesn’t give actual quantities, only vague descriptions as “not too much” and “not too little”. If you genuinely don’t know what the correct course of action is, virtue theory doesn’t provide any actual guidance for how to act.

Aristotle could reply that virtue theory was never intended to provide a set of rules for how to act. Life is complicated – that’s the whole reason why you need to develop practical wisdom in the first place, so you can act virtuously in the many complicated situations that arise. Plus, we can still reflect whether an action is, for example, courageous or stupid. We could also ask questions like “how could I be more friendly in this situation?” that help us decide how to act. Just because virtue theory doesn’t provide a specific course of action, that does not mean it provides no guidance whatsoever.

Circularity

Aristotle can be interpreted as defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other, which doesn’t really say anything. He’s basically saying something like:

• A virtuous act is something a virtuous person would do
• And a virtuous person is a person who does virtuous acts

These descriptions are circular and so say nothing meaningful about what a virtuous person or a virtuous act actually is.

Competing virtues

We can imagine scenarios where applying two different virtues (e.g. justice and mercy) would suggest two different courses of action.

For example, if you’re a judge and someone has stolen something, you have to choose between the virtue of justice (i.e. punishing the criminal) and the virtue of mercy (i.e. letting the criminal go). You can’t choose to do both things, so whichever choice you make will be unvirtuous in some way.

Aristotle would reply that such conflicts between virtues are impossible. As mentioned in the no clear guidance objection, virtues are not rigid and unbreakable rules and the correct virtue and in what amount depends on the circumstances. Aristotle would say that practical wisdom would mean knowing what each virtue tells you to do and in what amount. So, for example, you could sentence a person according to justice, but show appropriate mercy if there are extenuating circumstances.

Difference between eudaimonia and moral good

According to Aristotle, the good life for a human being is eudaimonia. And, as mentioned, eudaimonia includes many elements beyond simply being moral – such as honour, wealth, and happiness. However, we often make a distinction between a good life for me (eudaimonia) and a morally good life.

This suggests there is a difference between what is morally good and eudaimonia , and so Aristotle’s virtue ethics fails as an account of what morality is.

You could respond, however, that Aristotle was never trying to answer the (narrow) question of what a morally good life is. Aristotle’s inquiry and eudaimonia is concerned with the good life in general – human flourishing in a broad sense. Further, Aristotle would likely argue that achieving eudaimonia does involve some level of commitment to others. So, the kind of altruism demonstrated by the nurse in the example above would indeed be part of eudaimonia – it’s just not the only part. In other words, being morally good is necessary, but not sufficient , for eudaimonia.

Metaethics>>>

Utilitarianism

In its simplest form Utilitarianism is a theory that says that you should decide what you do in order to provide the most happiness and the least pain in a situation.

It is therefore Hedonistic - it is centred around pleasure.

As you look at all the different possible outcomes of a situation to see where pleasure and pain will be balanced the best, it is consequentialist or teleological .

As the outcome of a different ethical question will be different each time, it is reltivist .

Bentham's Utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) stated that naturally we are ruled by two key things - pleasure and pain - two basic instincts.

'Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do.' (Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Moral Legislation , 1789)

Bentham said that we need to look at the possible things we might do and the various outcomes and calculate how much pleasure and pain they might create, finally choosing the one that best maximises pleasure and minimises pain. His approach is therefore quantitative .

He said we need to consider seven different factors, his Hedonic Calculus or the Felicific Calculus .

1. Intensity (how great the pleasures/pains will be)

2. Duration (how long the pleasures/pains will last)

3. Certainty (how likely certain outcomes are)

4. Propinquity (how near to you the pleasures/pains will be - i.e. how much they will affect you personally)

5. Fecundity (how likely the pleasures/pains will be followed by similar pleasures/pains)

6. Purity (how likely the pleasures/pains will be followed by the opposite types of pleasures/pains)

7. Extent (how many people will be affected by it)

Advantages of Bentham's Utilitarianism

• It is reasonable to link morality with the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain and misery.
• It is also natural to consider the consequences of our actions when deciding on what to do.

Criticisms of Bentham's Utilitarianism

• You cannot predict the future so the calculations cannot always be accurate.
• Pain can be good and pleasure can be bad, therefore utilitarianism can be contradicted.
• There are certain things that are intrinsically good or bad, so there is no reason to do calculations each time.
• Should animals be considered in the equation? The environment?
• Some would say that we have a particular obligation to our family.
• The majority may sometimes be corrupt (for example two prison guards who got pleasure out of torturing a prisoner might be allowed to do it under Bentham's Utilitarianism).

Mill's Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was uncomfortable with some of the implications of Bentham's Utilitarianism. He suggested that utilitarian principles could be used to make 'rules of thumb' to live by. He took a qualitative approach - some pleasures are more valuable than others.

He divided pleasures into higher pleasures and lower pleasures . Higher pleasures are things such as poetry and music; lower pleasures are things such as eating and drinking. He said that it is ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied rather than being a pig satisfied; better to be Socretes dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’. (J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism , 1863) Mill felt that we should aim not for pleasure but for happiness - the general happiness of society.

Act vs Rule Utilitarianism

Bentham is sometimes referred to as an Act Utilitarian because in his view each time you need to consider each act individually. Mill relies on rules more, and is sometimes known as a Rule Utilitarian . However some scholars are uncomfortable with this as Mill advocated following general rules that could be broken when necessary. He is therefore sometimes known as a Weak Rule Utilitarian . By contrast Strong Rule Utilitarianism would say that utilitarian principles should establish rules that should then never be broken - which might become an absolutist theory!

General Advantages of Utilitarianism

• A large number of people benefit as the principal is greatest good for the greatest number.
• Mill's Utilitarianism promotes general societal happiness and it is natural to see physical and mental pleasures are different.
• It is natural to consider consequences, so it is easy to use Hedonic Calculus.
• It is applicable to real-life situations because it doesn’t generalise and recognises the complexity of life.

General Disadvantages of Utilitarianism

• We do not know the consequences of our actions.
• Strong rule utilitarianism is not really sticking by utilitarianism but is absolutist and nothing will benefit the greater good in certain situations.
• Weak rule utilitarianism becomes the same as Act utilitarianism, so is worse for minorities as the majority always rules.
• It is impractical to calculate what you should do to such an extent in day-to-day life.

A Level Philosophy & Religious Studies

Utilitarianism

Eduqas/WJEC Ethics

Bentham’s Act utilitarianism

Jeremy Bentham invented the first form of Utilitarianism – Act utilitarianism. He was one of the first atheist philosophers and wanted to devise a morality that would reflect an atheistic understanding of what it meant to be human. Such an understanding involved no longer considering ourselves as a special part of creation, but as just a part of nature. On this basis, Bentham made this claim:

 ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure’.

This means that it is human nature to find pleasure good and pain bad, which Bentham goes on claim suggests that it is pleasure and pain which determine what we ought to do as well as what we will do. We can say that we value something other than pleasure, but Bentham claims we would just be pretending. It is the nature of the human animal to seek pleasure and avoid pain, so that’s all there is for morality to be about. From this, Bentham devised the principle of utility:

An action is good if it leads to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory because it is what an action “leads to”, i.e. its consequences, that determines whether it is good.

Hedonic Calculus. The principle of utility holds that the ‘greatest’ pleasure is the goal of ethical action. It follows that a method for measuring pleasure is required. Bentham devised the hedonic calculus to do this. It is a list of seven criteria which each measure a different aspect of the pleasurable consequences of an action. In order to decide which action to do, you need to know in advance which action will result in the greater amount of pleasure. The hedonic calculus is what allows you to calculate that.

• How strong the pleasure is.
• How long the pleasure lasts.
• How likely it is that the pleasure will occur.
• How far away in time the pleasure will occur.
• The likelihood that the pleasure will lead to further pleasure.
• The likelihood that the pleasure will be followed by pain.
• How many people are affected.

Mill’s qualitative Utilitarianism; higher & lower pleasures

The claim of Utilitarianism, that the morality of an action reduces entirely to how far it maximises pleasure, provoked many to criticise it for degrading morality and humanity; that it is a “doctrine worthy only of swine”.

Mill combated this objection by distinguishing between lower pleasures gained from bodily activity, such as food, sex and drugs, and higher pleasures gained from mental activity, such as poetry, reading, philosophy, music. Swine are not capable of experiencing higher pleasures, so to combat this objection Utilitarianism need only show that higher pleasures are superior to the lower.

Mill points out that Utilitarian thinkers had already successfully defended against this issue by showing that higher pleasures are overall superior at producing a greater quantity of happiness than lower. Lower pleasures are fleeting, lasting only for the duration of the action that produce them. Furthermore, lower pleasures are costly because they are addictive and tempt people to choose instant gratification, or what Mill calls a ‘nearer good’ over greater goods like health, for example by consuming sugar or drinking alcohol. Higher pleasures of the mind have no such ill effects and can have a lasting enlightening effect on a mind which has cultivated a habit of appreciating them.

Bentham claimed that all pleasures were equal, that the pleasure gained from poetry is just as valuable as that gained from playing pushpin (a children’s game). Yet even Bentham’s quantitative approach will judge higher pleasures superior for tending to produce more durable pleasure with less cost than lower pleasures.

However, Mill goes further than Bentham and claims that the superiority of higher pleasures can be proven not only on quantitative grounds, but a ‘higher ground’ than that, their superior quality.

“It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others” – Mill

Higher pleasures are of greater quality than lower pleasures. That is why they are worth more. We can determine whether a pleasure is of greater quality than another based on which is preferred over the other. Through education in the collective experience and choices of humanity we can discover which pleasures are desired over others.

‘Competent judges’ are people with experience of both higher and lower pleasures. Mill claims they always prefer higher pleasures to lower pleasures, thus demonstrating their greater quality. Mill now has his full answer to those who say Utilitarianism is a doctrine fit only for swine:

“it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides” – Mill.

Humans can experience mental pleasures of a higher quality than the low pleasures that both humans and pigs can experience. Socrates illustrates that some humans can experience mental pleasures of a higher quality than other humans. Mill’s claim is that when we investigate such cases, we find that beings prefer the highest mental pleasure they are capable of experiencing over lower pleasures. In fact, people acquainted with both higher and lower pleasures show such a great preference for the higher that they will put up with discontent to get them and would not lose it even for any quantity of a lower pleasure. Mill concludes:

“we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account” – Mill.

When we study what types of pleasure are preferred over others by those with the capacity to experience many types, we find that it is those higher pleasures of the mind that are preferred and are often pursued while sacrificing comfort. We can thus conclude of their greater quality.

For example, consider the case of an artist who suffers from financial deprivation to produce their art. A piano player who arduously wades through hours of practice to finally experience the pleasure of playing some composition of genius. A student who avoids short-term pleasures and indolence by diligently studying for their exams, to avoid a monotonous life and pursue the pleasure that comes from development, exercise and eventual mastery of their interests and talents.

Many will object to Mill’s claim that a person who can and has experienced higher pleasures will always prefer them to lower ones. There are plenty of times when mentally cultivated people will occasionally give in to instant gratification or even sink into complete addiction to lower pleasures.

However, Mill responds that this objection misunderstands his argument. Everyone prefers the highest pleasures they have been able to experience, but it doesn’t follow that everyone always chooses them over lower ones. The ability to experience higher pleasures requires careful cultivation which is easily lost, either due to falling into addiction, weakness of will/character, external pressures or lack of internal support.

“Capacity for the nobler feelings is in most natures a very tender plant, easily killed, not only by hostile influences, but by mere want of sustenance; and in the majority of young persons it speedily dies away if the occupations to which their position in life has devoted them, and the society into which it has thrown them, are not favourable to keeping that higher capacity in exercise. Men lose their high aspirations as they lose their intellectual tastes, because they have not time or opportunity for indulging them; and they addict themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately prefer them, but because they are either the only ones to which they have access, or the only ones which they are any longer capable of enjoying.” – Mill.

Mill’s Rule Utilitarianism

The principle of Utility holds that the goal of moral action is to maximise happiness. Mill says he “entirely” agrees with Bentham’s principle of Utility, that what makes an action good is the degree to which it promotes happiness over suffering. Mill calls this the principle of Utility the ‘first principle’.

However, Mill disagreed with Bentham’s approach of judging every action by the principle of utility. Mill claimed that happiness is ‘much too complex and indefinite a goal’ for that.

“Although I entirely agree with Bentham in his principle, I do not agree with him that all right thinking on the details of morals depends on its explicit assertion. I think that utility or happiness is much too complex and indefinite a goal to be sought except through various intermediate goals” – Mill.

This is an attempt to solve the issue of calculation. It is extremely difficult to calculate which action will maximise happiness. Even though that is what constitutes the moral rightness of an action, nonetheless because of our limited knowledge our actual moral obligation is to follow whatever secondary principles humanity’s current level of understanding has produced regarding how to gain happiness and minimise suffering. We can draw on the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of our species on what avoids suffering and produces satisfaction and happiness.

This gives us ‘secondary principles’ which are more general rules and guidelines. These are the product of our civilisation’s current best attempt to understand how to produce happiness. They are therefore subject to improvement. As particularly obvious examples, Mill points to murder and theft as being injurious to human happiness.

Another secondary principle Mill thought important enough to be adopted as the practice of government was the harm principle. It essentially states that people should be free to do what they want so long as they aren’t harming others. Mill argued that each individual is in the best position to make themselves happy and so if we all allowed each other to do what made us happy, society would overall be the happiest it could be.

Of course, secondary principles will sometimes conflict. Another secondary principle could be helping others. In the case of the trolly problem, where killing one person is the only way to save five people, the harm principle conflicts with the principle of helping others. In the case of theft, which is a harm, if it is the only way to save a starving family then the secondary principles of not harming and not stealing come into conflict. Mill explains that to resolve conflicts we need to apply the first principle:

“ Those who adopt utility as a standard can seldom apply it truly except through the secondary principles … It is when two or more secondary principles conflict that a direct appeal to some first principle becomes necessary” – Mill

If we appeal to the first principle of utility, it looks like we should steal to save starving people or inflict harm (to the point of killing) by pulling the leaver in the trolly problem, to save five people.

Criticisms of Utilitarianism

Problems with calculation.

Utilitarianism seems to require:

• That we know can the future.

If the goodness of an action depends on whether it maximises pleasure, then we need to know the consequences of the action before we do it. That seems to require that we know the future. Yet, predicting the future is often incredibly difficult.

Worse, we need to know not only the consequences of an action, but of all the possible actions we could do in a situation.

• That we can make incredibly complex calculations about the range of possible actions, sometimes under time-constraints.

Once we know the consequences of all the actions we could do, we then need to calculate the impact they will have on pleasure and pain. Not just in the short, but in the long-term. Worse, we might need to make these calculations in time-sensitive situations.

• That these calculations include the objective measuring of subjective mental states like pleasure and pain.

We can only make objective measurements of objective things. For example we can measure a thing’s length by putting a tape measure next to it. The calculations about the amount of pleasure and pain an action will lead to require that we measure subjective feelings, which seems impossible. There is no objective way to measure subjective feelings because we can’t put a ruler next to them.

All three of these conditions are plagued with difficulty, and yet each seems absolutely necessary if we are act on the principle of utility.

Bentham’s response to issues with calculation. Bentham claims that an action is right regarding “the tendency which it appears to have” to maximise happiness. So, we actually only need to have a reasonable expectation of what the consequences will be based on how similar actions have tended to turn out in the past.

To further defend Bentham, we could argue that we can measure subjective feelings. In hospital, doctors ask patients how much pain they are in out of 10. Doctors will admit that this is never a perfect indicator, but it is accurate enough to be informative.

Mill’s response to issues with calculation. Mill’s version of Utilitarianism seems to avoid these issues regarding calculation. We do not need to know the future, nor make incredibly complex calculations, nor measure subjective feelings. We only need to know the secondary principles that our civilisation has, through its collective efforts and experience, judged to be those best conducive to happiness. We then need to simply follow those principles as best we can. For Mill, the moral rightness of an action depends on maximise happiness, but because of the immense complexity of that, our only moral obligation is to just do our best to follow the principles geared towards producing happiness of our society, which are themselves only the best current principle that our current stage of civilisation and culture has managed to develop.

Mill is admitting that to perfectly act on the principle of utility is currently impossible. However, he denies that this means Utilitarianism fails in its requirement as a normative theory to successfully guide action. For that, Utilitarianism can rely on the principles and rules that, to the best of our current knowledge, most produce happiness. Society also ought to be progressive, meaning it should retrospectively assess and improve its principles and rules. This works well enough and in principle can continue to work better as we discover more, biologically, psychologically, sociologically and politically how to maximise happiness.

In cases of a conflict of rules, Mill adopts the same approach as Bentham and says we must judge the individual action by the principle of utility, though Mill adds that we should consider the quality not only quantity of the pleasure it could produce. He agrees with Bentham’s point that when judging individual actions, we can base our calculations on what we know of the ‘tendencies’ actions have. We do not need to exactly predict their consequences.

Regarding how to calculate or measure the quality of a pleasure, Mill explains that we need only investigate people’s preferences and we see that people always prefer higher pleasures to lower ones, except when falling into addiction or weakness of character.

The issue of intentions and character

  Utilitarianism only views the consequences of actions as good, not the character (integrity) of the person who performs them. This goes against the intuition that a person can be a good person. It also has the bizarre effect that e.g stabbing someone could be good if after being rushed to hospital it was found, coincidentally, they had a brain tumour. Or someone who attempts to do good but bad consequences result which were unforeseeable, such as the priest who saved Hitler’s life when he was a child. The way we’d normally solve this problem is to claim that although the action had good consequences, the person’s intentions or character was bad. However, consequentialist theories seem unable to claim that because for them, it is only consequences which are good or bad, not intentions/character.

Mill responds firstly that a person’s character does matter because it will determine their future actions. The stabber should be condemned for his motive because that will prevent them stabbing others in future. The priest should be forgiven because he’s not likely to do anything bad in the future as his character is good. Secondly, Mill argues that having a good character helps you become happy. Motives and character therefore do matter ethically, though not intrinsically but only insofar as they result in good consequences, in line with consequentialism.

The issue of partiality

Utilitarianism argues that we should do whatever action leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. It does not consider an individual’s particular emotional ties to their family or friends as relevant to that ethical calculation. E.g most parents would save their child’s life over the life of two random people. However, Utilitarianism would not regard that as the most moral action as saving two rather than one would lead to the greatest happiness. Therefore, Utilitarianism seems to be against the foundation of familial relationships which is at least a practical impediment to its implantability because family relationships define so much of our social existence. It is arguably also a conceptual flaw since family is intuitively thought of as a good thing.

Mill tried to respond that most people don’t have the opportunity to help a multitude of people so it’s good to just focus on those in our lives.

However, these days we have charities so Mill’s argument seems outdated.

Peter Singer makes the point that being brought up in a loving family is the best way to ensure children grow up to be as happy as they can. Singer points out that there have been experiments at bringing up children without parents and that they haven’t worked out well. So, if no one had a family, people would be much less happy therefore perhaps the happiness we gain from family is worth the unhappiness caused by our exclusion from our consideration of those who are not our family.

But, if you think about how much parents in the west spend on their children, if half that money were given to charity instead, actually the amount of suffering that reduced might outweigh the happiness the world gains by its having family relationships.

The burning building

If you were in a burning building and had a choice between saving a child and an expensive painting, which would you choose? Most people on first hearing this scenario would say the child, but utility based ethics seems to suggest that saving the painting is better because we could sell the paining for enough money to save the life of a hundred children. Giles Fraser argues that saving the painting suggests a lack of sympathy for the child and thus Utilitarianism encourages us to be immoral.

William MacAskill responds that actually saving the painting suggests a more cultivated sympathy which is able to connect to the many more children elsewhere who are in just as much need of saving and outnumber the single child there now. Their needs are greater than the individual needs of the one child.

Arguably it is practically impossible to expect people to act in the way utilitarianism wants, even if we admitted it was right in theory. Human emotions, especially empathy, are thus a practical impediment to the implementation of utilitarianism.

The application of Bentham and Mill to animal experimentation

• Animal experimentation for medical research.
• Bentham and Mill both thought that animal pleasure and pain mattered ethically. Bentham said what matters is not whether they can reason, but whether they can suffer.
• So, a Utilitarian would regard suffering caused to animals as bad.
• Nonetheless, if the potential benefit to happiness from medical research outweighed the suffering caused to the animals who were experimented on, then the utilitarian would accept it.
• It seems they would only be against animal experimentation if the chance of gaining useful medical knowledge was very low.

The application of Bentham and Mill to the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent

• The use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
• The purpose of a country using nuclear weapons as a deterrent is to prevent other countries from using nuclear weapons against them.
• This is called mutually assured destruction.
• There have been no nuclear weapons used since world war 2 and nuclear weapons have never been used by a country against another country that has nuclear weapons. So arguably it is an effective principle.
• This successfully reduces the chance of nuclear war and therefore Utilitarians would be in favour of it because nuclear bombs cause immense suffering if used.
• Nonetheless, having nuclear weapons even if only as a deterrent, increases the chance of nuclear war. There have been many cases during the cold war where nuclear weapons almost went off due to mistakes.
• Deterrence also only works against other nations, it would not work against terrorists.
• So, it seems that the best possible situation would be unilateral disarmament – where all countries agree to reduce their nuclear stockpiles together. This would reduce the chance of nuclear war the most.
• The problem is that it’s very difficult to get countries to agree to reduce their nuclear stockpile because they would naturally be suspicious about other countries secretly keeping theirs.
• So overall arguably utilitarians would be in favour of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

Evaluation of the application of Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism seems to justify bad actions so long as they maximise pleasure. For example, if it would give 10 prison guards pleasure to torture and kill a prisoner, then it seems that would be a morally good act. It would justify causing harm to animals and risking immense harm in terms of allowing nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
• However, Mill’s version of utilitarianism it seems would solve these problems because of the harm principle. That would prevent harming others.
• However, Mill’s harm principle only applies to people – not animals.
• However, Mill would still probably allow nuclear weapons as a deterrent because it’s goal is to reduce harm.
• However, maybe Mill is right to allow those things and these aren’t really example of bad actions that we could criticise utilitarianism for allowing.
• Utilitarianism has issues with calculation. In order to know whether an action is good or bad, we have to be able to predict the future of an action’s consequences (which is impossible) and calculate how much pleasure or pain those consequences will cause, but measuring subjective feelings is also impossible. For example, we can’t calculate nor predict whether a medical experiment causing suffering to animals will lead to more pleasure overall. Similarly, we can’t calculate nor predict the whether use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent will maximise happiness or not because we don’t know how well it will continue to work.
• However, Mill’s utilitarianism solves these issues by not calculating every action but figuring out which rules would maximise happiness if followed, based on trial and error and evidence from history.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

David Brooks

The Quiet Magic of Middle Managers

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

Nobody writes poems about middle managers. Nobody gets too romantic about the person who runs a department at a company, or supervises a construction crew, or serves as principal at a school, manager at a restaurant or deacon at a church. But I’ve come to believe that these folks are the unsung heroes of our age.

Amid a wider national atmosphere of division, distrust, bitterness and exhaustion, these managers are the frontline workers who try to resolve tensions and keep communities working, their teams united and relationships afloat. At a time when conflict entrepreneurs (see: Tucker Carlson) and demagogues are trying to rip society apart, I’m beginning to think that these members of the managerial class, spread across the institutions of society, are serving as the invisible glue that gives us a shot at sticking together.

So how do these managers work their magic? When I hear people in these roles talk about their work and its challenges, I hear, at least among the most inspiring of them, about the ways they put people over process, about the ways they deeply honor those right around them. A phrase pops into my mind: “Ethical leadership.” This is not just management. Something more deeply humanistic is going on. Let me give you a few features of ethical leadership:

Knowing that moral formation is part of the job. Here we turn to the gospel of Ted Lasso. When Lasso was asked about his goal for his soccer team, he replied: “For me, success is not about the wins and losses. It’s about helping these young fellas be the best versions of themselves on and off the field.” The lesson is that if you help your people become the best versions of themselves, the results you seek will take care of themselves.

Creating a moral ecology. I love talking about my old boss Jim Lehrer. When I was starting out at “PBS NewsHour” and I said something he thought was smart, his eyes would crinkle with pleasure. When I said something he thought was crass, his mouth would turn down in displeasure. For 10 years I chased the eye crinkles and tried to avoid the mouth downturns.

Jim never had to say anything to me, but with those kinds of slight gestures he taught us how to do our jobs. He communicated: This is how we do things on the “NewsHour”; these are our standards. Jim is gone, but the standards and moral ecology he helped create live on. Morally healthy communities habituate people to behave in certain ways and make it easier to be good.

Being hyperattentive. The poet Mary Oliver wrote: “This is the first, wildest and wisest thing I know: that the soul exists, and that it is built entirely out of attentiveness.” The leaders we admire are paying close attention to those who work with them. They are not self-centered but cast the beam of their care on others, making them feel seen and lit up. In how you see me, I come to see myself. If you cast a just and loving attention on people, they blossom.

Knowing that people are watching more closely than you might think . We like to believe that it’s our fancy pronouncements that have a big impact on others. But what usually gets communicated most deeply is the leader’s smallest gestures — the casual gifts of politeness, the little compliment or, on the other hand, the cold shoulder of thoughtlessness.

The Anglo-Irish statesman Edmund Burke wrote, “The law touches us but here and there, and now and then. Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and color to our lives. According to their quality, they aid morals, they supply them, or they totally destroy them.”

Generativity. The economists tell us that people are basically self-interested, but there comes a time in the lives of many managers when the capacity to guide and foster the next generation is more rewarding than just serving themselves. And yet they do this mentoring with respect, not condescension. The most generative leaders don’t see themselves as doing things “for” people. They know that “with” is more powerful than “for.” The chaplain Samuel Wells once observed that modern societies often “attempt to construct a world that works perfectly well without love.” But, he adds, mature love between equals is walking “with” and not doing “for.”

The absence of a heroic sense. Albert Schweitzer was genuinely heroic. In 1905, he decided to leave his successful careers in music and academia to become a missionary doctor serving the poor in Africa. But he never thought that he was doing anything special, and he never hired people who thought of their work in those terms. If you’re going to last in a life of sacrificial service, he concluded, you have to treat it as something as normal as doing the dishes. He wrote, “Only a person who feels his preference to be a matter of course, not something out of the ordinary, and who has no thought of heroism but only of a duty undertaken with sober enthusiasm, is capable of becoming the sort of spiritual pioneer the world needs.”

The same humility is observed in the best organizations — the willingness to do the uncelebrated work, day after day.

Preserving the moral lens. People in most professions are driven by mixed motives. Doctors want to heal the sick but are pressured to speed through enough patients to make the practice profitable. Lawyers defend their clients but also have to rack up billable hours. In day-to-day life it is easy for the utilitarian lens of metrics to eclipse the moral lens that drew us to our work in the first place. Ethical leaders push against the creeping pressures of utilitarianism, so that the people around them remember the ideals that drove them into their work in the first place.

A posture of joy. We assume we are being judged on our competence, but mostly we are judged on our warmth. Ethical leaders communicate a joyfulness in what they do and attract followers in part by showing pleasure. Look at the example set by the great Russian martyr Aleksei Navalny. He was funny and teasing, even in the most brutal circumstances.

America’s founding fathers understood that when private virtue fails, then relationships fail and the constitutional order crumbles. The crucial struggle of our time is not merely the global macro struggle between democracy and authoritarianism; it’s the day-to-day micro-contest between the forces that honor human dignity and those that spread dehumanization.

The democratic fabric is held together by daily acts of consideration that middle managers are in a position to practice and foster. The best of them don’t resolve our disputes but lift us above them so that we can see disagreements from a higher and more generous vantage point. Democracy is more than just voting; it is a way of living, a way of living generously within disagreements, one that works only with ethical leaders showing the way.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

David Brooks has been a columnist with The Times since 2003. He is the author, most recently,  of “How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen.” @ nytdavidbrooks

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

A-Level Religious Studies: Utilitarianism Essay + Model + Plan (Eduqas 20 Marks)

Subject: Religious education

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

11 September 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

Topic: Utilitarianism Marks: 20 Marks Exam Board: Eduqas Unit: Ethics

This is a 20 mark exam question based on Utilitarianism. This is an A01 20 mark style question that tests students knowledge.

This can be set as homework, a revision task or an in class essay. If completing timed in class students should be given 25 minutes to answer this essay.

There is also a model plan and model answer that can be used to help support planning, DIRT and marking.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: