<aside> 🗣 This article is well laid-out, with clear section headers and ways of dividing up the content in a coherent way. First skim through the headings and numbered sections to get a sense of the structure. Then read through in detail. - Prof. HS
</aside>
<aside> <img src="https://img.icons8.com/material/280/3D556E/table-of-content.png" alt="https://img.icons8.com/material/280/3D556E/table-of-content.png" width="40px" /> TABLE OF CONTENTS
</aside>
There are two main features of utilitarianism: the consequentialist principle (or its teleological aspect) and the utility principle (or its hedonic aspect). The consequentialist principle states that the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow from it. It is the end, not the means, that counts; the end justifies the means. The utility principle states that the only thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state (e.g., pleasure, happiness, welfare). Hedonistic utilitarianism views pleasure as the sole good and pain as the only evil. To quote Bentham, the first one to systematize classical utilitarianism, "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 what we shall do." An act is right if it either brings about more pleasure than pain or prevents pain, and an act is wrong if it either brings about more pain than pleasure or prevents pleasure from occurring.
Bentham invented a scheme for measuring pleasure and pain that he called the hedonic calculus: The quantitative score for any pleasure or pain experience is obtained by summing the seven aspects of a pleasurable or painful experience: its intensity, duration, certainty, nearness, fruitfulness, purity, and extent. Adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act and then comparing the scores would enable us to decide which act to perform...
There is something appealing about Bentham's utilitarianism. It is simple in that there is only one principle to apply: Maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. It is commonsensical in that we think that morality really is about ameliorating suffering and promoting benevolence. It is scientific: Simply make quantitative measurements and apply the principle impartially, giving no special treatment to ourselves or to anyone else because of race, gender, or religion.
However, Bentham's philosophy may be too simplistic in one way and too complicated in another. It may be too simplistic in that there are other values than pleasure..., and it seems too complicated in its artificial hedonic calculus. The calculus is encumbered with too many variables and has problems assigning scores to the variables. For instance, what score do we give a cool drink on a hot day or a warm shower on a cool day? How do we compare a 5-year-old's delight over a new toy with a 50-year-old's delight with a new lover? Can we take your second car from you and give it to Beggar Bob, who does not own a car and would enjoy it more than you?... Because of such considerations, Bentham's version of utilitarianism was, even in his own day, referred to as the "pig-philosophy," since a pig enjoying his life would constitute a higher moral state than a slightly dissatisfied Socrates.
It was to meet these sorts of objections and save utilitarianism from the charge of being a pig-philosophy that Bentham's brilliant successor, John Stuart Mill, sought to distinguish happiness from mere sensual pleasure. His version of utilitarianism - eudaimonistic (from the Greek eudaimonia, meaning "happiness") utilitarianism - defines happiness in terms of certain types of higher-order pleasures or satisfactions, such as intellectual, aesthetic, and social enjoyments, as well as in terms of minimal suffering. That is, there are two types of pleasures: the lower, or elementary (e.g., eating, drinking, sexuality, resting, and sensuous titillation), and the higher (e.g., intellectuality, creativity, and spirituality). Though the lower pleasures are more intensely gratifying, they also lead to pain when overindulged in. The spiritual, or achieved, pleasures tend to be more protracted, continuous, and gradual.
Mill argues that the higher, or more refined, pleasures are superior to the lower ones: A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type," but still he is qualitatively better off than the person without these higher faculties. "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." Humans are the kind of creatures who require more to be truly happy They want the lower pleasures, but they also want deep friendship, intellectual ability, culture, ability to create and appreciate art, knowledge, and wisdom.
But, one may object, how do we know that it really is better to have these higher pleasures? Here Mill imagines a panel of experts, and says that of those who have had wide experience of pleasures of both kinds almost all give a decided preference to the higher type... By this view people who experience both rock music and classical music will, if they appreciate both, prefer Bach and Beethoven to the Rolling Stones or the Dancing Demons. That is, we generally move up from appreciating simple things (e.g., nursery rhymes) to more complex and intricate things (e.g., poetry that requires great talent) rather than the other way around.
Mill has been criticized for not giving a better reply - for being an elitist and for unduly favoring the intellectual over the sensual. But he has a point. Don't we generally agree, if we have experienced both the lower and the higher types of pleasure, that even though a full life would include both, a life with only the former is inadequate for human beings? Isn't it better to be Socrates dissatisfied than the pig satisfied - and better still to be Socrates satisfied? The point is not merely that humans would not be satisfied with what satisfies a pig, but that somehow the quality of these pleasures is better... It does seem that intellectual activity, autonomous choice, and other non-hedonic qualities supplement the notion of pleasure.
There are two classical types of utilitarianism: act- and rule-utilitarianism. In applying the principle of utility, act-utilitarians, such as Bentham, say that ideally we ought to apply the principle to all of the alternatives open to us at any given moment. We may define act-utilitarianism in this way:
Act-utilitarianism: An act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative.
Of course, we cannot do the necessary calculations to determine which act is the correct one in each case, for often we must act spontaneously and quickly. So rules of thumb (e.g., "In general don't lie," and "Generally keep your promises") are of practical importance. However, the right act is still that alternative that results in the most utility.
The obvious criticism of act-utility is that it seems to fly in the face of fundamental intuitions about minimally correct behavior. Consider Richard Brandt's criticism of act-utilitarianism:
It implies that if you have employed a boy to mow your lawn and he has finished the job and asks for his pay, you should pay him what you promised only if you cannot find a better use for your money. It implies that when you bring home your monthly paycheck you should use it to support your family and yourself only if it cannot be used more effectively to supply the needs of others. It implies that if your father is ill and has no prospect of good in his life, and maintaining him is a drain on the energy and enjoyments of others, then, if you can end his life without provoking any public scandal or setting a bad example, it is your positive duty to take matters into your own hands and bring his life to a close.
Rule-utilitarians like Brandt attempt to offer a more credible version of the theory. They state that an act is right if it conforms to a valid rule within a system of rules that, if followed, will result in the best possible state of affairs (or the least bad state of affairs, if it is a question of all the alternatives being bad). We may define rule-utilitarianism this way:
Rule-utilitarianism: An act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative...
One way of resolving the difference between act- and rule-utilitarians is to appeal to the notion of levels of rules. For the sophisticated utilitarian there will be three levels of rules to guide actions. On the lowest level is a set of utility-maximizing rules of thumb that should always be followed unless there is a conflict between them, in which case a second-order set of conflict-resolving rules should be consulted. At the top of the hierarchy is the remainder rule of act utilitarianism: When no other rule applies, simply do what your best judgment deems to be the act that will maximize utility.
... utilitarianism does have two very positive features. It also has several problems. The first attraction or strength is that it is a single principle, an absolute system with a potential answer for every situation. Do what will promote the most utility! It's good to have a simple, action-guiding principle that is applicable to every occasion - even if it may be difficult to apply (life's not simple). Its second strength is that utilitarianism seems to get to the substance of morality. It is not merely a formal system... but rather has a material core: promoting human (and possibly animal) flourishing and ameliorating suffering... Utilitarianism seems commonsensical...
