ConsequentialismConsequentialism

UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)1873) Principle of UtilityPrinciple of Utility: actions are right in proportion as they tend to : actions are right in proportion as they tend to

promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. ((Utilitarianism, Utilitarianism, Chapter II)Chapter II)

Mill’s utilitarianism is a modification of the hedonism expounded Mill’s utilitarianism is a modification of the hedonism expounded upon by Jeremy Bentham. upon by Jeremy Bentham. – Bentham advocated a form of utilitarianism known as hedonism, where Bentham advocated a form of utilitarianism known as hedonism, where

pleasure (regardless of the type of pleasure) was to be maximized and pleasure (regardless of the type of pleasure) was to be maximized and pain minimized.pain minimized.

– Bentham’s hedonic calculus: Value = intensity, duration, Bentham’s hedonic calculus: Value = intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, closeness/remoteness in time, fecundity, purity.certainty/uncertainty, closeness/remoteness in time, fecundity, purity.

2. One of the classic criticisms of utilitarianism is that it is the ethics 2. One of the classic criticisms of utilitarianism is that it is the ethics of swine.of swine.

3. One of the modifications Mill makes to utilitarianism is to include 3. One of the modifications Mill makes to utilitarianism is to include a notion of qualitative vs. quantitative pleasures.a notion of qualitative vs. quantitative pleasures.

Mill’s Defense of Mill’s Defense of UtilitarianismUtilitarianism If human beings were only capable of If human beings were only capable of

experiencing the things that swine can, then experiencing the things that swine can, then the criticism would perhaps be telling.the criticism would perhaps be telling.

Human beings have faculties much more Human beings have faculties much more elevated than swine, and require different elevated than swine, and require different types of gratification of the higher faculties in types of gratification of the higher faculties in order to be happy.order to be happy.

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

QuantitativeQuantitative vs. vs. QQualitativeualitative pleasures. pleasures. ““Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or

almost all who have experience of both give a decided almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, even though knowing it to be obligation to prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.”render it, in comparison, of small account.”

We don’t always follow the calling of our higher We don’t always follow the calling of our higher faculties, but few if any people would consent to faculties, but few if any people would consent to having their faculties lowered to that of a mere brute.having their faculties lowered to that of a mere brute.

For Mill, it is the competent judge, i.e., those who have For Mill, it is the competent judge, i.e., those who have experience of both pleasures who are the authority on experience of both pleasures who are the authority on quantitative vs. qualitative pleasures.quantitative vs. qualitative pleasures.

Proof for the Principle Proof for the Principle of Utility of Utility The only evidence we have that The only evidence we have that

something is visible is that people something is visible is that people actually see it, the only evidence actually see it, the only evidence that something is audible is that that something is audible is that people hear it. Similarly the only people hear it. Similarly the only way we know something is way we know something is desirable is that people actually desirable is that people actually desire it. desire it.

Why then is the Why then is the general happiness general happiness desirable?desirable?1) Each person desires his own 1) Each person desires his own

happinesshappiness2) Happiness is a good.2) Happiness is a good.3) Each person’s happiness is a good 3) Each person’s happiness is a good

to that person.to that person.4)Therefore, the general happiness is 4)Therefore, the general happiness is

a good to the aggregate of all a good to the aggregate of all persons.persons.

Fallacy of CompositionFallacy of Composition

Rule UtilitarianismRule Utilitarianism

Although Mill advocates Although Mill advocates acceptance of the Greatest acceptance of the Greatest Happiness Principle some have Happiness Principle some have argued that Mill did not believe it argued that Mill did not believe it should be used to guide individual should be used to guide individual actions actions

When to Use the When to Use the Principle of UtilityPrinciple of Utility Principle of utility was to be used to derive Principle of utility was to be used to derive

and adjudicate between other moral rules.and adjudicate between other moral rules. We appeal to the principle of utility only We appeal to the principle of utility only

when two moral rules or principles conflict.when two moral rules or principles conflict. Some philosophers have argued that this is Some philosophers have argued that this is

how the Principle of Utility should be how the Principle of Utility should be understood, i.e., that it applies to understood, i.e., that it applies to types types of of actions and not actions and not tokentoken actions. actions.

Debate Over Debate Over UtilitarianismUtilitarianism Happiness is not the only thing Happiness is not the only thing

that matters that matters Consequences are not the only Consequences are not the only

things that matterthings that matter Utilitarianism is too demanding of Utilitarianism is too demanding of

a moral theory a moral theory

Defense of Defense of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism Fanciful examples don’t count Fanciful examples don’t count

against a theory against a theory Principle of utility is a guide to Principle of utility is a guide to

choosing rules not judging choosing rules not judging individual acts individual acts

Common sense can’t be trusted Common sense can’t be trusted