Content and Exam Tips for OCR A Level Religious Studies
Hedonic Calculus
Utilitarianism
Content
Utilitarianism, including:
utility
the hedonic calculus
act utilitarianism
rule utilitarianism
Key Knowledge
the use of the significant concept of utility (seeking the greatest balance of good over evil, or pleasure over pain) in teleological and relativist approaches to ethics
what it is (calculating the benefit or harm of an act through its consequences) and its use as a measure of individual pleasure
what it is (calculating the consequences of each situation on its own merits) and its use in promoting the greatest amount of good over evil, or pleasure over pain
what it is (following accepted laws that lead to the greatest overall balance of good over evil, or pleasure over pain) and its use in promoting the common good
Utilitarianism is a teleological theory which suggests the consequences of an action are what matters. Jeremy Bentham is considered the founding father, he created Act Utilitarianism and he was influenced by the fact that working class people lived in appalling conditions during his time. He was also a Hedonist and thought all humans were motivated by pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. This is known as the utility principle: we should do whatever is useful in terms of increasing overall good and decreasing evil.
Bentham therefore decided that the right thing to do in any situation is that which creates the most happiness for the most people. He developed the Hedonic Calculus to help people figure this out. His quote is the Greatest Good for the Greatest number, which means for him, the most happiness for the most amount of people.
John Stuart Mill disagreed that happiness is what equals right and founded Rule Utilitarianism. He thought the right things were qualities such honour, dignity and truth and also thought we already know what the right thing to do is. His quote became Follow the Rule that creates the most good for the most number of people if everyone followed it.
There are also modern types of Utilitarianism and different strengths and weaknesses of all these approaches.
Utilitarianism is:
A relativistic moral theory – there are no absolute moral rules that everyone must obey.
A teleological theory – moral truth can be found through nature and purpose.
A consequentialist theory – the right thing to do depends upon the consequence of actions.
Jeremy Bentham and Act Utilitarianism
Bentham proposed Act Utilitarianism which states that it would be possible to judge the good or evil in a particular action according to the consequences of the action.
Bentham devised the Hedonic Calculus to calculate the most pleasurable action. He suggested that:
Good or bad actions can be worked our according to predicted results.
We can calculate which action is more likely to produce the right result by reaching a happiness score.
The aim is to measure the moral value of an act by reference to the consequences.
It measure by the quantity of pain and happiness.
The Hedonic Calculus offers even elements:
Intensity – is the happiness or pain deep or superficial?
Duration – is it temporary or permanent?
Certainty – how sure is it that the act will lead to happiness or pain?
Propinquity (remoteness) – does the act create happiness/pain for people close to us?
Fecundity (richness) – does the pain/happiness make things better or worse?
Purity – is the act morally pure?
Extent of pleasure – does the happiness/pain touch the whole life of a person, or just part?
Criticisms of the Hedonic Calculus
In The Puzzle of Ethics, modern philosophers Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch criticised the calculus for three reasons:
It measures happiness in terms of quantity rather than quality.
It is dependent on being able to accurately predict the consequences of any act.
It is difficult to say what counts as happiness or pain.
John Stuart Mill and Rule Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill, in Utilitarianism: Essays on Ethics, criticised Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism because he thought that:
It justified what he saw as lower pleasures, such as violence if the action was justified by the majority.
It was possible to educate people to seek higher pleasures.
He spoke up for Rule Utilitarianism, which starts by defining what is morally right by considering the consequences of acting in accordance with rules.
Mill believed that morality should be:
Based on what is good – truth, beauty, love, and friendship.
Based on higher pleasures because they have greater moral worth.
Based on certain rules that promote happiness, such as keeping promises or not stealing.
About following established rules and considering that practical consequences of an action before carrying it out.
Mill proposed the ‘harm principle’ which suggested that:
The majority can only pressure the minority if it prevents harm.
Not all pleasures are equal.
Pleasures of the mind are superior physical pleasures.
He famously observed: ‘It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.’
Criticisms of Mill
It may be very difficult to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures.
It is not possible to rely on one moral principle, namely the greatest happiness for the greatest number, to solve all moral problems.
Preference Utilitarianism
Preference Utilitarianism is a theory developed by R. M. Hare. It suggests that, when deciding what the right thing to do is, then ‘pleasure’ should be replaced by ‘best interests’. In Essays in Ethical Theory, Hare said that the preferences of individuals should always be taken into account and that the right thing to do is to maximise the chances of everyone’s preferences being satisfied. Utilitarianism.
Negative Utilitarianism
Negative Utilitarianism is a view developed by Karl Popper who suggested that the right thing to do is to promote the least evil or harm or, in other words, to reduce the amount of suffering for the greatest number.
The strengths of both Preference and Negative Utilitarianism is that they offer a better chance for everyone to be happy in the given circumstances.
However, their weakness lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to predict and foresee all the possible consequences of a given action.
Ideal Utilitarianism
Some philosophers in the Utilitarian tradition have recognized certain wholly non-hedonistic values without losing their Utilitarian credentials.
A British philosopher, G.E. Moore, believed that humans generally valued acts that encourage such things as loyalty and friendship.
He believed these may have very little to do with pleasure or happiness. Nonetheless, they are regarded as intrinsically valuable in themselves.
He accepts the greatest good for the greatest number ideal, but believe that we need to tally consequences that we intuitively recognise as good or bad.
This position is labelled “ideal”
Utilitarianism
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
It supports the view that human well-being is good.
Actions should be judged according to their effect on this well-being.
A person’s motives may be good or bad, but only consequences matter.
It encourages democracy and the interests of the majority.
Circumstances can be judged without reference to previous ones.
It does not rely on religious principles.
It seems reasonable to link morality with the pursuit of happiness and avoidance of pain.
Also seems natural to consider the consequences of our actions when deciding what to do.
It is a balanced, democratic morality that promotes the general happiness.
Utilitarianism does not support individual pursuits that are at the expense of the majority.
A dangerous minority are not allowed to dominate.
It is a common-sense system that is practically applicable to real-life situations. It has no need for special wisdom. It doesn’t rely on something controversial. E.g. God’s law.
You can judge each situation individually. E.g. Can’t say, “We’ve always done it this way”
Weaknesses
It requires people to predict the long-term consequences of an action.
There is no guarantee that circumstances will turn out exactly as predicted.
Not every action done out of good will is going to result in good consequences.
Happiness changes from one person to another.
It does not allow for someone doing what they believe to be morally right whatever the consequences.
The theory cannot be used to decide what is truly good.
The majority is not always right.
The theory can lead to injustice, particularly on the minority.
It makes no allowances for personal relationships.
People may not be motivated by pleasure and happiness.
Utilitarianism depends on accurate predictions of the future, but humans do not always display accurate foresight. We cannot be sure of the consequences of our actions.
The theory gives no credit to motivation. It is therefore too simplistic.
It is difficult to measure the pleasure - you cannot quantify 2 different pleasures (seeing children grow up/eating chocolate). People have different opinions on what happiness is.
Some pain can be good for you.
It could be seen as unjust—it ensures that the most people receive pleasure but guarantees nothing for minorities (Bullies / Nazis).
If one takes it literally, it can have extreme results.