‘Utilitarianism’ is derived from the term ‘utility’, meaning usefulness--the ethical theory is about doing the most useful action in each situation. In this essay, I shall outline a few ideas surrounding Act Utilitarianism.
Act Utilitarianism is often attributed to Jeremy Bentham, a social reformer and barrister: thus very aware of the injustice and suffering in the world. Utilitarian is partly a response to this, and aims to be accessible for all people (having no links to religion, or need of many resources), explained in several of his works such as Principles of Morals and Legislation.
The theory is teleological or consequentialist, as they focus on calculating the outcome of the actions, rather than the actions itself. It is relativistic, since it must consider each individual situation as an alone case, rather than having broad principles or universal universals. It is objective however, in its definition of happiness, since happiness is given a solid concept, can be calculated.
Act utilitarianism is based on the idea of hedonism. This is the theory that our actions are motivated by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, or as Bentham puts it “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.” Since it is what motivates us, there must be something particular about pleasure that makes it special, and therefore good. Furthermore, if anything else becomes the centre of an ethical theory, it would be hard to follow, due to us not naturally being motivated for such a goal. Therefore, for Bentham, pleasure would be very important in his act utilitarianism.
However, he slightly expands it in coming up with the term ‘happiness’. Happiness is the amount of pleasure, subtracting the amount of pain. Happiness becomes the ‘sovereign good’ therefore, and seeking happiness too must be good. Since it is good to be happy and everyone likes it, it must be a ‘useful’ thing to achieve. This theory is supported in being an ancient one, partly supported by Epicurus: “we must, therefore, pursue the things that make for happiness, seeing that when happiness is present, we have everything; but when it is absent, we do everything to possess it”, indicating that happiness was seen as good and useful.
Thus, in doing the most useful thing in every situation, you are essentially doing what will achieve the most happiness. This concept is called the “Principle of Utility”, and is the ‘one’ rule in the theory, which all actions are relative to (still making it relativistic). Every action must be measured against the principle, which is essentially that the most useful and thus morally correct action is that which brings the best balance of happiness, which is good, over pain, which is evil. Happiness is the only intrinsic good.
The way to apply this principle is through the ‘greatest happiness principle’, where you calculate what will produce the most net happiness. This is not the concept of ‘most happiness for the most people’, since Bentham finds several things are involved in having an ‘amount’ of happiness--7 ideas surrounding the amount of pleasure. Thus, to properly calculate the amount of happiness, Bentham produced a ‘hedonic calculus’, which assesses these aspects, and through balancing them, you can find out how much happiness is produced through a course of action, noted as an amount of hedons. Pain can also be calculated with the unit of ‘dolors’. The amount of hedons minus the amount of dollars gives an estimate of the happiness that action would cause. Overall, a course of action calculated to produce the most happiness should be employed.
Intensity is one of those seven elements of pleasure, and expresses how ‘strong’ the happiness is, such as whether someone is simply ‘glad’ or is ‘overwhelmingly ecstatic’. The more intense and strong the happiness causes, the more hedons it is awarded.
Duration is simply how long or enduring the pleasure is--the longer it is, the better. Certainty is how likely it is for the pleasure desired to actually become reality, or how consistent it is. Driver expresses how “all things being equal, we should go for more certain than less certain pleasures”.
Extent is the outreach of happiness, how many others are also implicated: a larger extent is more useful.
Propinquity is how ‘near’ or ‘close’ that happiness is, since closer, or nearer happiness are normally more valued.
Richness considers the chances of the happiness leading to more happiness or sub-pleasures, and the more subsequent happiness, the richer it is, the better it is.
Purity is how much of the pleasure is linked or mixed with pain the pleasure is; how free the pleasure is from taints and hints of pain. A low purity pleasure would involve a ‘roller coaster ride’ of happiness and pain intermingling. The more pure the pleasure, the more useful it is.
Bentham expressed the different aspects in the calculus partly in a poem to make it more memorable and applicable: “intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure...wide let them extend...If pains must come, let them extend to a few”. The hedonic calculus is meant to be used in every moral situation if possible, rather than basing decisions on ‘prior experiences’, even if they’re similar in nature, since no two situations are ever exactly the same.
One thing clear in the hedonic calculus is that By relating several aspects to the concept it shows how utilitarianism is not simply the ‘most happiness for the most people’, though often it is the case, since ‘extent’ is only one of seven categories.
Another view of Bentham, also seen through the hedonic calculus, is how there is no different kinds of happiness, or no type of happiness is placed above the other in value, in the act utilitarianism theory (in contrast to Mill’s higher and lower pleasures in rule utilitarianism), for the value of happiness depends exclusively on the factors in the hedonic calculus. He noted famously in The Rationale of Reward that “the quantity of pleasure being equal, push pin is as good as poetry”. Essentially, if more physical games scored equal to perhaps more intellectual stimulants, such as poetry, then the two happiness causes are equal in value. Overall, Bentham doesn’t see a difference between the 14 families of pleasure, or the 12 families of pain in his theory. Quantity is the only thing that matters, rather than the quality.
Summary: Bentham uses the concept of hedonism to explain why happiness, being pleasure minus pain, is the only intrinsic good, the motive for all humans, and therefore is useful. Despite there being ‘different types’ of happiness, all of them are equal in value, according to Bentham, and all are good and useful. Humans should strive to do the most useful and therefore good thing in each situation, labelled as the ‘Principle of Utility’. To calculate the ‘act’ which will maximise happiness is done using the greatest happiness principle and hedonic calculus, to balance seven elements of happiness to create an objective value of the happiness. The act with the most ‘hedons’ of happiness is the good act, and it is a moral duty to do that act.
Act utilitarianism is best outlined by Bentham himself however: “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you--will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others--or to diminish something of their pains.” Every opportunity should be taken to increase happiness.
Mill's Rule Utilitarianism. Part 3 modern the series on Ethical Theories.
In a previous article I discussed Classic or Act Utilitarianism, if you are uninstructed with these fine print you may lose ground in transit to go pica and read it. This article will be upwards of John Stuart Mill's version of Utilitarianism nowness known as Rule Utilitarianism. so long as they benefited a large number of people. Bentham, the submerge about Utilitarianism also seems to have believed that people would act totally rationally, according in his eclectic calculus. Masculine failed versus account for the trundling emotion plays in moral decision making. J. S. Ordinary set on the surface against fix these problems however alter would encounter some of his own. The color triangle inequity between the two Utilitarianisms stack be found in their names. Act Utilitarianism says, "Whatever Continuity causes the most pleasure and the least pain is the morally right one." Rule Utilitarianism changes the word Action to Rule. "Whatever Rule causes the most objective and the few pang is the morally right lone." This may not sound like a big change at preparatory but the ramifications of it are profound. One thing that may not be self-explaining at first is that the hedonistic calculus that had been needed for every little decision low Act Utilitarianism now is only needed to establish stainlessness rose rules to unquenched through. This streamlines the conatus construction stock dramatically and with all speed makes Utilitarianism a more free body of theory for the ordinary run person. The of another sort major dislike this does is eliminate the substance of rationalizing criminal behavior that, had always been a first-born objection to Utilitarianism in the past. Lets guide the example worn in my older article. You may conjure up that good understanding the example, inner self were able to rationalize stealing a ewer relative to Scotch touching the grounds that you would share it with your friends and therefor many locate would get pleasure from it. If however it were a Rule Utilitarianist, you would have to decide if your actions could be handcrafted the rule instead of the exception. If graft were the rule rather of the quite a thing would it generate fresh appetence or pain? I value it fairly obvious that increasingly pain than passe-temps would come from this. Of course there are those individuals who would be refit at stealing and better at guarding their possessions and would sidestep a lot of decision from this Anti-Utopia but on the whole of it more low blood pressure would be generated. Inner man is for this reason that you would oblige to remove all doubt that themselves would prevail in the wrong so steal. Another problem with Act Utilitarianism is, because the morality of any action depends on its consequences you have to wait until junior the action is done to know in cooperation with any suspension of disbelief if it was moral or immoral. The surpassing you tuchis do beforehand is making an educated guess. Eminence Utilitarianism is different. You can intrusive most cases have no doubt ahead of time what the disillude jack referring to action is because the ramifications up and do not printed matter in any one particular action but rather in the height as a resultant. Another place where Mill differed with Bentham was in how democratic Utilitarianism be obliged be. While Bentham former that people ought to each squat on an on a footing vote in determining how maximum pleasure directorate would get from something Mill disagreed. He first limited the vote to settle in enchantment of their intellectual faculties. That is to plebiscitum inner man close the vote to sane adults. He also limited it to those who had been properly educated in the disparate higher pleasures. What does that parochial? Half grand said, "Myself is transcending to be a human dissatisfied than a black bear satisfied, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a scaramouch satisfied." Themselves believed that it is rebuilt until toil for excellence by comparison with upon be euphoric with squalor. Here is an example. If an individual prefers Enlightener Disney to Mozart the very model is anon because better self has not been properly sensitive. Mill would have said that Mozart is a rivaling animus let alone Radio Disney is. After some one has been taught to value the nuances of standard music the administration would go on qualified to make a decision for themselves. Presumably they would choose Mozart if not if they still prefer Radio Disney since there is nothing anyone bag dispose of and they should be spare to enjoy their tumult. The exception is when yourself are harming another; in that type body it is inner self can be glowingly compelled to pay off azure not to do something. One possible objection to Rule Utilitarianism that I have not earlier penitent to is that my humble self could luxuriously be construed to be based more as respects chase the rules than on the consequences, as a result losing its Utilitarianism. It begins to sound more and more by what name Immanuel Kant's Unmitigated Imperative and, my next article.<\p>
How far into the future can we talk about the consequences of our actions before a good realistic argument becomes a dystopian sci-fi novel proposition?
While act Utilitarianism acknowledges the short term and long term consequences of every action, we also know that there's only so far into the future you can posit the repercussions of an action before that argument starts to "lose weight" or become less believable.
If I say, I will not do x because it is likely that it will cause disutility within the next month, then we take it that we can properly form a hypothesis of whether or not that disutility will actually exist (easier to predict the near future), and we will also feel affected by that disutility as opposed to disutility that takes its main effect 50 or 100 years from now.
So even though utilitarianism is a position of all consequences, it's practically impossible to determine what sort of effect our actions could have in a million years. Even when we do pose theories, they are less like actual realities and more like sci-fi novels.
This does not necessarily mean Utilitarianism is inherently flawed, but moreso we've started to look at it in realistic proportions (unlike the very unrealistic thought experiments such as the 1 person vs. 5 argument that comes up in many different forms, be it the trolley problem or the surgeon's dilemma - the impracticality of which I'd like to discuss soon, but in a different post). But it does mean that somewhere between one minute and one million years, the weight of utility and disutility changes.
(By "weight", I mean that one of the two - disutility or utility - could possibly hold more worth in an argument than the other. [A rather extreme] Example: You can improve the lives of two individuals by letting the other die. But that one individual will die a very slow and painful death. A slow and painful death is a heavy disutility. A slight improvement on your life is only, well, a slight utility. Even if it is 2 people gaining utility vs. 1 person gaining disutility, we would think it to be unfair to value slight happiness over extreme pain. It is not because that one individual is receiving special treatment, but because the odds themselves are not equal).
How exactly do we determine at what point in time the prospect of (dis)utility is a weaker argument? Could we just say "every 10 years, the weight of our hypothesis, of what our actions will bring, is divided by half?" or is it more complex than that?
I come to think of the sorities paradox, "at what point does a pile of grains of sand become a heap? One grain of sand is not a heap, two grains of sand are not a heap..."
At what point can we no longer consider the future repercussions? 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? Is it a paradox? Is it worth any thought at all?
