Act Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Act Utilitarianism EssayUtilitarianism is a opening in normative ethics holding that the appropriate course of fulfill is the wiz that maximizes over each(prenominal) last(predicate) gladness. It is now by and large taken to be a casting of consequentialism, although when Anscombe stolon-year introduced that term it was to distinguish surrounded by old-fashioned Utilitarianism and consequentialism. 1 consort to utilitarianism the deterrent example worth of an scrapion is determined wiz by its resulting outcome although t present is debate over how much consideration should be attached to conductual consequences, foreseen consequences and int force outed consequences. Two influential contri providedors to this theory atomic make sense 18 Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart hoagy. In A Fragment on Government Bentham says it is the greatest felicity of the greatest topic that is the saloon of right wing and wrong and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In A n Introduction to the Principles of Morals and canon he talks of the principle of good nevertheless later prefers the greatest happiness principle. 23 Utilitarianism can be char beerized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It is a type of naturalism.4 It can be contrasted with deontological ethics,5 which does non regard the consequences of an act as a determinant of its honourable worth virtue ethics,6 which primarily focuses on acts and habits tempering to happiness pragmatic ethics as rise up as with ethical egoism and former(a) varieties of consequentialism. 7 Utilitarianism has lots been considered the natural ethic of a democracy operating by simple majority without security measures of individual rights. 8 Early utilitarianism The importance of happiness as an end for worlds has long been recognized.Forms of hedonism were coiffe in advance by Aristippus and Epicurus Aristotle argued that eudaimonia is the highest human good and Augustine wrote that on the whole men agree in desiring the last end, which is happiness. triumph was also explored in depth by Aquinas910111213 However, utilitarianism as a distinct ethical position plainly emerged in the eighteenth century. Although utilitarianism is usu solelyy thought to start with Jeremy Bentham in that location were earlier writers who presented theories that were strikingly similar.In An interrogative Concerning the Principles of Morals David Hume writes In all determinations of moralisticity, this circumstance of public inferior is ever principally in posture and wherever disputes arise, either in philosophy or common manners, concerning the bounds of duty, the misgiving cannot, by whatever means, be decided with greater certainty, than by ascertaining, on any side, the true interests of do main(prenominal). 14 Hume had studied under Francis Hutcheson and it was he who first introduced a key utilitarian phrase.In An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Bea uty and Virtue (1725) Hutcheson writes, In comparing the moral qualitys of transactions, in order to regulate our election among various actions proposed, or to find which of them has the greatest moral excellency, we be led by our moral sense of virtue to judge thus that in equal degrees of happiness, expected to proceed from the action, the virtue is in proportion to the number of persons to whom the happiness shall extend (and here the dignity, or moral importance of persons, may compensate numbers)And in equal numbers, the virtue is as the step of the happiness, or natural good or that the virtue is in a compound ratio of the standard of good, and number of enjoyers. In the same manner, the moral roughshod, or vice, is as the degree of misery, and number of sufferers so that, that action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers and that, worst, which, in like manner, occasions misery. 15.In the first lead editions of the intelligence Hutcheso n traceed this passage with various mathematical algorithms to compute the Morality of any Actions. In this he pre-figured the luxuriant calculus of Bentham. It is claimed16 that the first systematic theory of utilitarian ethics was developed by John Gay. In Concerning the Fundamental Principle of Virtue or Morality (1731) Gay argues that.Utilitarianism happiness, private happiness, is the proper or net end of all our actions each disrupticular action may be said to hit its proper and peculiar end( tho). they still tend or ought to tend to mostthing farther as is evident from hence, that is to say that a man may ask and expect a reason why either of them are enlistd now to ask the reason of any action or avocation, is solo to enquire into the end of it but to expect a reason, i. e. an end, to be assigned for an net end, is absurd. To ask why I pursue happiness, testament admit of no former(a) answer than an explanation of the terms. 17This pursuit of happiness is given a theological basis straightway it is evident from the nature of perfection, viz.his world infinitely happy in himself from all eternity, and from his goodness manifested in his excogitates, that he could have no other design in creating mankind than their happiness and therefore he leaves their happiness therefore the means of their happiness therefore that my behaviour, as far as it may be a means of the happiness of mankind, should be suchthus the will of God is the nimble cadence of Virtue, and the happiness of mankind the criterion of the wilt of God and therefore the happiness of mankind may be said to be the criterion of virtue, but once removed(and)I am to do whatever lies in my power towards promoting the happiness of mankind. 18 Gays theological utilitarianism was developed and popularized by William Paley. It has been claimed that Paley was not a very original thinker and that the philosophical partly of his treatise on ethics is an allurement of ideas develop ed by others and is presented to be learned by students preferably than debated by colleagues.19 Nevertheless, his book The Principles of Moral and semipolitical Philosophy (1785) was a required text at Cambridge19 and Smith says that Paleys composes were once as well known in American colleges as were the readers and spellers of William McGuffey and Noah Webster in the elementary schools. 20 Although now largely wanting(p) from the philosophical canon, Schneewind writes that utilitarianism first became widely known in England through the track down of William Paley. 21 The now forgotten implication of Paley can be judged from the title of Birks 1874 work Modern Utilitarianism or the Systems of Paley, Bentham and milling machinery Examined and Compared. Apart from restating that happiness as an end is grounded in the nature of God, Paley also discusses the place of rules.He writes, actions are to be estimated by their tendency. whatsoever is expedient, is right. It is the ut ility of any moral rule alone, which constitutes the obligation of it. Modern Utilitarianism by T. R. Birks 1874 2 But to all this there seems a plain objection, viz. that many actions are multipurpose, which no man in his senses will allow to be right. There are occasions, in which the hand of the assassin would be very useful The true answer is this that these actions, after all, are not useful, and for that reason, and that alone, are not right. To see this point absolutely, it must(prenominal) be observed that the bad consequences of actions are twofold, grumpy and prevalent.The particular bad consequence of an action, is the mischief which that single action directly and immediately occasions. The worldwide bad consequence is, the violation of some necessary or useful general rule You cannot permit one action and forbid another, without showing a divagation amidst them. Consequently, the same sort of actions must be generally permitted or generally forbidden.Where, Utili tarianism therefore, the general permit of them would be pernicious, it becomes necessary to lay down and support the rule which generally forbids them. 22 3 Classical utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham Benthams book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation was printed in 1780 but not put outed until 1789.It is potential that Bentham was spurred on to publish after he saw the success of Paleys The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy. 23 Benthams book was not an immediate success24 but his ideas were distribute push when Pierre Etienne Louis Dumont translated edited selections from a variety of Benthams manuscripts into French. Traite de legislation civile et penale was published in 1802 and then later retranslated back into English by Hildreth as The Theory of Legislation, although by this time meaning(a) portions of Dumonts work had already been retranslated and incorporated into Sir John Bowrings edition of Benthams works, which was issued in parts betw een 1838 and 1843.Benthams work opens with a statement of the principle of utility, Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two free masters, pain and joyousness. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever fit in to the tendency 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 hike up or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever, and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government.25 In Chapter IV Bentham introduces a manner of calculating the value of merriments and pains, which has come to be known as the hedonic calculus. Bentham says that the value of a joyfulness or pain, considered by itself, can be measured according to its intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty and propinquity/rem oteness. In addition, it is necessary to consider the tendency of any act by which it is produced and, therefore, to take account of the acts fecundity, or the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind and its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind. Finally, it is necessary to consider the extent, or the number of hoi polloi affected by the action. maybe aware that Hutcheson eventually removed his algorithms for calculating the greatest happiness because they appeard useless, and were disagreeable to some readers26 Bentham contends that there is nothing novel or unwarranted about his method for in all this there is nothing but what the practice of mankind, wheresoever they have a clear view of their own interest, is perfectly conformable to. Rosen warns that descriptions of utilitarianism can bear little resemblance historically to utilitarians like Bentham and J. S. Mill and can be more(prenominal)(prenomina l)(prenominal) a crude version of act utilitarianism conceived in the twentieth century as a straw man to be attacked and rejected. 27 It is a mistake to think that Bentham is not concerned with rules.His seminal work is concerned with the principles of legislation and the hedonic calculus is introduced with the words Pleasures then, and the avoidance of pains, are the ends that the legislator has in view. In Chapter septette Bentham says, The business of government is to promote the happiness of the society, by punishing and rewarding In proportion as an act tends to disturb that happiness, in proportion as the tendency of it is pernicious, will be the demand it creates for punishment. The question then arises as to when, if at all, it energy legitimise to break the practice of law. This is considered in The Theory of Legislation where Bentham distinguishes between evils of the first and second orders. Those of thefirst order are the more immediate consequences those of the s econd are when the consequences spread through the community causing alarm and danger. Utilitarianism It is true there are cases in which, if we ensnare ourselves to the effects of the first order, the good will have an incontestable preponderance over the evil. Were the offence considered only under this point of view, it would not be easy to assign any good reasons to justify the hardiness of the laws. Every thing depends upon the evil of the second order it is this which gives to such actions the character of crime, and which makes punishment necessary. Let us take, for example, the physical desire of satisfying hunger.Let a beggar, pressed by hunger, steal from a replete mans house a loaf, which perhaps saves him from starving, can it be possible to compare the good which the thief acquires for himself, with the evil which the rich man suffers? It is not on account of the evil of the first order that it is necessary to domiciliate these actions into offences, but on account of the evil of the second order. 28 4 John Stuart Mill Mill was brought up as a Benthamite with the explicit intention that would carry on the cause of utilitarianism. 29 Mills book Utilitarianism first appeared as a series of three articles published in Frasers Magazine in 1861 and was reprinted as a single book in 1863.Higher and lower delights Mill rejects a purely quantitative metre of utility and says, It is kinda compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact, that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It would be absurd that while, in estimating all other things, quality is considered as well as quantity, the estimation of pleasures should be supposed to depend on quantity alone. 30 Mill notes that, stubborn to what its critics might say, there is no known Epicurean theory of life which does not assign to the pleasures of the sense a much higher value as pleasures than to those of mere sensation. However, he accepts tha t this is usually because the intellectual pleasures are thought to have circumstantial advantages, i. e. greater permanency, safety, uncostliness, c. Instead, Mill will argue that some pleasures are in and of itself split up than others. The accusation that hedonism is doctrine worthy only of swine has a long history. In Nicomachean Ethics (Book 1 Chapter 5)Aristotle says that identifying the good with pleasure is to prefer a life suitable for beasts. The theological utilitarians had the option of grounding their pursuit of happiness in the will of God the hedonistic utilitarians needed a different defense. Mills approach is to argue that the pleasures of the intellect are intrinsically superior to physical pleasures.Few human creatures would bear to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a phone of the fullest allowance of a beasts pleasures no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of tone and conscie nce would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better well-to-do with his lot than they are with theirsA being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute ugly, and is for certain accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence 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 31 Mill argues that if people who are ably acquainted with two pleasures show a decided preference for one even if it be accompany by more discontent and would not resign it for any quantity of the other then it is legitimate to regard that pleasure as being superior in quality. Mi ll recognises that these competent judges will not always agree, in which case the judgment of the majority is to be accepted as final. Mill also acknowledges that many who are capable of the higher pleasures, occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the Utilitarianism lower.But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the intrinsic superiority of the higher. Mill says that this appeal to those who have experient the relevant pleasures is no different to what must happen when assessing the quantity of pleasure for there is no other way of measuring the acutest of two pains, or the intensest of two pleasurable sensations. Mills make of the principle of utility In Chapter Four of Utilitarianism Mill considers what proof can be given for the Principle of Utility. He says The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear itIn like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good that each persons happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons. 32It is usual33 to say that Mill is committing a number of fallacies. He is accused of committing the realistic illusion, because he is trying to deduce what people ought to do from what they do in fact do the fallacy of equivocation, because he moves from the fact that something is desirable(1), i. e. is capable of being desired, to the claim that it is desirable(2), i. e.that it ought to be desired and the fallacy of composition, because the fact that peopl e desire their own happiness does not imply that the aggregate of all persons will desire the general happiness.Hall34 and Popkin35 defend Mill against this accusation pointing out that he begins Chapter Four by asserting that that questions of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in the ordinary acceptation of the term and that this is common to all first principles. correspond to Hall and Popkin, therefore, Mill does not attempt to establish that what people do desire is desirable but merely attempts to make the principles acceptable. 33 The type of proof Mill is offering consists only of some considerations which, Mill thought, might induce an honest and reasonable man to accept utilitarianism.33 Having claimed that people do, in fact, desire happiness Mill now has to show that it is the only thing they desire. Mill anticipates the objection that people desire other things such as virtue. He argues that whilst people might start desiring virtue as a means to happiness, eventual ly, it becomes part of someones happiness and is then desired as an end in itself. The principle of utility does not mean that any given pleasure, as music, for instance, or any given exemption from pain, as for example health, are to be looked upon as means to a collective something termed happiness, and to be desired on that account. They are desired and desirable in and for themselves besides being means, they are a part of the end.Virtue, according to the utilitarian doctrine, is not naturally and originally part of the end, but it is capable of becoming so and in those who love it disinterestedly it has become so, and is desired and cherished, not as a means to happiness, but as a part of their happiness. 36 5 Utilitarianism 6 Twentieth century developings Ideal Utilitarianism The description Ideal Utilitarianism was first used by Hastings Rashdall in The Theory of Good and Evil (1907) but is more often associated with G. E. Moore. In Ethics (1912) Moore rejected a purely hedo nistic utilitarianism and argued that there is a range of determine that might be maximized. Moores strategy was to show that it is intuitively implausible that pleasure is the sole measure of what is good.He says that such an assumption, involves our saying, for instance, that a world in which absolutely nothing except pleasure existedno knowledge, no love, no enjoyment of beauty, no moral qualitiesmust yet be intrinsically betterbetter worth creatingprovided only the total quantity of pleasure in it were the least bit greater, than one in which all these things existed as well as pleasure. It involves our saying that, even if the total quantity of pleasure in each was exactly equal, yet the fact that all the beings in the one possessed in addition knowledge of many different kinds and a full appreciation of all that was beautiful or worthy of love in their world, whereas none of the beings in the other possessed any of these things, would give us no reason whatever for preferri ng the former to the latter.37 Moore admits that it is impossible to prove the case either way but believed that it was intuitively obvious that even if the amount of pleasure stayed the same a world that contained such things as beauty and love would be a better world. He adds that if anybody took the contrary view then I think it is self-evident that he would be wrong. 37 Act and rule utilitarianism In the mid-twentieth century a number of philosophers focused on the place of rules in utilitarian thinking. 38 It was already accepted that it is necessary to use rules to swear out you choose the right action because the problems of calculating the consequences on each and every occasion would almost certainly result in you frequently choosing something less than the best course of action.Paley had justified the use of rules and Mill says, It is rightfully a whimsical supposition that, if mankind were agreed in considering utility to be the test of morality, they would dwell witho ut any agreement as to what is useful, and would take no measures for having their notions on the subject taught to the young, and enforced by law and opinion to consider the rules of morality as improvable, is one thing to pass over the intermediate generalisations entirely, and sweat to test each individual action directly by the first principle, is anotherThe proposition that happiness is the end and aim of morality, does not mean that no road ought to be laid down to that mark Nobody argues that the art of navigation is not founded on astronomy, because sailors cannot wait to calculate the Nautical Almanack. Being sensible creatures, they go to sea with it ready calculated and all rational creatures go out upon the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong.39 However, rule utilitarianism proposes a more central theatrical role for rules that was thought to rescue the theory from some of its more devastating criticisms, particularly probl ems to do with justice and promise keeping. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s articles were published both for and against the new form of utilitarianism and through this debate the theory we now call rule utilitarianism was created. In an introduction to an anthology of these articles the editor was able to say, The development of this theory was a dialectical process of formulation, criticism, reply and reformulation the record of this process well illustrates the co-operative development of a philosophical theory.40 Smart41 and McCloskey42 ab initio used the terms extreme and restricted utilitarianism but eventually everyone settled on the terms act and rule utilitarianism. The essential difference is in what determines whether or not an action is the right action. Act utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it maximises utility rule utilitarianism maintains that an action is right if it Utilitarianism conforms to a rule that maximises utility. In 1953 Urmson published an influential article43 arguing that Mill justified rules on utilitarian principles. From then on articles have debated this interpretation of Mill. In all probability it was not a distinction that Mill was particularly trying to make and so the evidence in his writing is inevitably mixed.In 1977 a collection of Mills writing was published which included a letter in which he said I agree with you that the right way of testing actions by their consequences, is to test them by the natural consequences of the particular action, and not by those which would follow if everyone did the same. But, for the most part, the consideration of what would happen if everyone did the same, is the only means we have of discovering the tendency of the act in the particular case. 44This seems to tip the balance in favour of saying that Mill is best classified as an act utilitarian. Some school level textbooks and at least one UK examination board45 make a further distinction between strong and weak ru le utilitarianism. However, it is not clear that this distinction is made in the academic literature.It has been argued that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism, because for any given rule, in the case where breaking the rule produces more utility, the rule can be refined by the addition of a sub-rule that handles cases like the exception. 46 This process holds for all cases of exceptions, and so the rules have as many sub-rules as there are exceptional cases, which, in the end, makes an means seek out whatever outcome produces the maximum utility. 47 7 Two-level Utilitarianism In Principles (1973)48 R. M. hare accepts that rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism but claims that this is a result of allowing the rules to be as specific and un-general as we please. He argues that one of the main reasons for introducing rule utilitarianism was to do justice to the general rules that people need for moral education and character development and he propo ses that a difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism can be introduced by limiting the specificity of the rules, i. e. , by increase their generality. 49 This distinction between a specific rule utilitarianism (which collapses into act utilitarianism) and general rule utilitarianism forms the basis of Hares two-level utilitarianism. When we are playing God or the ideal observer we use the specific form and we will need to do this when we are deciding what general principles to teach and follow.When we are inculcating or in situations where the biases of our human nature are likely to prevent us doing the calculations properly, then we should use the more general rule utilitarianism. Hare argues that in practice, most of the time, we should be following the general principles One ought to abide by the general principles whose general inculcation is for the best harm is more likely to come, in actual moral situations, from questioning these rules than from sticking to them, unless the situations are very extra-ordinary the results of sophisticated felicific calculations are not likely, human nature and human ignorance being what they are, to lead to the greatest utility.50 In Moral Thinking (1981) Hare illustrated the two extremes. The archangel is the mantic person who has perfect knowledge of the situation and no personal biases or weaknesses and always uses critical moral thinking to decide the right thing to do the prole is the hypothetical person who is completely unable(predicate) of critical thinking and uses nothing but intuitive moral thinking and, of necessity, has to follow the general moral rules they have been taught or learned through imitation. 51 It is not that some people are archangels and others proles but rather we all share the characteristics of both to limited and varying degrees and at different times.51 Hare does not sterilize when we should think more like an archangel and more like a prole as this will, in any ca se, vary from person to person. However, the critical moral thinking underpins and informs the more intuitive moral thinking. It is responsible for(p) for formulating and, if necessary, reformulating the general moral rules. We also switch to critical thinking when trying to deal with unusual situations or in cases where the intuitive moral rules give Utilitarianism conflicting advice. 8 Preference utilitarianism Preference utilitarianism was first put forward in 1977 by John Harsanyi in Morality and the theory of rational behaviour52 but it is more commonly associated with R. M. Hare,51 Peter Singer53 and Richard Brandt.54 Harsanyi claimed that his theory is indebted to Adam Smith, who equated the moral point of view with that of an impartial but sympathetic observer to Kant who insisted on the criterion of universality and which may also be described as a criterion of reciprocity to the classical utilitarians who made maximising social utility the basic criterion of morality and to the modern theory of rational behaviour under risk and uncertainty, usually described as Bayesian decision theory. 55 Harsanyi rejects hedonistic utilitarianism as being dependent on an outdated psychology saying that it is far from obvious that everything we do is motivated by a desire to maximise pleasure and minimise pain.He also rejects ideal utilitarianism because it is certainly not true as an empirical reflection that peoples only purpose in life is to have mental states of intrinsic worth. 56 According to Harsanyi, preference utilitarianism is the only form of utilitarianism consistent with the important philosophical principle of preference autonomy. By this I mean the principle that, in deciding what is good and what is bad for a given individual, the ultimate criterion can only be his own wants and his own preferences. 57 Harsanyi adds two circumspections. People sometimes have irrational preferences. To deal with this Harsanyi distinguishes between manifest preferen ces and true preferences.The former are those manifested by his observed behaviour, including preferences possibly based on erroneous factual beliefs, or on careless logical analysis, or on strong emotions that at the moment greatly hinder rational choice whereas the latter are the preferences he would have if he had all the relevant factual information, always reasoned with the greatest possible care, and were in a state of mind most conducive to rational choice. 57 It is the latter that preference utilitarianism tries to satisfy. The second caveat is that antisocial preferences such as sadism, envy and resentment have to be excluded. Harsanyi achieves this by claiming that such preferences part exclude those people from the moral community. Utilitarian ethics makes all of us members of the same moral community.A person displaying ill will toward others does remain a member of this community, but not with his whole personality. That part of his personality that harbours these host ile antisocial feelings must be excluded from membership, and has no claim for a hearing when it comes to defining our concept of social utility. 58 More varieties of utilitarianism Negative utilitarianism In The Open Society and its Enemies (1945), Karl Popper argued that the principle maximize pleasure should be replaced by minimize pain. He thought it is not only impossible but very dangerous to attempt to maximize the pleasure or the happiness of the people, since such an attempt must lead to totalitarianism.59 He claimed that, there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure In my opinion human suffering makes a direct moral appeal, namely, the appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway.A further criticism of the Utilitarian formula Maximize pleasure is that it assumes a continuous pleasure-pain scurf which allows us to treat degrees of pain as n egative degrees of pleasure. But, from the moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one mans pain by another mans pleasure. Instead of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, one should demand, more modestly, the least amount of avoidable suffering for all 60Utilitarianism The actual term Negative Utilitarianism was introduced by R. N. Smart as the title to his 1958 reply to Popper61 in which he argued that the principle would entail seeking the quickest and least painful method of killing the entirety of humanity. Suppose that a ruler controls a ordnance capable of instantly and painlessly destroying the human race.Now it is empirically certain that there would be some suffering before all those alive on any proposed destruction day were to die in the natural course of events. Consequently the use of the weapon is bound to diminish suffering, and would be the rulers duty on NU grounds. 62 Negative utilitarianism would seem to call.