Author John Waters Act and Rule Utilitarianism Socratic

Author: John Waters Act and Rule Utilitarianism Socratic Ideas Limited © All Rights Reserved

Act and Rule Utilitarianism Compare / Contrast / Compare / Contrast Act Utilitarian Assess each individual situation on its own merits with the aim of promoting the greatest happiness for those involved. (1) People should follow and be guided by moral rules Rule Utilitarian (2) which in the past have shown to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Act and Rule Utilitarianism Some examination boards label Bentham an act utilitarian, and Mill a rule utilitarian. However such labels are crude and have two major faults: 1. The terms Act and Rule 2. utilitarianism are anachronistic 3. when applied to Bentham and 4. Mill. Robert Arrington has 5. mentioned that such labels 2. They do not do justice to the subtleties of Mill’s philosophy – who many consider being more akin to `Weak Rule Utilitarianism. ’

Bentham and Mill Compare / Contrast / Compare / Contrast BENTHAM J. S. MILL Principle of Utility Greatest Happiness Principle Emphasis on pleasure Emphasis on happiness Concerned with QUANTITY of pleasure “Push-pin [a simple child's game] is as good as poetry” Concerned with QUALITY of pleasure “…better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” Social Reformer: criminal, judicial, penal Social Reformer: equality for women Labelled an act utilitarian Labelled a rule utilitarian

Problems of Act Utilitarianism or Benefits of Rule Utilitarianism

Consequences Are Difficult To Predict Act Utilitarian Rule Utilitarian Has the benefit of No guidelines to help the individual when facing a receiving guidance from past rules which have moral decision other than shown to produce the Felicific Calculus, which many consider to be greatest happiness for the greatest number. too impractical. May predict consequences Unable to predict accurately. consequences accurately.

Consequences Are Difficult To Predict Bounded and Perfect Rationality • When explaining this weakness of act utilitarianism in an examination it is helpful to refer to the terms `bounded’ and `perfect’ rationality. • Bounded rationality – is when someone is unaware of the full facts – as Professor John Rawles stated, they are acting under a `veil of ignorance’. On the other hand Perfect rationality refers to the situation where all the facts are known. • Act utilitarianism suffers the draw-back of bounded rationality more than rule utilitarianism as it has no guidelines from which it may predict outcomes.

Act Utilitarianism is Self-Defeating (Peter Singer) Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the example of promise keeping. Promises are made on the understanding that they will be kept, something the rule utilitarian Peter Singer recognises as promoting happiness. However, whilst Act utilitarians (AU) may make a promise in a particular situation there can be no guarantee that the AU will always uphold promise keeping; and so one can never take seriously a promise from an AU – as there is no confidence they will keep their promise!

Act Utilitarianism Is, By Definition, An Inconsistent Philosophy Act utilitarians make decisions which promote the greatest pleasure for the greatest number for a particular situation, without following any principles, other than utility. But if EVERYONE followed Act utilitarianism it would be impossible to predict consequences. So by definition one could not will that everyone follow AU – for if they did the ethical theory would not work. Rule utilitarians however recommend following rules, which in the past have promoted happiness, and so their approach to ethics can be universally applied and consequences predicted; thus avoiding the inconsistency of Act utilitarianism.

Act Utilitarianism Does Not Take Account Of Professional Or Contractual Obligations Society functions by people recognising their obligations once they have signed a contract. For example a doctor has an obligation to uphold a patient’s medical confidentiality. An Act utilitarian doctor (thinking it would produce the greatest happiness) might report her patient’s condition (e. g. a teenage pregnancy), to the girl’s parents. (Even though the doctor would be breaking the trust and code of the medical profession. ) Rule utilitarians however recommend following the professional code of patient confidentiality as in the past such a code has promoted the greatest happiness; i. e. teenagers are happy to go to doctors for help and support as opposed to dealing with the situation on their own.

Act Utilitarianism Does Not Take Account Of Family Relationships Utilitarianism has been accused of undermining family relationships as it adopts an impartial approach – the overall happiness for the greatest number is all that matters. Bentham’s Act utilitarianism states that “Everybody is to count for one, and nobody for more than one. ” An implication being that when it is your mum’s birthday it would be better to donate money to Oxfam than to buy her a present. Rule utilitarians might reply that whilst the spirit of utilitarianism is to be impartial, past experience teaches that when preferential treatment is offered to those who are close (e. g family and friends) then those societies function well – producing the greatest happiness.

Utilitarianism: Undermines Justice Instrumental Approach Utilitarians think that justice is only important if it serves the principle of utility. Justice has no intrinsic value. e. g To Kill a Mocking Bird, Harper Lee Tom, a black farm-hand, is made a scapegoat and is unjustly accused of having raped a young, white woman. If the racist, white, jury adopted an act-utilitarian approach it would be justified in finding Tom guilty of a crime he did not commit, on the grounds that the predominantly white townsfolk would have justice “seen to be done” and so the majority of people would be happy.

Utilitarianism: Undermines Justice A Response: Rule Utilitarianism To Kill a Mocking Bird, Harper Lee Tom – an innocent man unjustly treated A rule utilitarian might reply that it has been shown that societies which uphold justice are those which make for happy citizens. The long term implication being that by upholding the rule of justice people have confidence that they will not be found guilty of crimes they have not committed… …. even if a guilty verdict meant that in the short-term the majority of people were happy.

It is worth analysing Mill’s understanding of justice. “Justice is a name given for certain moral requirements, which, regarded collectively stand higher in the scale of social utility, and are therefore of more paramount obligation, than any others. ” (Utilitarianism) So in the true spirit of utilitarianism Mill concedes that justice is not of intrinsic value, but is important due to the instrumental (consequential) value it has for society by upholding principles which make for the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

J. S. Mill Recognised Other Goods Besides Happiness “Now it is palpable that they do desire things which, in common language, are decidedly distinguished from happiness. They desire, for example, virtue, and the absence of vice, no less than pleasure and the absence of pain. The desire of virtue is not as universal, but it is as authentic a fact, as the desire of happiness. ” (J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism)

“the ingredients of happiness are various, and each of them is desirable in itself…besides being means, they are 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 part of their happiness. ” (J. S. Mill, Utilitarianism)

“The ingredients of Happiness are various. ” Like baking a cake – there are many different elements which constitute Happiness Virtues Integrity, Honesty, Courage, Fortitude, Prudence Does Mill show he is not a strict utilitarian or that “The ingredients of Happiness are various” ?

Does Mill show he is not a strict utilitarian or that “The ingredients of Happiness are various” ? • J. S. Mill was a clear believer in utilitarianism but, as has previously been mentioned, following his nervous breakdown Mill was greatly influenced by the writings of Aristotle. • In understanding `the ingredients of happiness are various’, which include the importance of virtue, are we seeing Aristotle’s influence of Virtue ethics at work?

Case Studies Application of Utilitarianism To Moral Issues

Should One Use The Eggs Of An Aborted Foetus To Help Infertile Couples? • The scientist Roger Gosden thinks it is possible to use eggs obtained from an aborted foetus to be used to help infertile women who suffer from genetic abnormalities, such as Tasachs. • By the 11 th week of foetal development all the eggs that a woman will have during her life-time are present. • What might a utilitarian think? Give reasons to support their views. Professor Roger Gosden

Using Eggs Of An Aborted Foetus…? Some further points to consider… Pope John Paul II Roman Catholic Church Roger Gosden Scientific Researcher • A gift from God, created imago • Life begins at birth, not dei, sacred from the moment of conception. • Relief to suffering of infertile • Abortion is contrary to natural women / couples. law. Killing of innocent life. • Overcomes shortage of egg • Human beings are stewards of donors. the world - should not play God. • Benefit of scientific technology. • Issue of permission / consent? • Consequences of restrictive laws? • Unknown long-term physical If banned in the UK scientists and psychological affects on the will go to the Ukraine with no child regulatory bodies, such as HFEA, • Science: challenging God given to monitor research. definition of `family’. • Ability to predict consequences?

12 6 The Survival Lottery 22 (by Professor John Harris) 14 3 27 • Patients Y and Z will die unless they receive organ transplants – in which case they will live for a further 20 years. • There is a lack of donor organs. • Faced with the prospect of imminent death patients Y and Z propose a `National Survival Lottery’ – where each week a person’s number would be pulled out at random, he or she would be killed, and their organs donated to help those in need of a transplant; saving a greater number of lives. Professor John Harris • Explain a utilitarian response to the suggestion of a National Survival Lottery.

12 6 The Survival Lottery 22 Some further points to consider… 3 14 27 • Is there a difference between killing and letting die? (Patients Y and Z do not think so!) • Is one’s individuality undermined? • Would the ‘National Survival Lottery’ create a climate of fear, or would people become accustomed to the unlikely probability? • What about those who have brought their illness upon themselves, e. g through heavy smoking, should they benefit equally? • How would a sub-class of people be protected from not being victimised? • Can society take away the intrinsic right to life? Professor John Harris Where does its authority lie?

Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia? • Public Opinion Polls in the UK show that the majority of people would like to see voluntary euthanasia legalised. e. g. 82% 2001. • The UK is an increasingly secular society where the Quality of Life is considered to be more important than the sanctity of human life. • 20% of patients in Intensive Care Units are being treated with no likelihood of survival. • Would a utilitarian agree with the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia?

Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia? Some further points to consider… Hippocrates Pius XII Kevorkian Williams J. S. Mill • Would voluntary euthanasia undermine the role of the doctor? (cf. the Hippocratic oath, the medical duty to preserve innocent human life. ) • Is the current law of `the principle of double effect’ satisfactory in a secular society? • Consequences of restrictive laws? Will people pursue a policy of illegal euthanasia? • Would legalising voluntary euthanasia pressurise vulnerable members of society? (The Church of England’s concern, On Dying Well 1993) • Is voluntary euthanasia a private, or a public, act? (How does it differ from suicide? )

Homosexual Bishops? • In 2003 the Anglican Church did not ordain Canon Jeffrey Johns Bishop of Reading because he was homosexual; despite his investiture being supported by the Bishop of Oxford. • Evangelical Christians claimed that Rowan Williams homosexuality is condemned by scripture Archbishop of whilst more liberal Christians claim this is Canterbury not the case (The interpretation of scripture being the contentious issue. ) • Would a utilitarian agree with the right of a homosexual to become a Bishop?

Homosexual Bishops? Some further points to consider… • How would utilitarians view the authority of scripture? • Should Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, refuse the ordination of homosexual Bishops in order to avoid a schism Piuswithin the World Wide Anglican Church? As is XII being threatened by some influential African Bishops. • Is there a lack of consistency? Many Christians claim scripture condemns female ordination but the Church of England has ordained women priests since 1992. • How might J. S. Mill’s classic liberalism influence the decision. • Is homosexuality a private, or a public, act? J. S. Mill

Socrates Says Links

Principle of Utility The good is that which will bring about the greatest sum of pleasure, or the least sum of pain, for the greatest number Greatest Happiness Principle Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote unhappiness. • These principles have been compared to Jesus’ Golden Rule, “Love your neighbour as yourself” or “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ” • Utilitarianism upholds the message of a benevolent God showing interest for the well-being of human beings; but utilitarianism avoids reference to the metaphysical God! Both Bentham and Mill were concerned with producing the greatest aggregate happiness (irrespective as to how that happiness was distributed. )

Pleasure is not the same as happiness! There are two main differences between pleasure and happiness PLEASURE Gratification PLEASURE Pursued as an end in its own right HAPPINESS 1 2 Satisfaction HAPPINESS An indirect by -product of another activity

Pleasure is not the same as happiness! Hedonistic utilitarianism – “a pig philosophy fit only for swine. ” (J. S Mill) A person may have a lot of gratifying, pleasurable experiences but see life as pointless and superficial and so be very unhappy. e. g, A divorced, wealthy, young man may seek pleasure from drugs, alcohol and an active sex life with many partners, but lack the happiness of true friendship and the love of his family.

Quantity or Quality? Analysis/Evaluation/Analysis /Evaluation BENTHAM J. S. MILL: Higher and Lower Pleasures INTELLECTUAL QUANTITY of pleasure. All pleasures are of equal value. “Push-pin [a simple child's game] is as good as poetry” H For Mill I QUALITY of pleasure intellectual G pleasures are “…better to be a H intrinsically E dissatisfied human being more valuable R than a pig satisfied; and than physical better to be a Socrates pleasures. dissatisfied than a fool Those who have L satisfied” felt both kinds O will prefer W intellectual E PHYSICAL / BESTIAL pleasures.

J. S. MILL: Higher and Lower Pleasures Analysis/Evaluation/Analysis /Evaluation Is Mill right? Or merely an intellectual snob? Do you agree with the ranking of the following pleasures? H I G H E R INTELLECTUAL Studying Philosophy Reading Shakespeare Does Mill show that he is not a strict utilitarian? By bringing in quality of Going out with your partner pleasures does Mill not bring in Playing pub darts additional L factors other O Drinking 5 pints of beer than pleasure? W PHYSICAL / BESTIAL E Listening to Mozart R

Higher and Lower Pleasures In 1996 a shocking trial was heard at the Old Bailey A female Austrian tourist, in her mid-thirties, found herself lost in the King’s Cross area of London late at night. On seeing 6 young male teenagers she asked them if they knew the way back to her hotel. The youths agreed to take the tourist to her hotel. However, instead of taking the tourist back to her hotel they led her on a side-road, to a canal, where they repeatedly raped the woman, before attempting to drown her in a canal. Mill’s utilitarianism would assert the quantity of bestial pleasure of the teenage boys does not outweigh the quality of suffering endured by the Austrian tourist.

Nineteenth Century Social Reformers Reform of Parliament Penal Reform Judicial System Animal Rights Cheap Postal System Registration of Births and Deaths As an M. P. Mill campaigned for sexual equality; proposing votes for women. On Liberty (1859) Freedom of the individual, other than when it harms anyone else. “Your liberty to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. ” (Mill)

Mill’s utilitarianism has been referred to as being eudaimonistic (human well being) utilitarianism, as opposed to Bentham’s hedonistic (pleasure) utilitarianism. The rationale of Mill’s eudaimonistic utilitarianism is found in the writings of Aristotle distinguished between pleasure and happiness. Life of Material Pleasure Life of contemplation offering Happiness Held by the many Held by the few For Mill the difference in happiness over pleasure is significant; happiness having a higher qualitative edge over the quantity of lower, bestial, pleasures.

J. S. Mill: Weak Rule Utilitarianism Three Key Influences on Mill’s Philosophy Aristotle and Wilhelm von the Lake Poets Humboldt Classical liberalism Weak Rule Utilitarian Click on any of the above boxes for more information.

Influences on Mill: Aristotle and the Lake Poets Following his nervous breakdown at the age of 20 Mill was heavily influenced on his path to rehabilitation by the writings of: Aristotle The Lake Poets Wordsworth, Byron, Shelley Emphasis on a well rounded Through an appreciation of natural individual through: beauty Mill came to realise that the Phronesis utilitarianism of his father, James Mill, (practical wisdom) working in accordance with and Jeremy Bentham was too restrictive as their narrow and mechanical Emotions put into practice through a `Golden Mean’ conception of humanity missed the vital importance of individuality, self Appetite – leading to cultivation and the inner life in the Eudaimonia – individual promotion of happiness. human flourishing.

Influences on Mill: Wilhelm von Humboldt German philosopher and educationalist Perceived that, “as the demands on each man’s nature are so special and peculiar, so each man’s happiness has features that are unique and which distinguish it from any other man’s. ” (John Gray, Plato to Nato, p. 152) Mill adopted classical liberalism for social policy which respected the rights and individuality of each person.

Influences on Mill: Classical liberalism In On Liberty (1859), Mill defends individual freedom of thought, association and life-style on the grounds that only in a context of liberty in which competing `experiments of living’ may be tried can each of us hope to seek and find his own distinctive happiness. On Liberty is directed against repressive laws which inhibit voluntary association and are oppressive to the expression of human spirit and individuality. Classical liberalism: Mill’s criticisms of legal moralism and state paternalism altered public opinion and have informed legal reforms in the field of votes for women, divorce, censorship and homosexuality.

Mill: Weak Rule Utilitarian WEAK RULE Mill respected the sovereignty of Equally, J. S. Mill argued that people the individual over himself and the should come up with, and be guided importance of an individual’s by, general principles which over freedom to express themself, so the passage of time have promoted long as it was not detrimental to the greatest happiness. society. Summary Generally speaking people should follow rules which have stood the test of time in promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number. However, individuals should have the right to self expression and the freedom to pursue their own creativity. e. g. “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than if he had the power, would he be justified in silencing mankind. ” (Utilitarianism 229)