THE UTILITARIAN APPROACH
Key
Proponents
• DAVID HUME
• JEREMY BENTHAM
• JOHN STUART MILL
How did it all begin?
The 18th and 19th Centuries
• The modern nation-state was emerging in the aftermath of the French
Revolution
• The wreckage of the Napoleonic Empire
• The revolutions in 1848 showed the continuing power of new ideas such as
“liberty, equality, and fraternity”
• America emerged with a new kind of constitution and its bloody civil war was
put to an end to slavery in Western civilization
• The Industrial Revolution was bringing in a complete restructuring of society.
ACCORDING
TO
BENTHAM,
“Morality is not a matter of pleasing
God, nor is it a matter of faithfulness to
abstract rules. Morality is just as much
to bring about as much happiness as
possible in the world.”
The Principle of Utility
JAMES MILL
• A Scottish philosopher, historian, and economist.
• He had a son, John Stuart Mill, who would become
the leading advocate of utilitarian moral theory for
the next generation.
WHAT WAS JOHN STUART MILL’S ADVOCACY?
In his book “Utilitarianism” (1861), he presents his main idea through this quote:
BASED ON STUART’S IDEA-
• The primary role of Morality is to act so as to
bring about this state of affairs in so far as that is
possible.
STUART “Utilitariansm” (1861)
It is not a radical idea, but a mild
truism.
ACCORDING
TO
RACHELS,
To understand the Principle of
Utility, we have to appreciate what it
leaves out of its picture of Morality.
The point of morality, then , is seen
as the happiness of beings in the
world, and nothing more.
FIRST EXAMPLE: EUTHANASIA
• Matthew Donnelly was a physicist who had worked with X-rays for 30
years. Perhaps as a result to too much exposure, he contracted cancer
and lost much of his jaw, upper lip, nose, and left hand as well as his
two fingers in his right hand. He was also left blind. His physician told
him that he had about a year to live but he did not want to go on
living in such a state. Knowing that he was to die eventually, to end
his misery, he begged his three brothers to kill him. The two refused
but one did not. The youngest brother, 36- year- old, Harold Donnelly,
carried a .30-caliber pistol into the hospital and shot Matthew to
death.
WHAT IS THE DOMINAT MORAL TRADITION IN
THE SOCIETY?
• The Christian morality which holds that human life is a
gift form God, so that only he may decide when to
take that away.
• The early Church prohibited all killing, on the belief
that Jesus’ teachings on this subject permitted no
exceptions to the rule.
SUMMARY OF THE THEOLOGIAN POINT OF
VIEW IN KILLING
The intentional killing of innocent people is always
wrong.
HOW WOULD UTILITARIANISM VIEW THE ACT
OF HAROLD DONNELLY?
• It would consider the available choices made for
Harold Donnelly-which one would have the best
overall consequences?
• What action would produce the greatest balance of
happiness over unhappiness for all concerned?
UTILITARIAN’S BENEVOLENT VIEW
OF GOD-
WHAT THEN IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW?
• Utilitarianism could be used as a guide for legislation, according to
Bentham.
• Utilitarianism could also serve as a guiding principle for ordinary
people in making moral decisions.
• The purpose of the law, according to Bentham, is to promote the
general welfare of all citizens.
MILLS’ MOST ELOQUENT EXPRESSION IN “LIBERTY” (1859)
SECOND EXAMPLE: NONHUMAN ANIMALS
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
SECULAR VIEWS ON THE PRACTICES
Animals are not rational.
Animals lack the ability to speak.
Animals are not humans.
UTILITARIAN VIEW ON THIS PRACTICE
The view lies on• Whether he is capable of experiencing happiness and
unhappiness, pleasure and pain.
Bentham argues that whether the individual is human or not human is
just as irrelevant as whether he is black or white.
FACTUAL DIFFERENCES THAT MIGHT JUSTIFY
THEIR DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT
• Human have intellectual capacities that animals lack.
• Humans are able to take in the pleasure of things that nonhumans
cannot enjoy.
• Humans can do mathematics, literature and so on.
• Human superior capacities enable them to experience frustrations
and disappointments that other animals are not able to experience.
FOR BENTHAM AND MILL
• THUS, OUR DUTY TO PROMOTE
HAPPINESS ENTAILS OUR DUTY TO
PROMOTE THOSE SPECIAL ENJOYMENTS
FOR THEM, AS WELL AS TO PREVENT ANY
UNHAPPINESS TO WHICH HUMANS ARE
VULNERABLE, TOO…. AT THE SAME TIME,
HOWEVER, IN SO FAR AS THE WELFARE
OF OTHER ANIMALS ARE AFFECTED BY
OUR CONDUCT, WE HAVE A MORAL DUTY
TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT…. AND
THEIR SUFFERINGS COUNTS EQUALLY
WITH
ANY
SIMILAR
SUFFERING
EXPERIENCED BY A HUMAN.
FOR THE CONTEMPORARY
UTILITARIANS….
Peter Singer ( Animal
Liberation, 1975) has urged,
following the principles of
Bentham and Mill, that our
treatment of nonhumans is
deeply objectionable.
Conclusion