Before we get to this standard, we
must understand that in Ethics, there
are two types of Ethical Standards:
 Consequential Ethical Standards
 Nonconsequential Ethical Standards
What is the difference between
these two types of standards?
Consequential Standards
 The moral worth of the action (its goodness
or badness) is determined solely by the end
or consequent promoted.
 In other words, the end justifies the means
This type of standard is usually
worded in one of two ways:
 An action is morally good if it promotes
_________________
 Everyone should always act so as to
promote ______________________
Note: In this type of standard,
there is nothing about the action
itself that makes it good or bad;
rather the goodness or badness of
the action is determined only by
the end or consequent promoted.
What are some examples of this
type of standard?





Universal Ethical Egoism
Utilitarianism
Theological Eudaemonism
Rational Eudaemonism
Ethical Pluralism
Nonconsequential Standards:
 These standards state that the moral worth
of the action is not determined by the end or
consequent promoted
 The end never justifies the means
 Rather, there is something about the action
itself, intrinsic to it, that makes it either
good or bad
How are these standards worded?
Always as so as to
______________________________.
What are some nonconsequential
standards:
 Act
 Rule (Divine Command Theory; Kant’s
Imperatives
So what standard are we going to
start with?
Utilitarianism
What type of ethical standard is
it?
 It is a consequential ethical standard
What is a consequential ethical
standard? I forgot.
It is a standard that holds that the
moral worth of the action is
determined by the end or consequent
promoted; hence its name
‘consequential.’
What is it?
 It is a consequential standard that states that
an action is morally good if it promotes the
greatest amount of pleasure and the least
amount of pain for the greatest number
affected by the action, even it it brings harm
to a minority.
There are two types of
utilitarianism:
 Rule
 Act
Rule Utilitarianism
 Main proponent is John Stuart Mill
 It differs from act utilitarianism in three
ways: in the definition of ‘pleasure,’ in
who is affected, and in the method used to
determine how the greatest amount of
pleasure is determined.
Act Utilitarianism
 The main proponent of this type is Jeremy
Bentham
 Again, it differs from Rule Utilitarianism in
the definition of ‘pleasure,’ in who is
affected, and in the method used to
determine the greatest amount of pleasure
What is meant by the word
‘pleasure?
 Act
 All types of pleasures,
both strictly human
and those that are not
strictly human
 That is, sensual and
strictly human
pleasures
 Rule
 Only strictly human
pleasures
What are the pleasures that are
not strictly human?
 Pleasure we get from eating, drinking,
sleeping, reproducing, having shelter, etc.
What are the strictly human
pleasures?






Intellectual
Emotional
Aesthetic
Spiritual
Altruistic
Social
So, according to Mill:
We should always act so as to bring
about the greatest amount of strictly
human pleasure and the least amount
of pain to the greatest number of
humans affected.
And according to Bentham:
We should always act so as to bring
about the greatest amount of all types
of pleasures and the least amount of
pain to the greatest number of all
sentient beings affected.
How does the ‘method’ differ?
In Act Utilitarianism you use a
calculation process:







Certainty
Proximity
Intensity
Duration
Pureness
Chances that it will lead to other pleasures
How many people are affected?
Method used in Rule
Utilitarianism:
 Follow the laws!!!!!!!
Problems with Act
Utilitarianism?
 Requires you to predict future
consequences/outcomes of your
decisions/actions, so a future prediction is
what is determining the moral worth of
your action
 Requires you to put a number on
emotions/pleasures
 Requires you to predict how someone else
will feel about your action/decision
Problems With Rule
Utilitarianism
 There are unjust laws
 Laws for the most part tell us what not to
do, not what to do
 Not all of our moral dilemmas will have
applicable laws to help guide us