Higher/Int 2 Philosophy UNIT 4
Moral Philosophy
By the end of this unit you should be able to






describe the utilitarian moral theory
explain the differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism
explain the strengths and weakness of each of these positions
describe Kantian moral theory
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a Kantian morality
apply these theories to scenarios and analyse and evaluate the
result.
What do the terms right and wrong, good and
bad mean?
Socrates said
"We are dealing with no small matter, but how
we should act."
Socrates thought that the question – “What is a
good life” was the most important question which
humans face.
If you are asking the question, `what makes an act right or wrong?'
Then you are asking a question about normative ethics.
Normative ethics is based on the view that there are objective moral
facts. This means that when some one claims that murder is wrong,
1
lying is wrong or stealing is wrong – they are making statements of
fact.
But what is wrongness and what is rightness?
Many religions have a moral code which is believed to
be objectively true. Christians, Jews and Muslims
follow moral codes which many believe are
objectively true. These moral codes are all examples
of what are called Divine Command moral codes.
According to these codes, murder is wrong because God says so.
Murder is, was and always will be wrong because God says so.
"Murder is wrong" is a statement of moral fact.
Why have Humans Developed Moral Codes?
The answer lies in our nature as social beings. We are individuals who
live in groups of various sizes. As individuals, we all have needs and
wants. The trouble is that these needs and wants compete with the
needs and wants of others. Moral codes are intended to promote
justice, agree civilised behaviour and avoid conflict. The question we
will look at in this unit — "on what should this morality be based?"
Initial Position on Objective Morality
The objectivist position seems intuitive true. We have a gut feeling
when we are being treated unfairly or unjustly. Murder can never be
right. Surely, therefore right and wrong exist as objective facts
2
Normative Ethics
In this unit we will be comparing and
contrasting two objectivist theories
Utilitarianism and Kantianism.
This goes back to the ancient quest for
the essence of things.
What is the Essence of GOOD? All of us make moral and ethical
judgments - `That is wrong', `This is unfair' etc. One of the first
things children are taught is the difference between right and wrong.
Each society, ancient and modern, has created its own code of ethics.
You could probably produce a good moral
code yourself. But on what would it be
based?
What would be the founding principle or
maxim on which morality should be based?
Good/right =____?
We are all expected to know the difference
between right and wrong and act
accordingly, but the problem is, we also
disagree about exactly what right and wrong. There are of course
some individuals who genuinely do not know the difference between
right and wrong - babies, toddlers, victims of brain damage or those
who are sometimes referred to as psychopaths or sociopaths. They
can be described as amoral. These groups cannot be expected to
distinguish between right and wrong.
This is different from an immoral individual - some one who can
distinguish between the two but chooses the bad/wrong option usually
for selfish reasons.
3
Rationalists claim that moral actions are good,
because they are good in themselves. Acts that
are morally good are self-evidently good and so
require no empirical justification. This means
that they should always be applied no matter
the time, place or particular circumstances.
Assignment 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
What point did Socrates make?
What is the purpose of morality?
What is the difference between amoral and immoral?
What is normative ethics?
What does normative ethic claim about moral statements?
What is Divine Command an example of?
What is Divine Command based on?
Why are there moral codes?
What two theories will we explore in this unit?
What is a maxim?
What is the difference between amoral and immoral?
Read Palmer Pages – 9-10
1 What is the main focus of philosophical ethics?
2 What is the difference between Normative and Meta-ethics?
3 Why must we be careful of how we use and how we understand the
terms good and bad? Give examples to illustrate your point.
4
Utilitarianism & Kantian Ethics
Before reading this section,
read Palmer page 11.
Utilitarianism is based on the ideas of
philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John
Stuart Mill. Kantian ethics are named after
the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant.
Both of these theories argue that morality has an objective basis but
each disagrees on what this basis is.
Utilitarianism is an empiricist, consequential (teleological) objective
moral theory.
Kantianism is a rationalist, intentional (deontological) objective
theory.
Normative moral theories fall into two major
groups – those that judge the morality of an act
based on the consequences. These are
teleological theories and those that judge the
morality of an act based on the intentions. These
are deontological theories.
5
Utilitarianism is a Teleological theory.
Kantianism is a Deontological theory.
The beginnings of Utilitarianism
As a moral theory, Utilitarianism began with Jeremy Bentham (17481832) According to Bentham an act was good only if the consequences
resulted in the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
This is the Greatest Happiness Principle or GHP
Why did Bentham do this?
According to Bentham, humans have two basic drives, to seek pleasure
and avoid pain. For Bentham happiness was the result of pleasure. He
asked “who would not want to be happy”? From the response he claimed
that happiness is natural desire for humans.
Bentham also claimed that happiness was experienced by all humans so it
was objective.
Evidence – Happy Birthday – Happy New Year – Happy Chanukah – As
long as you’re happy – The pursuit of happiness. The traditional ending
for fairy tales is that “they all lived happily ever after'. Films with up
endings are more successful than those which end on a down-beat.
The belief that the human goal is to pursue personal pleasure is called
hedonism. Utilitarianism is sometimes called social hedonism because
its aim is the GHP.
Is Bentham right in his claim that happiness is natural and objective?
6
Rats are often used in psychological experiments to model human
behaviour.
In an experiment, rats were linked
to a machine which simulated the
pleasure part of the brain. When
the rats pressed a lever they
received sensations of pleasure.
Eventually the rats could not be
persuaded to cross an electrified
floor for food even after being
starved for ten days. But they
would cross the same floor to get
to the pleasure lever!
If we are like rats, maybe we a re hard-wired for pleasure!
But are Utilitarians (social hedonists) correct in claim that the
happiness of others is natural and objective?
So pleasure is a great motivation for rats.
Utilitarianism, like all Teleological Theories, determines The rightness
and wrongness of an action by its consequences — for utilitarian by
measuring the totality of happiness or unhappiness that results.
"The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right
conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned. As
between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires
him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested spectator.”
J.S. Mill, Utilitarian (1861)
So if we take Hedonism and add it to Altruism we get Utilitarianism.
7
HEDONISM + ALTRUISM = UTILITARIANISM
Assignment 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Is utilitarianism a teleological or deontological ethical theory? Give
reasons for your answer.
According to Utilitarians, what makes an act morally right or
wrong?
Why do Utilitarians claim their theory is natural and objective?
What is Hedonism?
What is the difference between Hedonism and Utilitarianism?
Why do Utilitarians believe their theory to be objective and
natural?
Read Palmer page 63
Classical Utilitarianism – Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill
The names most commonly associated with Classical Period of
Utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) - who first outlined
its philosophy, and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), who developed and
spread its popularity.
Bentham - Quantity over Quality!
Bentham`s most important work is the Principles of Morals and
Legislation (1789), while Mill's moral and social philosophy is found in
the essays Utilitarianism (1861) and On Liberty (1859).
Both were social and political reformers. Bentham wanted to improve
they way the mass of people lived — to lessen poverty, improve health,
education and to reform the penal system. Bentham was aware of the
living conditions of the rural poor and also how the industrial revolution
had made human beings into a commodity. He saw the way social
8
systems worked and how they caused suffering and unhappiness and
then asked the question - why?
"Surely", he argued, "social systems should develop to be of benefit to
humanity, otherwise, what is their point?"
Bentham thought that social systems and institutions should be
created and developed to have a positive effect on society. Systems
should be developed to fit humans not the other way round. So personal
acts, the acts of institutions, or a social systems, were deemed good if
the effects were such as to bring about the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people and to reduce suffering.
Mill's definition of utilitarianism was
"Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, hold that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as
they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.”
The more happiness and the less unhappiness an action produces the
more morally GOOD it will be. The more people that are made happy
the better.
“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. On the
one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain
of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern
us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.”
JS Mill
9
The Basic Principles of Classical Utilitarianism
Read Palmer page 64-65
Utilitarianism is defined by its three main principles.
• the consequentialist principle: If the consequences are good,
then the act is morally good, if the consequences are bad, then the
act is morally bad. (Teleology - This principle is clearly in contrast
to Kant’s moral theory that is deontological)
• the hedonist principle: The view that pleasure is the only thing
that is good in itself, while pain is the only thing that is inherently
bad. Good is the greatest balance of pleasure over pain.
• the equity principle: The view that each individual's pleasure is
worth as much as the pleasure of any other individual.
Assignment 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
Who are the two individuals most closely associated with
developing utilitarianism?
Which are their most important texts?
What were their aims?
What was Mill's definition of utilitarianism?
Why did Mill think utilitarianism was natural and scientific?
Carefully explain the three basic principles of utilitarianism.
10
The Consequentialist Principle
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. In contrast, Kantianism is
deontological. A consequentialist theory, also known as a Teleological
Theory, is one that claims the moral rightness of an action is
determined by he consequences which the act produces rather than
basing it on the notion of duty or intentions, as deontological| theorists
would argue.
As JS Mill wrote,
“All action is for the sake of some end; and rules of action, it seems
natural to suppose, must take their whole character and colour from
the end to which they are subservient.”
For example, if someone with diabetes collapses and their life is saved
by giving them a sugar solution, then that action would be the right one.
If however if they were given the sugar drink when insulin was
required the act would be deemed the wrong one. The intention in both
cases was the same – to save a life – but the consequences were quite
different. Consequentialists claim that the intentions are not
important.
So, by looking at consequences, we are able to differentiate between
alternative courses of action in situations where we are faced with a
choice or choices. One of the main strengths of Utilitarianism is that it
can help us resolve moral dilemmas. This is where we must make a
choice between competing options. The Trolley Problem is an example
of this.
Some claim that this ability to resolve dilemmas makes Utilitarianism
superior to Kantianism.
While Kant was a rationalist, Mill was an empiricist. Empiricists
believe all our knowledge is derived from experience and this must
11
apply to moral knowledge as well as scientific knowledge. Utilitarians
claim that experience allows us to know what brings happiness to
humans and from experience we know what results in pain.
That’s not to say that we can predict consequences exactly – no one
can predict the future precisely. However Utilitarians do claim that
consequential happiness can be objectively demonstrated.
The Hedonic/Utility Principle
In everyday terms, Hedonism is the view that personal pleasure or
happiness is the only thing worth valuing. People who live hedonistic
lifestyles are often characterised as those who spend all their time
eating, drinking and partying and indulging every possible pleasure.
Philosophers use the term `Hedonism' in a broader sense however,
recognising that pleasures need not consist solely of bodily pleasures
but could also include intellectual and aesthetic pleasures too, like
reading a book, appreciating a fine painting or completing a course in
philosophy.
What the greatest happiness principle suggests is that pleasure or
happiness is the only consequence of any value. Utilitarianism does not
argue for personal happiness but the happiness of the greatest
number – the greatest social well-being if you like.
But there are some moral choices don’t involve getting any happiness
at all. For example, an individual dying in intense pain may wish to end
the pain by ending their life. Mill would say that according to the
GHP, we should minimise pain.
The Equity Principle
Utilitarianism takes the view that each individual is as important as
any other and that there should be no special consideration taken on
12
any grounds – age, sex, religion, intelligence or family. The happiness
of a Baron is no more important than that of a beggar. This seems to
agree with our intuitive attitude to humanity. To an extent it also
corresponds with the Kantian view of human value.
Effects of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism has been a very influential theory, and, although no
longer as popular as it once was it has been developed and modified
right up to the present day and is coming in for a bit of a political
resurgence.
An example of a modern and very controversial utilitarian philosopher
is Peter Singer.
We will explore some modern utilitarian developments later in the
unit.
Measuring Happiness - Utility
Pleasure – How much can you take?
Utilitarianism recognizes the fundamental role
of pain and pleasure in human life. Pleasurable
= good and pain = bad.
For Bentham the total amount of pleasure was
the only important criterion. He had no
thought for the view that some pleasure was
of a higher quality.
Bentham lived in the new scientific age and believed in objective,
beneficial practical results.
13
If an action was to be judged on the amount of pleasure or pain it
produced, then a system of empirical measurement was needed.
Bentham thought that you could simply add up individual pleasure to
get a total amount and so the total moral value of any act. He called
this method the Hedonic Calculus.
Bentham believed that his theory allowed individuals and groups to
decide not just what a good act was, but the best act. Most people,
Bentham argued, would accept that to reduce the pain an individual
was experiencing was a good act. But what if it had been possible to
reduce the pain of two or twenty-two or two hundred and two?
Which is the best act?
Which produces the greatest good? How would this be calculated?
Intensity, Duration, Certainty, Propinquity, Fecundity, Purity,
Extent (added by John Stuart Mill)
14
The Hedonic Calculus
Intensity
The intensity of the pleasure caused by an act is reasonably self-explanatory. Mild pleasure
is less valuable than intense pleasure.
Duration
The duration of the pleasure caused by an act must also be taken into account when
assessing the goodness of the act. Transient pleasure is less valuable than lasting pleasure.
Certainty
The certainty criterion refers to the probability of the pleasure resulting from the act;
how likely is it that the act will bring about the anticipated pleasure? If we must choose
between an act that will definitely cause pleasure and an act that will only possibly bring
about pleasure, then we do better to perform the former.
Propinquity
When deciding what to do, Bentham thought, we should bear in mind how distant are the
anticipated benefits of each possible course of action. The more distant the benefits, in
either space or time, the less weight we should give them in making our decision.
Fecundity
The fecundity of an act is the likelihood that the pleasures or pains that it causes will be
followed by similar pleasures or pains. If the happiness that an act causes is likely to be
followed by yet more happiness, then that act is better than a similar act that will cause
only one isolated instance of happiness. The opposite would apply for pain.
Purity
It is also important to be attentive to the purity of the pleasure and pain caused by an act.
An act that causes only pleasure is better than one that causes the same amount of
pleasure mixed with pain.
Extent
_________________________
The final criterion for quantifying the pleasure caused by an act is its extent: the more
people enjoy the pleasure, the better.
This criterion, unlike the previous six, was not among the original criteria described by
Bentham, but was added by John Stuart Mill.
15
Another version in a wee poem on this theme by Jeremy Bentham
Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure Such marks in pleasures and in pains endure.
Such pleasures seek if private be thy end:
If it be public, wide let them extend.
Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view:
If pains must come, let them extend to few.
Read Palmer page 66-67
Hedonic Calculus In Operation
Say you were faced with a choice between going to see a football
match or going to visit your Grandparents: The football game may
bring you intense pleasure but the duration of the pleasure may not
be very long. However, it may not be certain that your team will win at
all and the purity of the pleasure may be in question if you have to
face the pain of defeat on the long walk home. The pleasure may be
16
fairly immediate but you could have a similar pleasure another time.
The number of people who will gain pleasure from your attendance is
difficult to measure - if you meet your friends there will be a
multiplier effect and the price of your admission will contribute in a
small way to the happiness of the club.
On the other hand, what would happen if you visited your
Grandparents?
The duration of the pleasure could be the same and the intensity for
them and you could be quite high. The likelihood of the pleasure may
be more certain than at the football match and the pleasure is far
from remote or difficult to achieve. If your grandparents rarely see
you then this would make it a rare pleasure of greater value and it is
an experience unlikely to be followed by pain.
Finally, we must multiply all of these scores by the number of people
who are likely to experience them, in this case up to 3. A hedonic
calculation would therefore, in all likelihood, recommend that you visit
your grandparents rather than go to the football.
The beauty of Bentham’s system is that any potential pleasure or pain
can be rated on the same scale. However There are seven
independent scales making the calculation process impractical.
Problems with Hedonic Calculus
How should we rate each pleasure and how should we add the scores?
Bentham doesn’t discriminate between different pleasures in any way
– in principle the action of eating six cakes might come out better
than reading one book.
17
As Bentham said,
“the game of pushpin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of
music and poetry, if the game of pushpin furnish more pleasure, or
has more value than other”.
"Pushpin" is a child’s game of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Many Utilitarians disagreed with Bentham.
For example JS Mill took a different point of view. For JS Mill,
reading poetry for example is a higher pleasure than a child’s
games.
What do you think?
More of this later.
Assignment 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Using an example, clearly explain how the same human act, could be
judged differently by Kantianism and Utilitarianism.
Why are the terms rationalism and empiricism, relevant to this
moral debate?
How does egoistic hedonism differ from social hedonism?
In what way is hedonism claimed to be natural?
In what way is greater pleasure not the only utilitarian aim?
Why is it argued that the statement "it’s all about more pleasure
and less pain" Too simplistic?
According to Bentham, how could The GHP be measured? Give an
example.
What are the problems with Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus?
Bentham Questions
Palmer page 68
Palmer Exercise 1 page 67
18
STRENGTHS - of Bentham’s Utilitarianism
Hedonic Principle - Bentham’s theory seems to be intuitively true happiness is a good thing – objective and natural for humans.
Consequential Principle - Consequences “Look what you’ve done!” again
seems a no-brainer.
Equity Principle – an equal concern for everyone is central to the whole
concept of morality. It is difficult to argue against.
Utilitarianism seems to offer a practical way of deciding between
competing imperatives.
Allows for flexibility – changing situations can be accounted for.
Positive view of humanity – concern for the happiness of others.
Consequentialist — emphasises the importance of what actually happens.
Utilitarianism provides a simple test to identify right actions.
It seems consistent with making practical socioeconomic decisions —
guns or butter?
Balanced — utilitarianism points away from pain and towards pleasure.
19
WEAKNESSES - of Bentham’s Utilitarianism
Despite what Bentham claimed, not all pleasures seem the same: drinking
tea is a very different pleasure from seeing a movie, so how can you
chose between them by measuring which is 'greater'?
Again despite what Bentham may have claimed, not all these pleasures
seem to be particularly morally praiseworthy ends to our action: am I
acting morally when I stuff myself with cake or drink, even if I get lots
of pleasure from it and no—one is harmed?
Is happiness the only worthy end? What about justice?
Are consequences all that matter? What about intentions?
Is everyone's happiness equally important in every case? Some would
claim that the vulnerable should always be given more concern.
Can happiness be measured? Subjectivity.
Utilitarianism at this stage seems to ignore justice or rights which may
not produce greatest happiness on each occasion.
There are problems accounting for retributive punishment.
Consequences cannot be predicted. “It’s the future dude!”
Calculating the consequences is not possible – when do the consequences
of an act cease?
Consequentialism means backward looking judgments - good/bad can only
be assessed after the deed is done.
Some claim that utilitarianism is too demanding once we adopt a global
perspective
20
Although it might seem accurate to claim that humans naturally strive
for happiness and avoid pain, things are not that simple.
The problem of the 'tyranny of the majority' – is seems to allow for
situations where a minority could be mistreated if this resulted in the
GHP of the majority. This will be looked at in greater depth when we
look at how Utilitarianism was developed by Mill and afterwards.
Assignment 5
“Bentham’s Utilitarianism is, unnatural, subjective, impractical and can
be used to excuse injustice.”
Why would some one make this statement and how would you evaluate it?
(20)
21
The simple GHP is central to Bentham’s utilitarianism,
“the game of pushpin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of
music and poetry, if the game of pushpin furnish more pleasure, or has
more value than other”.
"Pushpin" is a child’s game of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Many Utilitarians disagreed with Bentham.
JS Mill took a different point of view. For JS Mill, reading poetry for
example is a higher pleasure than a child’s games.
Read Palmer page 69
Classical Utilitarianism - JS Mill
John Stuart Mill is widely recognised as
the greatest utilitarian
them all.
writer
Mill of
rejected
all. Mill rejected Bentham’s view that
pleasures of all kinds and any kind were
equally valuable. Mill was concerned with
what he viewed as shallow pleasures. He
emphasised the quality
rather
of pleasures
than on just
rather than on just quantity alone. Mill
judged, as many do, that there were
some wholesome pleasures, which were
of high value, and there were others,
that were less than wholesome and
wherefore of lesser value.
22
Mill distinguished between High and Low pleasures.
Low Pleasure = physical pleasures we share with the animals (for
example, eating, drinking, and sex.
High Pleasure = intellectual pleasures associated with civilised life (for
example, going to the opera, reading Greek plays or discussing
philosophy.
Mill’s point was that, a life full of animal pleasures was not To be
preferred to a life of the higher pleasures (Utilitarianism is not a
license for sex, drugs and netball| - excessive sensual pleasure).
Mill went so far as to say that it is better to be an unhappy human than
a satisfied pig!
So, according to Mill, when
faced with a choice between two
pleasures one should assess
them not in the purely
quantitative way recommended
by Bentham, but in a qualitative
way. Should you eat a bar of
chocolate or read a Shakespeare
play?
Mill would recommend we read
Shakespeare.
What do you think of Mill so
far?
Which choice would you make?
23
Read Palmer page 70-71
Competent Judges
Some have accused Mill of having an elitist view of pleasure. He was
born into a very privileged family. His father was a close friend of
Bentham. Young Mill was reading Greek and Latin when he was 9!
High-brow versus low-brow.
X-Factor versus Channel 4 News?
How would he justify his position? Surely, as autonomous beings, each
individual has the right to choose whatever rocks their boat.
Mill argues that, if we were to ask those people who had experienced
both sorts of pleasure, we would always find that such a person would
prefer the higher ones.
Mill writes,
“Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower
animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beasts pleasures.”
He calls such people competent judges. Such people would never want to
sacrifice their higher pleasures for a life of lower ones, even if they
occasionally resort to base pleasures.
An obvious objection to this is that clearly there are people who have
experienced both sorts of pleasure but who eventually do sink into a life
of idleness, sensual indulgence and daytime TV.
In response to this, Mill argues that the
“The capacity for the nobler feelings are, in most creatures, a
very tender plant, easily killed and not only by hostile
influences, but by mere want of sustenance. Men addict
themselves to inferior pleasures, not because they deliberately
24
prefer them, but because they are the only ones to which they
have access or the only ones which they are any longer capable
of enjoying.”
So higher pleasures take effort and require sustained engagement
but once we have sampled them, we will always prefer them, even if
we do not always make the right choices.
Is there a contradiction in Mill’s position here between claiming
that high pleasures are real and natural and his reasons for
individuals frequently choosing low pleasures instead?
Assignment 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
In what basic way did Mill disagree with Bentham? Give examples.
In what way did this change the emphasis of utilitarianism? Give an
example.
Which would be your existentialist choice, happy Snorer or
discontented Soccie? Give reasons.
According to Mill, what qualifies an individual to differentiate
between high and low pleasures?
Do you agree with Mill’s criticism of Bentham? Give reasons.
Are you convinced by Mill’s response to Bentham? Give reasons
Palmer Ex 2 & 3 pages 72-73
Mill Question Palmer page 74
Further Problems With Utilitarianism
The utilitarian emphasis on altruism - actions which benefit others
rather than ourselves is this has important implications The difference between Utilitarianism (social hedonism) and egoistic
hedonism means that following the Utilitarian path will not always
guarantee your own happiness.
25
The notion of equity implies that there might be occasions when I will be
obliged to perform actions which don’t benefit me as an individual at all.
For example, if you were the only millionaire in a town and you lived as a
recluse, according to utilitarian principles, you might be obliged to pay a
greater percentage of your income in tax than everyone else in the town
to pay for services that you personally never use.
Calculating GHP - Maximising the total benefit is not the same as
maximising the number of people who benefit: it may not always be a
`great number' of people who are mode happy by an act. Both Bentham
and Mill believed in trying to achieve the greatest aggregate happiness
and this aggregate could be achieved a number of ways. For example,
either the majority could all receive a little happiness, or a small number
could be made extremely happy. So long as the aggregate happiness is
maximised, there is nothing wrong with minority interests being served
on certain occasions.
For example, if we had one million pounds to give away as a lottery prize,
it would probably generate greater aggregate happiness to give one
hundred people £10,000 each than to give one million people £1 each.
Read Palmer pages 75-76
Assignment 6
1
2
3
What part do equity and altruism pay in Utilitarians?
How could these elements make a difference personally?
How do the elements of total and aggregate happiness relate to
the aim of achieving the greatest happiness of the greatest
number?
Read Palmer page 77 complete Machiavelli questions page 78
Read Palmer page 79 and complete Dostoyevsky questions page 80
Read Palmer page 81 and complete Huxley questions page 82
26
Problem — Tyranny of The Majority
We looked at this problem very briefly earlier. It is probably the most
powerful criticism of Utilitarianism. This criticism marks the end of
Classical Utilitarianism and led to the development of Act and Rule
Utilitarianism.
If the aim of utilitarianism is to maximise the happiness of the maximum
number, what is to stop the majority of a society getting pleasure from
enslaving a minority group?
Naturally this does not appear just, or fair, or moral, but it does seem
consistent with the GHP and so is a major weakness with classical
utilitarianism.
This problem is known as the Tyranny of the Majority.
For example the majority of people in East Lothian could benefit from
enslaving the people of Prestonpans and requiring them to perform the
tasks the majority don’t want to do - like ironing.
Act and Rule Utilitarians
Because of this criticism of classical utilitarianism, a new version, often
called Rule Utilitarianism developed. This has resulted in what we now
distinguish Act (classical position) and Rule Utilitarianism. t Act
Utilitarians is often viewed as the more primitive of the two since it
takes literally the requirement that we examine the consequences of
each individual moral act. It is closest to the classical position.
Read Palmer page 111-112
27
What is the Practical Difference Between Act and Rule?
For any given moral situation
Act Utilitarians ask
“what act will result in the greatest happiness of the greatest
number?”
Rule Utilitarians ask
“which rule should be applied in such situations in order to achieve
the greatest happiness of the greatest number over time?”
Example Scenario:
Imagine an individual finds a wallet containing £100. What should the
individual do? Should the individual hand the wallet and the money to the
authorities or just keep it?
The Act Utilitarian would apply the GHP directly and claim that it
depends on the circumstances of those involved. If the wallet loser
were a millionaire who wouldn't miss the money and the wallet finder
were an unemployed single parent who needed to pay for a life saving
operation for their child, then the Act Utilitarian could be argued that
the greater happiness might result if the finder just kept the wallet.
However, if the wallet loser were a single parent and the finder a
millionaire, then in order to achieve the GHP the recommended action
could be reversed
A Rule Utilitarian would not consider the details of the circumstances.
Instead, the Rule Utilitarian would try to identify the general rule
which could be applied in all similar situations which would be most likely
to achieve the GHP over time.
28
In this case it may be “always respect the property of others” or
“finders keepers”.
Which do you think?
Act Utilitarians ask 'What are the consequences if I do this?'
Rule Utilitarians ask 'What would be the long-term consequences if
I were to follow such a rule?'
How strictly should Rule Utilitarians stick to these rules?
When we study Kantianism we will see how sticking inflexibly to moral
rules no matter what the circumstances leads to difficulties.
For example – can you see any problems with trying to follow the rule
“ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH” in all circumstances?
A further problem - what would a Rule Utilitarian do when rules
conflict?
Should we never break a promise even if it would save someone's life?
Assignment 7
1 What problem with Classical Utilitarianism led to the development of
Rule Utilitarianism?
2 How would you differentiate between Act and Rule Utilitarianism?
3 What problems arise as a result of this shift from Act to Rule?
Complete Ex 8 Palmer page 112
29
Issues With Rule Utilitarianism
Should we never go through a red traffic light even if it is to stop a
major crime?
Some philosophers have responded to this issue by taking either a hard
or a soft position.
The hard line would be to insist that rules are never broken for fear of
undermining the practice, which they are designed to preserve.
A softer line would involve deviating from the fixed rules on certain
occasions depending on the circumstances. This seems to mean giving up
on Rule Utilitarianism and falling back on Act Utilitarianism.
However, while taking a hard line might seem unnecessarily severe it
could be argued that if Rule Utilitarianism tolerates rule breaking of any
sort, only a Utilitarian argument about the facts of the individual case
could justify setting the rule aside, and so it would dissolve into simple
Act Utilitarianism where each individual case must be considered on its
own merits.
Some critics of Rule Utilitarianism argue that Rule Utilitarianism is a
change of a consequentialist theory in the direction of deontological
Kantianism.
As a result they claim, Rule Utilitarianism suffers from the same
problems of conflicting principles as Kantianism did.
Problems like the above have led some people to the conclusion that any
form of Rule Utilitarianism is impractical and we are back to the Act
position again.
30
Assignment 8
1 Using a moral example, explain the difference between Act and
Rule Utilitarianism?
2 How might an Act and a Rule Utilitarian respond to the scenarios
below? Explain very clearly why each may respond differently.
Read Palmer page 113-115
Scenario 1
An individual is hiding Jews in a warehouse in Amsterdam in 1944. She
is questioned by the Nazis and asked directly if she knows where the
Jews are hiding.
Assignment 9
How would a Rule Utilitarian respond? Explain why. Do you think this
is a convincing response?
Scenario 2
During the war in Afghanistan a group of soldiers entered a small
village and are told that an IED has been placed somewhere. The
bomber has escaped but the soldiers found his daughter who is 12
years old. She refused to give them any information. They soon
realised that they would only get the information from the girl if
they tortured her. None of the soldiers could agree what to do next.
Should they torture the girl to get valuable information which might
save their own and other lives? Or was torturing a 12 year old girl so
wrong that they shouldn’t even discuss it as a possibility?
Assignment 10
How would a Rule Utilitarian respond? Explain why. Do you think this
is a convincing response?
31
Rule Utilitarianism -Strengths
 A good response to the tyranny of the majority.
 Clearer support for justice and human rights for example.
 A simpler theory then Act Utilitarianism (?)
Rule Utilitarianism – Weaknesses
 Inflexible – “rules is rules” – circumstances not taken into account
 Has to revert to Act when rules conflict.
 Identifying the correct general rule in any circumstances might be
difficult or controversial.
 When does the long-term end?
 When, if ever, should/could rules be broken?
Conclusion
So which is best, Act or Rule Utilitarianism? Well, as you have
already discovered they each have their strengths and weaknesses.
The best way to evaluate the two approaches is to analyse how each
would respond to a hypothetical scenario.
Assignment 11
Review the two scenarios on page 31. Describe how would Act and Rule
Utilitarians might respond to each of the two. (10) Explain why they
would respond in these ways. (10) Evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of these responses and explanations. (10)
32
Basic Kantianism
(Those who have been paying attention should see some similarities and
some differences with Rule Utilitarianism)
Kant
Based on Reason
Deontological (because consequences cannot be predicted)
Maxims – Rules to applied categorically
GOOD = Categorical Imperative 1 – “a maxim that could be will to be
universalised” Done every time and everywhere.
Bad = Cannot be universalised – why?
Contradiction in Conception − universalising a maxim would be logically
impossible.
Contradiction in the Will − maxims cannot be universalized not because
they are illogical but because they would conflict with other maxims
that a rational person could will to be universalized.
Example scenario – An individual wishes to borrow money which he knows
he will not be able to pay back.
Q – Could you (reasonably) will that this act be universalised?
A – No - Reason 1 - C in C - this would amount to a promise to lie! .
Reason 2 - C in W – this would mean a contradiction - borrowing
but not paying back!
GOOD = Categorical Imperative 2 – “ you should use an individual
either yourself or another as an end and never as a means only.”
33
Same scenario – different test.
To borrow money knowing that it would not be paid back also fails Cat 2.
The lendee has not been given the full facts, they have not been given
the respect of allowing them knowingly to give the money even if it would
not be paid back, they are being used as a means ONLY to get money –
they are being exploited.
However if they had been told what the situation was then that would be
different. The individual has to be free to choose and have all the
relevant knowledge.
It is really about exploitation so using a pharmacist to get drugs you are
entitled to is ok to Kant you are not using them as a means ONLY, but to
deceive a pharmacist into giving you drugs to which you are not entitled
is using them as a means only.
Assignment 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
From where does Kantianism get its name?
On what is Kantianism based?
What kind of theory is it?
Why did Kant dismiss consequences as a basis for morality?
What is a maxim?
Give an example of a maxim.
What two versions of the categorical imperative are we exploring?
What are the tests for universalisation? Give examples of how they
are applied.
9 What does it mean “as an end and never as a means only”?
10 Does Kant mean that you can never ask a teacher for help with your
homework?
Complete Questions Palmer page 115
34
35
36