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