Higher RMPS
Lesson 5
Utilitarian ethics
Learning intentions
After today’s lesson you will be able to:
• explain the guiding moral principle of utilitarianism
• explain the two main types of utilitarianism
• evaluate the utilitarian approach to making moral
decisions.
Utilitarianism
The greatest happiness for the greatest number.
The guiding principle in utilitarianism is that when you make a moral
decision you should do what brings the greatest happiness or good
to the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism is a based on maximising
utility or happiness.
A good act increases
happiness or
reduces pain.
A bad act increases suffering or
reduces happiness.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical system, which
means it is concerned with consequences.
Two philosophers agreed we should seek
happiness and avoid pain
Jeremy Bentham
Bentham’s utilitarianism was based on the outcome of
actions. He said the correct action in any situation is
the one that leads to the most happiness or the least
pain. The more happiness caused, the better the moral
act.
John Stuart Mill
Mill agreed with Bentham, but went one step further when
he argued that utilitarianism doesn’t just take into account
the quantity of happiness but also the quality of the
happiness. Mill said there are higher and lower pleasures.
The higher pleasure are those which people prefer over
lower pleasures.
For example, to have a good education would often be
preferred over the lower pleasure of lying around all day
doing nothing.
There are two main types of utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism
Many rules are made to ensure the greatest good
for the greatest number, therefore following these
rules is the right moral choice.
For example, everyone obeys road traffic rules, like
stopping at red lights, which makes the roads safer
for everyone.
Act utilitarianism
This is based on the consequences of actions. If
an action will lead to the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people then it is the correct
moral action according to utilitarianism.
For example, if 20 people were held hostage by
four criminals, it would be correct for the police to
kill the four criminals to save the 20 people. In
other words, the greatest happiness for the
greatest number of people.
Now consider this scenario..
Imagine the following scenario. A prominent and much
loved leader has been rushed to the hospital, grievously
wounded by an assassin’s bullet.
He needs a heart and lung transplant immediately to
survive. No suitable donors are available, but there is a
homeless person in the emergency room who is being kept
alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to
live, and who is a perfect donor.
Without the transplant, the leader will die; the homeless
person will die in a few days anyway. Security at the
hospital is very well controlled. The transplant team could
hasten the death of the homeless person and carry out the
transplant without the public ever knowing that they killed
the homeless person for his organs.
What would a rule utilitarian do?
What would an act utilitarian do?
– For rule utilitarians, this is an easy choice. No one
could approve a general rule that lets hospitals kill
patients for their organs when they are going to die
anyway. The consequences of adopting such a
general rule would be highly negative and would
certainly undermine public trust in the medical
establishment.
– For act utilitarians, the situation is more complex. If
secrecy were guaranteed, the overall consequences
might be such that in this particular instance greater
utility is produced by hastening the death of the
homeless person and using his organs for the
transplant.
Discussion points
How do you think a utilitarian
would respond in the following
situations and why?
You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making
ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth
£15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the
government that the dealership donated a van worth
£30,000. You really need the van and it will give you an
opportunity to make the children happy.
Would a utilitarian agree to take the van?
You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled
with people waiting to be rescued; there are five
people on one rock and four on the other. Assume that
you cannot rescue both groups and that you are the only
one able to rescue either group.
Which group would a utilitarian rescue?
30 people have been infected with a deadly disease
which is very contagious and has no known cure. The
health board have locked them in a room to keep them
isolated from the rest of the community as they believe
the disease will spread very quickly and kill large
numbers of people if the infected people are released.
The police have been called in to kill the 30 people and
eradicate the risk of danger.
Would a utilitarian agree with this action?
Discussion points
Now think again…
You run an orphanage and have had a hard time making
ends meet. A car dealership offers you a new van worth
£15,000 for free if you will falsely report to the government
that the dealership donated a van worth £30,000. You
really need the van and it will give you an opportunity to
make the children happy.
A month after you agreed to take the van the authorities
found out the truth about what had happened. They
removed the van from the orphanage and sacked you
because of the fraud. The orphanage was unable to find a
replacement and has had to be closed down as a result.
You are on a boat and nearby are two large rocks filled
with people waiting to be rescued; there are five people on
one rock and four on the other. Assume that you cannot
rescue both groups and that you are the only one able to
rescue either group.
After you have rescued the group of five they begin to fight
with each other about whose fault it was that they ended
up stuck on a rock. As they argue it becomes clear that
you have rescued a group of criminals who had been trying
to steal a yacht from a family on holiday when it hit a rock
and sunk. The group of four you didn’t save were that
family.
30 people have been infected with a deadly disease
which is very contagious and has no known cure. The
health board have locked them in a room to keep them
isolated from the rest of the community as they believe
the disease will spread very quickly and kill large
numbers of people if the infected people are released.
The police have been called in to kill the 30 people and
eradicate the risk of danger.
The day after the 30 people had been wiped out to
protect others a cure is found for the disease.
Is morality really as simple as
utilitarianism makes out?
• Can we be held responsible for consequences we cannot always
predict and that may be as a result of other people?
• Can we really be expected to put aside our personal interests to
always do what is best for the greatest number of people?
• Are intentions not as important as consequences when making
moral decisions?
• Do utilitarians not leave moral decisions up to luck because we have
to decide how to act and then wait to see what the consequences
are to know if we have behaved in a morally correct manner or not?
• Who decides what is right and wrong for the greatest number of
people?
Learning check…
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Explain utilitarianism in your own words.
What does a consequential ethics system mean?
How did the philosopher Bentham define
utilitarianism?
How did the philosopher Mill differ from Bentham in
his view of utilitarianism?
Define rule utilitarianism.
Define act utilitarianism.
Give two reasons why a person might support the
utilitarian outlook on making moral decisions.
Give two reason why a person might disagree with the
utilitarian way of making moral decisions.
2KU
1KU
2KU
2KU
2KU
2KU
4AE
4AE
Quick recap
The guiding principle in utilitarianism is that when you make a moral
decision you should do what brings the greatest happiness or good to the
greatest number of people
Rule utilitarianism: Many rules are made to ensure the greatest good for
the greatest number, therefore following these rules is the right moral
choice.
Act utilitarianism is based on the consequences of actions. If an action
will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people then
it is the correct moral action according to utilitarianism.
Bentham believes moral actions should based on the consequences of
actions and should be made considering which consequence will have the
greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Mill argued that quality of happiness can be divided in high and lower pleasures.