UTILITARIANISM ESSAY PLAN

INTRO:
 Utilitarianism = secular ethical theory put forward by JEREMY BENTHAM (strict hedonist - good is
pleasure + nothing else is good).
 Teleological theory = focuses on results of an action rather than the motivation of the act.
 BENTHAM introduced theory because wanted a form of ethics which did not rely on rigid, inflexible
rules like e.g., the Church.
 Principle of utility  'the greatest good for the greatest number' while minimising pain.
 Not useful  teleological not deontological, uncertainty of outcome rather than an absolute guide.

PARAGRAPH ONE – Act Utilitarianism

Best: Bentham, greatest good, consequentialist

 BENTHAM – logical and simple principle of utility, motivated by hedonism – “greatest good for the
greatest number”
 Clear goal to strive towards when making any ethical decision
 Consequentialist – looks at outcomes rather than the action in itself – good as it focuses on impacts

Not best: Bad actions can be justified, doesn’t look at duty, supererogation
 Principle of utility means no action can be ruled out – bad actions can be justified if they are
providing the greatest good.
 It is far too teleological – cannot predict the outcomes
 WILLIAMS – Supererogation Argument – utilitarianism demands too much from us, demands too
much from the average person, we shouldn’t have to give up our possessions to be moral
 Doesn’t focus on a general morality/what KANT would call duty – absolute rules that rule out
certain immoral actions

Best: Hedonic calculus

 HC allows us to rationalise + consider morality of actions
 Better than deontological duty of KANT as you can adapt to different situations, calculating most
ethical outcome

Not best: HC is impractical, clouded by emotions, social engineering argument

 HC = impractical – realistically, no one is going to weigh up pros/cons of actions before acting,
incompetent individuals have a skewed perception, clouded by emotions; WD ROSS  Prima
Facie duties – human relationships + emotions will sway moral judgement.
 Pleasure aspect also flawed – MCINTYRE’s Social Engineering Argument - argued concept of
pleasure is dangerous as people can be manipulated into being satisfied by anything.
 Lives filled with pleasure doesn’t mean good, ethical lives: could be immoral but which they have
been manipulated into enjoying
 Under Act Utilitarianism, ideal society = every member satisfied by bare minimum

PARAGRAPH TWO – Rule Utilitarianism

Best: Mill – qualitative pleasures

 MILL – avoids HC criticisms – pain/pleasure = qualitative rather than quantitative – can make
judgements about which pleasures are greater in kind
 ‘Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’ Intellectual pleasures superior to sensual
pleasures
UTILITARIANISM ESSAY PLAN

Not best: Pleasure = subjective, elitist, act through love instead

 Pleasure = subjective  general epistemological issue with Rule as there does not appear to be
an objective, accurate way of measuring pleasure
 SIDGWICK: "In practice it is hard to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures"
 Elitist + dictatorial to define pleasures – too subjective, too difficult to define
 Should act according to love (SE) love = less subjective concept and allows flexibility in actions

Best: Situation ethics is too relative, rule is absolute

 Situation ethics = too relative – can lead to the slippery slope
 Rule is more absolute - “Act in accordance with those rules which, if generally followed, would
provide the greatest general balance of pleasure over pain.”
 MILL = soft rule utilitarian, so permitted breaking rules in certain circumstances if a better
consequence might be achieved by disregarding the rule – adds an element of flexibility, but only
for better outcomes

Not best: Becomes deontological, impersonal, SE is personal

 Difficult to predict when rules should be broken
 Hard rule utilitarianism which invokes rules that cannot ever be broken does not work in our
complex world  irrational; obey rules even when disobeying it would produce more happiness
 RAWLS – too impersonal + does not consider rights of individuals in attempt to look for the
‘greater good’
 Situation ethics as it puts people before rules – personal

PARAGRAPH THREE – Preference Utilitarianism

Best: Singer – look at/weigh all preferences

 SINGER – focuses on preferences as opposed to pleasure/pain
 Not considering what increases pleasure/ pain, but what minimizes suffering
 Must consider everyone’s feelings and preferences, including animals
 Most similar to SE and the 6 propositions  focuses on happiness as opposed to rules

Not best: What about those who cannot express their preferences, irrational decisions?
 Problem of those unable to express preferences – newborn, severely mentally disabled, etc.
 What if someone voluntarily had unprotected sex w/ stranger and thus has a high risk of
contracting HIV? This satisfies someone’s preferences but is immoral.

Best: We think about all preferences

 Considers future self’s preference as well as current - need to weigh your current self's
preference for quick relief against your future selves' preference
 Act as an impartial observer – HARE; ‘standing in someone else’s shoes’
 Think about others’ preferences – must assume their preferences  possible as we can ask what
our own interest is and which outcome we would prefer, and apply it to them
 Risk of inconsistency, but better to be flexible and act with compassion rather than like a pre-
programmed robot.