Complete, precise revision material and all essay plans covering the entire specification for Moral Philosophy including detailed explanations and off-the-specification content to be used in 25 markers for added depth. Key content is highlighted in paragraphs.
Password access to Quizlet with all possible Ethics questions
Ethics notes for Paper 1 Philosophy A-Level
All for this textbook (5)
Written for
A/AS Level
AQA
Philosophy
Moral Philosophy
All documents for this subject (36)
Seller
Follow
dash616
Content preview
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a hedonistic normative ethical theory that uses the principle of
utility to define what morally correct actions are. It states that the greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest number of people should be the ultimate
end of all actions because Bentham, as a hedonist, believed everything we did
was in pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain (pleasure and pain are the two
factors that govern our decisions). Bentham created a hedonic calculus which he
claims could calculate which action was the most moral out of a possible set,
given set values such as the intensity or duration of the pleasure/pain. Once all 7
parameters had been entered, the calculation would then result in a net pleasure
value and the action with the highest net pleasure would be the morally correct
action.
In act utilitarianism, some horrible actions would be permissible in certain
scenarios, such as if one person’s organs could help save 5 lives. To counter this,
rule utilitarianism was developed, which states that an action should be carried
out if it generally produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest
number of people. Horrible actions such as harvesting someone’s organs do not
generally have a positive net pleasure, thus they are not morally permissible.
Strong rule utilitarianism has no exceptions – under all circumstances the rules
apply regardless of the outcome because if the rules are stuck too then one can
ensure that the morally permissible actions generally increase happiness. Weak
rule utilitarianism allows for exceptions in extreme circumstances. If it is clear
that following a rule would drastically impact net pleasure negatively and this is
certain, then breaking a rule to stop this is permitted.
Mill aims to prove the principle of utility. He says the only reason something is
visible is that it is actually seen. Likewise, the only evidence something is
desirable is that it is actually desired. Each person desires their own happiness,
therefore we have sufficient evidence that each person’s individual happiness is
desirable. If each person’s happiness is desirable, then the general happiness is
desirable. Each person’s happiness is a good to that person therefore the general
happiness is a good to the aggregate of all people. Therefore, happiness is one of
the ends of conduct and a criteria for morality. While other elements can be ends
of conduct for people (such as art) these other elements start as a means to
gaining happiness for the person. It is through this association with happiness
that these other elements become a part of what happiness is for that person
and then become ends in themselves. Because these other elements were
initially sought as a means of happiness, happiness should be seen as the sole
end of conduct and is therefore the sole good. Therefore, the principle of utility is
true.
Mills proof is vulnerable to the is-ought gap objection (when someone moves
from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’ in their argument which is a logical gap). In his
argument, he states that each person’s happiness is desirable and uses this to
justify his point that therefore each person’s happiness should be desirable. Just
because something is the case provides no support to the position that it should
,be the case. For example, in the past one might have said that ‘slavery takes
place’ although no one would want to say that in that period ‘slavery ought to
take place’ should also be true. We would say that slavery is wrong and never
should have been the case. Because there are cases of when moving from an ‘is’
to an ‘ought’ is not necessarily true, Mill cannot use the ‘is’ as justification for the
‘ought’ in his argument, and as his argument relies on the premise that
happiness ought to be desirable, it ultimately fails.
Mill also commits the fallacy of composition in his proof. Specifically, his move
from the statement that each person’s happiness is desirable to the statement
that the general happiness is desirable is not logically sound. Something that is
true for the one is not necessarily true for the whole, or in other words, the
properties of the parts of something are not necessarily the same as the
properties as the whole of something. Each person may desire to win the lottery,
but this does not mean that everyone wants everyone to win the lottery; in fact,
it is the complete opposite! I do not want anyone except me to win the lottery.
Because you cannot move from something that is true for the parts also always
being true for the whole, Mill’s argument fails. He doesn’t establish that the
general happiness is desirable and thus can’t successfully conclude that
happiness is the sole end of conduct.
Because utilitarianism seeks to quantify happiness, we can argue that it reduces
the value of human life to the same simple pleasures felt by pigs (animals), this
is the swine ethic. Mill responds that if humans were to only seek physical
pleasure, we would be reduced to animals. We know this is not how we act and
should thus think about the different types of pleasures. Mill gives higher and
lower pleasures. Higher pleasures are those which are non-physical, such as
excitement or desire. Lower pleasures are those which are physical, such as
tasting something. Higher pleasures are more valuable than lower pleasures and
this explains why humans don’t seek lower pleasures only. For example, the
excitement for eating a cake is greater than the moment at which you actually
eat the cake. Mill takes a qualitative approach to happiness.
Utilitarianism isn’t fair and doesn’t account for individual liberty or rights,
allowing the rights of a minority to be violated (tyranny of the majority problem).
Because it focuses on the quantity of pleasure, in instances where a majority
would gain pleasure from committing a bad act, it would be morally permissible
according to utilitarianism as there is still net pleasure. For example, if 20 people
wanted to murder one person then utilitarianism would have to allow this as the
20 people’s joint pleasure will be greater than the one person’s pain. One might
object that the one person’s relatives would also feel pain, but we can tweak the
scenario to where the one person has no relatives. Obviously, we would not want
to say that this act is moral and an ethical theory which can often produce
scenarios it says are moral that contradict our own moral compass is not a good
ethical theory.
One might respond and say that the one person’s net pain is much greater than
the net pleasure felt by the 20 murderers. This would outweigh the pleasure and
cause the hedonic calculus to produce a negative result, where the act would no
, longer be considered morally permissible. Additionally, the fear that a tyranny of
the majority could come into play at any time on any person would create an
extreme amount of pain throughout all people in the world. This would massively
outweigh the net pleasure of the 20 murderers, thus making the act morally
impermissible and defending act utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism runs into problems regarding issues around partiality. Since all
pleasure should be treated as equal and not subjective, a close relative’s
pleasure should not be weighted above the pleasure of another and this is
impractical because partiality is a natural part of moral deliberation. Personal
relationships with relatives and friends are important to us and essential to living
a good life. If we cannot honour these relationships in our decision making, then
we cannot have meaningful relationships. A world without meaningful
relationships is undoubtedly worse than one with meaningful relationships as
they are part of life, and still from a hedonistic point of view make life much more
enjoyable. For example, if I had to make the choice to save my dad or a doctor
(who would help save lives), the decision would be biased towards my dad. If
utilitarianism breaks down meaningful relationships, then it fails as an ethical
theory as it does not fit into our current social system and would be rejected.
Since utilitarianism would also never work in practice, it is impractical and fails in
this regard also. Additionally, utilitarianism, through being hedonistic, elicits
derision – it says we should create maximum pleasure but using the theory itself
automatically lowers universal pleasure through being impartial.
A utilitarian might respond that it is still morally correct to save the doctor and
despite this ignoring the relationship that is in the situation, the most morally
correct outcome is still what utilitarianism says. From an objective standpoint, it
is clear that the doctor is the morally correct outcome and subjective feelings
should be ignored in moral decision making as utilitarianism still accounts for
relationships regardless. In a relationship, the pleasure and pain is higher, so in
situations with relatives utilitarianism still acts in favour of the relationship.
Saving your dad over a stranger is morally permissible (in general) because the
net pleasure will be lower if the dad dies rather than if the stranger dies (as the
pain felt from your father dying is stronger than the pain felt from a stranger
dying).
Utilitarianism’s hedonic calculus encounters serious problems with calculation,
including which beings to include in calculation. (outline the hedonic calculus).
The hedonic calculus requires an input 7 of values relevant in the outcome of a
decision; this makes it impractical. Firstly, a successful ethical theory should
have the capacity to be used in everyday decision making (practical), and if
every time someone wants to make a decision, they have to use the hedonic
calculus, then utilitarianism fails. People will not bother to do this as it will take
too much time (for every single moral decision) and this is also impractical as in
situations where a fast decision has to be made the hedonic calculus would be
useless as by the time the calculation has finished it will be too late. Additionally,
the complexity of such an algorithm (the calculus) would require a
supercomputer and master programmer to function. A computer of this much
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller dash616. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $12.37. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
