Utilitarianism and Argument Regarding A Critique

Instructor C. A. Berkey-Abbott Notes for Chapter 8[footnoteRef:1] [1: Items in black represent text material; items in blue are items for consideration or notes to myself about the course. ]

I. The Context of Bentham’s Moral Philosophy:

a. Introduction: Jeremy Bentham (1748 -1832) is the founder of utilitarianism which establishes the Principle of Utility:

“[T]hat principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question”

This use of happiness is associated with pain/pleasure- making it a hedonistic tradition. This is also a consequentialist approach. The action is right/wrong dependent upon the probable result. Trolley Car Problem Video. Another way of phrasing this is the Greatest Happiness Principle: We should do the greatest good for the greatest number. When un-packed, this means: When considering whether an action is moral or immoral (or deciding among alternative options), we need to consider the effect that the decision will have upon the level of pain/pleasure of every sentient being that is likely to be effected.

The application seems pretty straightforward, but Bentham offers a “utilitarian calculus” to undergo to arrive at the single correct moral option among those under consideration. Some of the foundations of the position include: equality of consideration – everyone’s pleasure and pain needs to be considered equally, sentience (the ability to experience pleasure and pain) is the moral groundwork and consequently applies to several non-human animals as well, and policy/rule based government should be the standard – allowing for administrative discretion increases the chances of corruption and favoritism.

b. Elimination of Asceticism: Bentham utilizes and argument by elimination in an attempt to defend / establish utilitarianism. This process considers all potential options and eliminates all but one; it operates like a disjunctive syllogism. He begins by trying to eliminate asceticism. This process he describes as giving preference to pain over pleasure and is principally targeting “pernicious religious doctrine” which extolls the virtue of suffering. Bentham believes this leads to suffer for no good reason and can create unnecessary anxiety and guilt. Surely, the suppression of things like access to contraception on aesthetic principle serves on one’s interest and seems wholly irrational (129).

c. Elimination of the Principle of Sympathy and Antipathy: Next, Bentham deals with a morality based on sympathy and antipathy. In the case of conflicting duties and intuitions we try to work out what is most important. We do a sort of cost/benefit analysis, but (unlike utilitarianism) there does not seem to be an overriding principle to use as the scale of comparison.

II. Clarifying Utilarianism:

a. Introduction: There appears to be two things going on with Bentham’s position: 1) a theory of the good – which tells us what sort of things are good and bad in the world and 2) a theory of the right – which focuses on our actions and tells which of those are right and wrong. Utilitariarnism is the theory that the right thing to do is always to bring about as much good as possible. So what is the Good?

b. Bentham’s Theory of the Good: Bentham understands the good in terms of happiness and happiness in terms of pleasure and pain as bad. There are two potential controversies: 1) Bentham offers a variety of explanations for pleasure by dividing them into several categories one of which includes taking pleasure in the misfortune of others and 2) claims that pleasure is exclusively good does not seem well defended (even if pleasure is a self-evident and universal good).

c. Measuring Happiness: Bentham utilized a simple unit of pleasure, which he called a utile. Utiles would then be assigned to the probable effect on sentient beings according to six features: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (proximity in time), fecundity (ripple effect) and purity (pleasure will follow pleasure). Some questions emerge: 1) what do we mean by a utile and how do they get applied across such different categories? 2) why should proximity in time be a deciding factor (are future pleasures less important than more immediate ones)?, 3) how do we make interpersonal comparisons of utility [I might know how something is likely to effect my pain/pleasure threshold, but can I do this for others?]. Regarding the later maybe we can get close enough. Research on happiness relies upon self-reported responses and seems to have some reliability, but two people feeling “7/10” may not amount to being equally happy.

III. Utilitarianism and Equality for women:

a. Introduction: The popular use of the term “utilitarian” today seems to mean something like “dull efficiency” and calling someone utilitarian is often intended as an insult. This is not the way utilitarianism as a moral tradition is meant. Mill developed rule utilitarianism along with Harriet Taylor after suffering a nervous breakdown in his 20s. Taylor likely helped with JS Mill’s treatise on women.

b. The Subjection of Women: Written in 1869, The Subjection of Women, catalougues the pervasiveness of male domination of women, particularly in conventional marriage and examines it detrimental effects on human happiness. Curiously, of the four primary arguments for increased equality, only one is actually focused on the effects that the subjugation has on women. The arguments are: 1) it is bad for men to grow up believing in their superiority, 2) by not allowing women to work, society is harmed by cutting down the talent pool, 3) a woman’s dependence upon her husband limits the husband’s freedom to be adventurous, and 4) women in subjugation suffer “the weariness, disappointment, and profound dissatisfaction with life…[which] dries up the principal foundation of human happiness” (136). The utilitarian theory demands liberation from oppression.

IV. Justifying Utilitarianism

a. Introduction: How utilitarianism’s claim that maximizing pleasure is the ultimate good is a challenge to justify. They take this to be a self-evident fundamental axiom, which is a type of thing that “just is” and does not really admit of proof. Still, there have been some attempts. Bentham, we have seen, attempted to do so through an argument from elimination.

Critical Reasoning – Bentham

i. Note that if there are not just three types of moral theory, Bentham has created a false dilemma in his argument.

ii. Note also in his critique of “sympathy and antipathy” he dismisses it for not having a formula for decision making. This should get us to the conclusion that it needs a formula, rather than that the entire tradition should not be considered.

iii. Note also that there are other moral theories not considered that require us to not deny happiness for no good reason and provide a formula for determining what is moral.

b. Mill’s Proof: “The only proof that something is audible, is that people hear it…In like manner, I apprehend that the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people actually desire it (138)” and “each person’s happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons” (138).

Critical Reasoning – Mill

i. Note there are two claims: 1) happiness is desirable and 2) general happiness is a good to aggregate to all persons (139).

ii. Mill’s argument related to the first claim is an argument by analogy, which requires that the things being compared are similar in all relevant respects. Moore argues that the analogy does not work since “desirable” does not mean “capable of being desired” like “audible” means “capable of being heard.” Desirable implies that it “ought” to be sought, not that it is. Does an alcoholic wanting a drink make it desirable?

1. Counter-argument: Having a drink may be desirable, but having sobriety may be more desirable. Does it on balance promote greater benefit?

a. Counter-counter argument: The assertion that overall benefit related to harms determines desirability, to prove that we all desire what brings us overall pleasure/harms is a circular argument. A circular argument occurs when one assumes in a claim of support what they are intending to prove.

iii. Mill’s argument related to the second claim is that the self-evident desire that everyone seeks their own happiness leads to the conclusion that we should seek to do what provides for the best aggregate happiness for all of those effected, is a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.

V. Chapter Review

Please read the chapter review, consider the discussion questions, and be familiar with the key terms from the chapter and from class:

Utility Argument by elimination Argument by analogy

Circular Reasoning Theory of the Good Problems with measuring happiness

Utilitarian Calculus Theory of the Right Bentham, Mill, Taylor

Greatest Happiness Principle Mill’s 4 arguments in The Subjection of Women

Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility

What is utilitarianism? Why was utilitarianism created?

What is the primary difference between “act” and “rule” utilitarianism?