Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), The Principles of Moral and Legislation (1789) 1. The motivation of human beings Bentham maintained that human beings were motivated by pleasure and pain, and so he can be called a hedonist (hedone is Greek for 'pleasure'), He said, 'Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.' (Bentham, 1789, Chapter 1, 1)

Bentham believed that all human beings pursued pleasure and sought to avoid pain. He saw this as a moral fact, as pleasure and pain identified what we should and shouldn't do. As a hedonist, Bentham believed that pleasure was the sole good and pain the sole evil: hence Bentham's utilitarianism is called hedonic utilitarianism.

2. The principle of utility Once Bentham had established that pleasure and pain were the important qualities for determining what was moral, he developed the utility principle. The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its 'utility' or usefulness. Usefulness refers to the amount pleasure or happiness caused by the action. The theory is known as the greatest happiness principle, or a theory of usefulness: By the principle of utility is meant that 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: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever; and therefore not, only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government. Bentham (1789), Chapter 1, 11

This can be shortened to 'An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number', where the greatest good is the greatest pleasure or happiness and the least pain or sadness, and the greatest number are the majority of people. Good is the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. The end that Bentham's theory identify are those with the most pleasure and least pain. His theory is democratic, because the pleasure can't be for one person alone. When faced with a moral dilemma, Bentham argued that one should choose to act in such a way that brings about the maximum possible happiness for the most people. However, the possible consequences of different actions must be measured clearly to establish which option generates the most pleasure and the least pain. To measure the results, Bentham proposed the hedonic calculus.

3. The hedonic calculus The hedonic calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It considers seven factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Its intensity. Its duration. Its certainty or uncertainty. Its propinquity or remoteness ... Its fecundity, or the chance it has of being followed by, sensations of the same kind: that is, pleasures, if it be a pleasure: pains, if it be a pain. 6. Its purity, or the chance it has of not being followed by, sensations of the opposite kind: that is, pains, if it be a pleasure: pleasures, if it be a pain ... And one other; to wit: 7. Its extent; that is, the number of persons to whom it extends; or (in other words) who are affected by it. Bentham (1789), Chapter IV, 11

The balance of pleasures and pains is compared with those of other options and the best result determined. The action that leads to this best consequence is the morally correct one to pursue.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) John Stuart Mill was a child prodigy who was able to read several languages at an early age, and the son of a follower of Jeremy Bentham. Perhaps the greatest British philosopher of the nineteenth century, he was an administrator for the East India Company and a Member of Parliament. Amongst his other works, he wrote On the Subjugation of Women, one of the inspirations behind modern feminism. His works concerning ethics were On Liberty (1859) and Utilitarianism (1861). Mill maintained that the well-being of the individual was of greatest importance and that happiness is most effectively gained when individuals are free to pursue their own ends, subject to rules that protect the common good of all. While Mill accepted the utility principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, he was concerned about the difficulty raised in the example of the sadistic guards (see p.41, 7). If the greatest good for the greatest number was purely quantitative, based on the quantities of pleasure and pain caused, what would stop one person's pleasure from being completely extinguished if the majority gained pleasure from that act. To address this difficulty, Mill focused on qualitative pleasures. He developed a system of higher and lower pleasures, preferring the higher pleasures to the lower ones: 'It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.' (Mill, 1863, Chapter 2) Mill maintained that the pleasures of the mind were higher than those of the body. There's a link between the two, as to be able to enjoy poetry or art, we need to eat and drink in order to survive. Nevertheless, Mill clearly believed that to pursue purely bodily pleasures - food, drink, drugs and sex - was not as high an objective as those that are intellectually demanding. When confronted with a choice between a pleasure of the body or a pleasure of the mind, that of the mind is to be preferred. 1 Are bodily pleasures lower than intellectual pleasures? 2 a Working on your own, arrange the following pleasures in qualitative order, from higher to lower quality:  eating, listening to music, making music, drinking alcohol, watching a good movie, viewing beautiful artwork, spending time with your partner, spending time with your friends, attending family gatherings, eating chocolate, reading or hearing poetry, playing sport, achieving fame. b Now compare your list with that of a partner or group, and try to come to an agreement. c What issues does this activity raise for Mills' utilitarianism?

Summary List

1. Bentham and Mill both accept the Principle of Utility and the assessment of resulting happiness as the criterion for assessing the moral value of an action. 2. But Mill rejected Bentham's way of assessing pleasure, being more concerned with the quality rather than quantity of happiness achieved.  

In general also, Bentham presents what is known 'act' utilitarianism, where the anticipated results of each individual act are taken into account, whilst Mill takes a 'rule' utilitarian view, namely that one should obey a rule if that rule will itself bring about more happiness within society.

3. Benefits of utilitarianism include its simplicity, and the way in which all considerations are brought under a single principle. It is also an approach that is a common-sense approach. 4. Criticisms, as they are given above, include the problem of moving from an 'is' to an 'ought', in terms of what is desired, of the impersonal assessment of what is in other people's interest, and of the inadequate treatment of issues of individual rights and integrity. Mel Thompson, Ethical Theory

Tasks 1 Why might the fact that we aren't always able to predict the future be a problem for utilitarianism? Give an example.

2 Suggest examples of pains that are good and pleasures that are bad. How do these cause difficulties for utilitarianism?

3 Are affection or honesty good in themselves, or only because they have good results?

4 Why might a critic of utilitarianism argue that the theory doesn't protect the interests of minority groups?

5 One contemporary utilitarian, Peter Singer, goes as far as to consider animals in the equation, the greatest good for the greatest number. When making moral decisions, should you include the happiness and well-being of non-human beings? Justify your view.

6 Why does Bentham's theory pose a problem for those who believe we have a special obligation for certain people (parents, family and so on?)

7 Sadistic guards torture a wrongly imprisoned innocent man. What difficulty does this example pose for Bentham's theory?

Applying Utilitarianism

Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of Indians, mostly terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and, after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protesters of the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest's privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion, the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. Jim, with some recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of the gun, he could hold the Captain, and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work: any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed and himself. The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?' Williams (1973), pp. 98-99 (a) On what grounds would a utilitarian kill the single prisoner? (b) Would you agree with a utilitarian that the action of choosing and killing the single prisoner was good? If so, why - and if not, why not? (c) Bernard Williams thinks that utilitarians find the decision to kill one too easy to take. What might he mean by this?

Act and rule utilitarianism Utilitarianism exists in act form and rule form. Act Utilitarians maintains that, whenever possible, the principle of utility must be directly applied for each individual situation. When faced with a moral choice, I must decide what action will lead to the greatest good in this particular situation.

If I'm in a situation in which lying will create the greatest pleasure, then I should lie. If, in the next situation, lying brings about a lesser result than telling the truth, then I should tell the truth. According to act Utilitarians, when determining whether the act is right, it is the value of the consequences of the particular act that count. I may break any law if, in that situation, greater happiness will result.

Act utilitarianism has the benefit of flexibility, being able to take into account individual situations at a given moment, although the actions that it justifies can change. This form of utilitarianism is more closely associated with Jeremy Bentham. There are a number of criticisms of act utilitarianism. 1. First, it has the potential to justify virtually any act if, in that particular case, the result generates the most happiness. 2. A second problem is that it's impractical to suggest that we should measure each and every moral choice every time, especially as we may not have all the information required by the hedonic calculus. 3. A third difficulty is that act utilitarianism can have some quite extreme results.

For example, an act utilitarian goes out to see a film. On the way to the cinema, she sees someone collecting money for charity. She gives her money to the collector instead of buying the ticket, and then goes home. A week passes and she sets out to the cinema again. She meets the collector again, hands over her money and again returns home. In each case, giving up her money to help the greatest number generates the greatest happiness. However, taken to extreme, all leisure activity would end – which seems a little hard to stomach. The other form of utilitarianism - rule utilitarianism - addresses this difficulty.

Rule utilitarianism focuses on general rules that everyone should follow to bring about the greatest good for that community. Rule utilitarianism establishes the best overall rule by determining the course of action which, when pursued by the whole community, leads to the best result. This form of utilitarianism is more closely associated with John Stuart Mill (1861) and John Austin (The Province of Jurisprudence, 1832).

In a particular situation, I must obey the rule even if it doesn't lead to the greatest pleasure for me in this particular situation. A rule utilitarian will maintain that I must always drive on the left-hand side of the road in the UK, even in situations in which that doesn't bring about the greatest pleasure for me - such as when I'm in a traffic jam - because that will ensure the greatest good when everyone acts in such a way. I should never lie because, as a general community rule, lying doesn't bring about the greatest good for the community. In each case, the rule takes priority over my immediate situation. Rule utilitarianism seems to overcome some of the difficulties encountered in act utilitarianism. In the case described above, the woman would be able to see a film, because a rule that allows people leisure time would be acceptable. On the other hand, it creates difficulties of its own. The British philosopher R. M. Hare notes a weakness with rule utilitarianism. Suppose that a maniac is chasing someone who hides in my shop. The maniac runs into the shop and asks me where the person is. Our gut feeling would be to lie. A rule utilitarian would state that I have to be honest, because I'm not allowed to break a rule even though, in this instance, the result isn't the greatest good. (R. M. Hare; in Childress and Mctcquarrie, 1986, p. 642). In addition, it's possible that a rule utilitarian could still permit certain practices, such as slavery, that appear to be morally unacceptable. There's no guarantee that minority interests will be protected. As long as the slaves are the smaller proportion of the people, the greatest good might be to keep them enslaved because of the benefits that this would give to the majority.