Utilitarianism Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Utilitarianism – normative ethical theory that says an action is right iff it maximises overall utility (happiness, well‑being) for those affected. Utility – the capacity of actions/objects to produce pleasure/happiness or prevent pain/unhappiness. Consequentialism – the view that only the consequences of an action determine its moral status; utilitarianism is a specific brand of this. Greatest‑good principle – “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Variants – act, rule, total, average, preference, negative, two‑level, ideal utilitarianism, etc. (each tweaks what is maximised or how the calculation is done). Higher vs. lower pleasures (Mill) – intellectual/moral pleasures are intrinsically superior to purely sensual ones. Hedonic calculus (Bentham) – a systematic way to estimate pleasure/pain by eight dimensions (intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, number of people, and …). --- 📌 Must Remember Principle of Utility: Maximise the sum of utilities → $\displaystyle \max \sum{i} ui$. Act Utilitarianism: evaluate each concrete act by its expected consequences. Rule Utilitarianism: follow rules that generally maximise utility; avoids costly case‑by‑case calculation. Total vs. Average: Total: maximise $\sum ui$ (total happiness). Average: maximise $\frac{1}{N}\sum ui$ (average happiness). Preference Utilitarianism: satisfy true preferences (informed, rational) rather than mere pleasure. Negative Utilitarianism: primary aim is to minimise suffering (not maximise pleasure). Two‑Level Utilitarianism (Hare): use general rules for everyday life; switch to specific rules (act‑level) only when the situation demands precise calculation. Key criticisms – aggregation problem, demandingness, calculation‑time, justice conflict, quantifying utility. --- 🔄 Key Processes Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus List all affected persons. For each pleasure/pain, assess the eight factors: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, number of people, and extent (how many are affected). Add up the weighted scores → choose the action with the highest net score. Rule‑Utilitarian Decision Rule Identify candidate rule(s). Estimate long‑run utility of general adoption of each rule (consider compliance, rule‑following costs). Adopt the rule with the greatest expected aggregate utility. Preference‑Utilitarian Evaluation Distinguish manifest vs. true preferences. Convert true preferences into utility units (e.g., satisfaction scores). Sum across all affected beings; pick the action that yields the highest total preference satisfaction. Two‑Level Reasoning (Hare) Step 1: Ask whether a general rule covers the situation → follow it. Step 2: If the rule is too vague or the stakes are high, perform an act‑utilitarian calculation. --- 🔍 Key Comparisons Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism Act: “What does this specific act produce?” → precise but time‑consuming. Rule: “What rule, if everyone followed it, would produce?” → faster, but may allow sub‑optimal exceptions. Total vs. Average Utilitarianism Total: prefers a larger population with modest happiness (risk of “repugnant conclusion”). Average: may prefer smaller populations with higher per‑person welfare (can imply eliminating below‑average lives). Preference vs. Hedonic Utilitarianism Preference: values satisfaction of desires (including non‑pleasurable ones). Hedonic: values pleasure & pain alone. Negative vs. Classical Utilitarianism Negative: utility function weighted heavily toward pain reduction. Classical: treats pleasure and pain symmetrically (maximise pleasure, minimise pain). Utilitarianism vs. Deontology (Ross, Rawls) Utilitarian: outcome‑oriented, aggregates interests. Deontological: duty‑oriented, respects rights and rules regardless of aggregate welfare. --- ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Utilitarianism ignores justice.” – It does allow justice to be justified only insofar as it promotes overall utility; it does not deny justice, it re‑evaluates it. “Utility = pleasure only.” – Preference and ideal utilitarianism broaden the metric to include preferences, knowledge, beauty, etc. “We must calculate exact utilities for every decision.” – In practice, utilitarians rely on heuristics, rules of thumb, and established social conventions. “Higher pleasures mean ‘intellectual people are morally superior.’” – Mill meant that, ceteris paribus, higher pleasures are qualitatively better, not that people lacking them are immoral. --- 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition Utility‑Balance Sheet: treat each option like a spreadsheet, listing expected pleasures (+) and pains (–) with their eight Hedonic factors. The “Greatest‑Good Thermometer”: imagine a thermometer that rises with total/average utility; the moral temperature that feels “right” is the one that reads highest. Rule‑Proxy Shortcut: think of rules as pre‑computed utility maximisers—if a rule exists, you can skip the full calculation. --- 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Negative Utilitarianism may demand extreme actions (e.g., “kill to prevent future suffering”) – philosophers add compassionate weighting or “prioritarian” caps to avoid absurd outcomes. Ideal Utilitarianism (Moore) – includes intrinsic goods beyond pleasure (knowledge, beauty). The “Sheriff” Scenario – illustrates tension between a pure act calculation (punish innocent) and a rule constraint (“do not punish innocents”). Repugnant Conclusion – total‑utility maximisation can endorse a massive, barely‑happy population; average utilitarianism avoids it but introduces other counter‑intuitions. --- 📍 When to Use Which Act utilitarianism → novel, high‑stakes, one‑off decisions where reliable outcome data exist. Rule utilitarianism → everyday moral choices, professions with established norms (law, medicine). Two‑level utilitarianism → practical reasoning for agents with limited time/knowledge. Preference utilitarianism → when preferences are clear, informed, and can be measured (e.g., policy surveys). Negative utilitarianism → contexts where suffering is especially salient (e.g., humanitarian crises, animal welfare). Ideal utilitarianism → philosophical discussions that value non‑pleasurable goods. --- 👀 Patterns to Recognize Eight‑factor checklist → whenever a question mentions intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, number → think Bentham’s hedonic calculus. “Higher vs. lower pleasure” language → Mill’s distinction → assess qualitative hierarchy, not just quantity. “Greatest‑good for the greatest number” → classic utilitarian claim → check if the problem asks for aggregate vs. average utility. “Rule‑based” vs. “case‑by‑case” → signals act vs. rule utilitarianism. References to “true preferences” → Preference utilitarianism; watch for “manifest vs. true”. --- 🗂️ Exam Traps Confusing total and average – a question may ask which outcome is better; picking the one with more total happiness can be wrong if the prompt specifies “average utility”. Assuming Mill’s proof is a logical deduction – it’s a psychological appeal; test‑writers may list “naturalistic fallacy” as a critique. Treating “higher pleasures” as a ranking of people – the correct answer emphasizes quality of pleasure, not social status. Over‑applying the hedonic calculus – many exams expect you to note that full calculation is often impractical; the right answer may invoke rules of thumb. Choosing act utilitarianism for every scenario – the exam may reward recognizing when rule or two‑level utilitarianism is more appropriate. Neglecting non‑human sentients – a question on animal welfare expects you to cite Bentham’s “Can they suffer?” and Singer’s equal‑consideration principle. Misreading “negative utilitarianism” – it minimises suffering, not maximises happiness; avoid selecting answers that talk about “maximising pleasure”. ---