Utilitarianism

1. Bentham believes all pleasure & pain equal - some pleasures are not "superior"
2. Bentham used the Hedonic Calculus to decide whether or not an action is "right"

   Annotations:

   • HEDONIC CALCULUS: - INTENSITY - DURATION - CERTAINTY - PROPINQUITY (how soon will    the pleasure occur?) - FECUNDITY (probability that the action will be followed by sensations of a similar kind) - PURITY - EXTENT
3. Believed Utilitarianism should be the guide legislator of laws/rules
4. Believed Utilitarianism was not a "new" system - this is the way that humans have always operated
5. Bentham
   1. Philanthropist (performs generous/benevolant actions)
   2. Social reformer
      1. Believed in prison/legal reforms
      2. Saw society as a collection of individuals
   3. Supported
      1. Decriminalisation of homosexuality
      2. Seperation of church and state
      3. Abolition of death penalty
      4. Abolition of slavery
      5. Did not believe in the good of the community being put above the good of the individual
   4. Believed there is no such thing as natural justice - rights are only given to us by law
   5. Founder of Utilitarianism
   6. 1748-1832

1. Agreed with Utilitarianism's central tenets
2. Disagreed that all pleasures and pains are equal
   1. A response to Utilitarinism being called a "philosophy for pigs"
   2. "It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognise the fact that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others" - Mill
   3. Why
      1. Intellectual pleasures are just intrinsically better
      2. They have a "greater permanency, safety, uncostliness etc"
         1. PURER pleasure, more FECUNDITY
3. 1806-1873
4. Was extremely well educated

Annotations:

• "The rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance" - Garner and Rosen

1. Eg. executing the innocent man to avoid a riot may be for the immediate greatest good but would it be right in the long run as it would result in a world in which people have no rights

1. We should act on the preference of the individual unless it is outweighed by the preference of someone else
2. This preference could be avoid pain, experience utility
   1. However, can be more complex than this eg a human may have a preference to establish and maintain a healthy relationship, whilst a pig may have a preference to roll in mud
3. To fulfil this, you need to work out people's deisires and attempt to develop them

1. Condones abortion (particularly in the early stages)
   1. Weighs up mother's preference to foetus's pain - mother is rational and conscious so it outweighs
2. Singer believes in vegetarianism, as preference utilitarianism is extended to all sentient beings
   1. Still sees humans as "higher" than animals - if one had to eat meat to survive, this would be permissible in preference utilitarianism.
   2. Singer believes that an animal's preference to not get eaten outweighs a human's preference to eat meat

1. "each is to count for one, none to count for more than one"
   1. Could extend (arguably) to all sentient beings
      1. "the question is not, can they reason? nor can they talk? but can they suffer?" - Bentham
         1. Peter Singer

1. There are examples in which keeping to a rule can lead to more pain and less utility - contradiction?

1. Theoretically, any leisure activities are morally wrong, as this time could be spent doing charity work
2. Can disregard rights of individuals

1. Only interested in utility/pain from action