A historical connection exists A historical connection exists between Epicurus’ hedonism and a between Epicurus’ hedonism and a very influential moral theory called very influential moral theory called

utilitarianism. utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism was essentially a Utilitarianism was essentially a British phenomenon, a philosophy British phenomenon, a philosophy based on empirical investigation, based on empirical investigation, hedonism, and the association of hedonism, and the association of ideas and a liberal and humane ideas and a liberal and humane

approach to political and economic approach to political and economic affairs. affairs.

Bentham, may not have been the deepest

philosophers in the Western tradition, was

certainly one of the most practically oriented and

influential. He had an active hand in

the reformation of the British legal system of his

day.

OBy By utilityutility is meant that property in any object, is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness and to prevent pleasure, good or happiness and to prevent happening of mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness happening of mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered. to the party whose interest is considered.

OThe interest of the community is one of the most The interest of the community is one of the most general expressions of pleasure. A general expressions of pleasure. A communitycommunity is is a fictitious “a fictitious “bodybody” composed of ” composed of individual individual persons persons who constitute as it were its who constitute as it were its ““membersmembers”. ”.

Community’s interest Community’s interest = = sum-total of the interests of the several members who compose it.

CALCULUS OF FELICITYCALCULUS OF FELICITYOBentham’s advice was articulated

in what he called “the calculus of felicity.”

OFELICITYFELICITY = great happiness; bliss. OAccording to it, pleasure can be

catalogued into seven categories, and this catalogue provides a rational analysis of pleasure.

The 7 categories:The 7 categories:O INTENSITY – how intense?INTENSITY – how intense?O DURATION – how long?DURATION – how long?O CERTAINTY – how sure?CERTAINTY – how sure?O PROPINQUITY – how soon?PROPINQUITY – how soon?O FECUNDITY – how many more?FECUNDITY – how many more?O PURITY – how free from pain?PURITY – how free from pain?O EXTENT – how many people are EXTENT – how many people are

affected? affected?

According to Bentham, whenever you consider performing any action, you can analyze its value in terms of these "categories” and contrast it with its

alternatives. (Ex: BEACH GUILT)Going to the Beach with friends (most glorious day of the year)

Studying for CHEMISTRY exam(tomorrow)

1. Intense fun with friends 2. long-term happiness

3. Very sure that happiness will come.

5. If you ace the exam, you have more opportunities of becoming happy.

4. Happiness will come as soon as you hit the beach with friends.

7. If you study and ace the exam, mom and dad will be happy.

6. All FUN! FUN! Pain-free Are the assets of studying strong enough to overcome its deficits in

the face of the fun enticing you to the beach?

Of course, the guilt you would experience at the beach has to be taken

into consideration, too.

Bentham thought that his calculus of felicity was actually the schematization of something we do semiconsciously (hence often poorly) anyway and that once we become experienced in manipulating these figures; we would be

able to do it intuitively. O In category 7: EXTENTIn category 7: EXTENT, it is in this category

that makes utilitarianism a form of social hedonism. One must consider the pleasure and pains of of others and not only one’s own.

O Besides the social aspect of utilitarianism, there is also a democratic bias built into it- When it comes to evaluating acts in terms of the pleasure they will produce, Bentham firmly believed “one person, one vote” principle. Each person’s judgment is as important as every other’s.

““PREJUDICE APART, THE GAME OF PREJUDICE APART, THE GAME OF PUSH-PIN IS OF EQUAL VALUE WITH PUSH-PIN IS OF EQUAL VALUE WITH THE ARTS AND SCIENCES OF MUSIC THE ARTS AND SCIENCES OF MUSIC

AND POETRY. AND POETRY. IF THE GAME OF PUSH-PIN IF THE GAME OF PUSH-PIN

FURNISHES MORE PLEASURE, IT IS FURNISHES MORE PLEASURE, IT IS MORE VALUABLE THAN EITHER.”MORE VALUABLE THAN EITHER.”

The greatest systematic criticism of The greatest systematic criticism of utilitarianism came from John Stuart utilitarianism came from John Stuart

Mill. John thought of himself as a Mill. John thought of himself as a disciple of Bentham, but was clearly disciple of Bentham, but was clearly

concerned about the implications concerned about the implications some of Bentham’s formulations of some of Bentham’s formulations of

utilitarianism had.utilitarianism had.

Against the utilitarian thesis, Mill Against the utilitarian thesis, Mill argued that life had more important argued that life had more important

ends than simply the pursuit of ends than simply the pursuit of pleasure. Moreover, not all pleasures pleasure. Moreover, not all pleasures

are equally valuable – the factor are equally valuable – the factor ignored in felicific calculus was ignored in felicific calculus was

quality. quality.

JOHN STUART MILL (1773-1836)

Mill feared than an adherent of the calculus of felicity might conclude that push-pin (or watching football on TV) is better than the arts and sciences(reading Shakespearian sonnets), and Mill knew in his heart that this is simply not the case. Problem: Problem: “the calculus” generates a “the calculus” generates a purely quantitative analysis, and Mill purely quantitative analysis, and Mill was convinced that quality in was convinced that quality in pleasure was even more important pleasure was even more important than quantity. than quantity.

What if you’re offered the following proposition to the electorate of a particular state:

“It has been determined that the teaching of Shakespearian in the schools of this state costs each taxpayer $25 each five years. The state would like to know if you would prefer to continue paying $25 per person for the next 5 years for Shakespeare lessons or would you rather prefer a rebate of the $25 in the

form of 2 cases of beer per voter?”

O Mill was afraid that given the tenuous foothold that culture has among the masses and given Bentham’s “one person, one vote” principle, acts with that he believed would be of more quality would lose out.

O In order to counteract the possibility of “leveling down” of culture, Mill insisted on the fact that it was part of our human heritage to have desires higher than those that lent themselves to analysis in terms of the calculus of felicity.

Quality of PleasureQuality of Pleasure

Mill’s objection is perhaps summed up in his famous line:

“THE UNCULTIVATED CANNOT BE COMPETENT JUDGES OF

CULTIVATION”

If one must base “competence” before one is granted a vote, then on many issues, only a small minority will have the right to express an opinion (best educated, wealthiest, most powerful segment of the society).

Whoever supposes that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness – that the superior being, in anything like equal circumstances, is not happier than the inferior – confounds the 2 very different ideas of happiness and content.

It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can

learn to bear is imperfections, if they are bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed

unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not all the goof which those imperfections qualify.

““IT IS BETTER TO BE SOCRATES IT IS BETTER TO BE SOCRATES DISSATISFIED THAN A FOOL DISSATISFIED THAN A FOOL

SATISFIEDSATISFIED” ” – the fool only know their own side of the question and the other party to the comparison knows

both.

O It appears that morality must essentially have something to do with promoting happiness and well-being while minimizing unhappiness and misery.

O It would be very odd to think that some act was good even though it brought nothing unhappiness and misery to absolutely everybody. Still some serious problems arise like its “consequentialist” nature (has to be dealt with shortly), and he other has to do with the notions of justice and meritoriousness.

PROBLEMS OF UTILITARIANISM-PROBLEMS OF UTILITARIANISM-

O ACT UTILITARIANISM ACT UTILITARIANISM – contends that we should act so as to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the most people. In other words, before acting, ask yourself this: What will be the consequences of my action? If the consequences are good, the actions is If the consequences are good, the actions is right; if they are bad, then the action is wrongright; if they are bad, then the action is wrong. For act utilitarian, THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

O RULE UTILITARIANISM- RULE UTILITARIANISM- in contemplating one of two acts, a person should perform that act governed by a (hypothetical) rule whose general obedience would produce the greatest amount of happiness. Ethicist point out that we get into so many dilemmas when we apply the “greatest happiness” principle to a particular act rather than to the general rule that the act implements. What we should be concerned with is following the rules that have the best consequences, not with carrying out that has the best consequences.

O An act is GOOD or BAD only in terms of its CONSEQUENCES.

O Acts that result in happiness, well-being, and flourishing are good; acts that result in the opposite are bad. We also feel that some acts – those performed out of moral duty – are right independent of their moral consequences.

Some Implications...Some Implications...

The problem of justice and meritoriousness:The problem of justice and meritoriousness:

CASE 1:

The problem of justice The problem of justice and meritoriousness:and meritoriousness:

CASE 2: