Explain Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Explain Utilitarianism striveUtilitarianism was developed in the 18th century by Hutcheson, who used the phrase the greatest good for the greatest number to set forth his theory. Hutchesons idea, seeks to find a rational means of assessing how best to indue this publicity of diversion into pr serveice. It is split into ii types numeral Utilitarianism, this is the earliest form in which what is deemed set is based on the assessment of leave behinds of a particular deportion, and Rule Utilitarianism which allows to be taken into account the general take in to inn that occurs when people follow general rules. It is argued that utilitarianism is a relativist, consequentialist and teleological system of ethics, prescribing no fixed clean rules and judge an carry out by its consequences or end leave behinds. Bentham and milling machinery each argued respectively for these types of Utilitarianism and thus their beliefs differ. Bentham was born in London at time of huge scientific and social change. He looked to produce a modernised approach to morality which would suit the changing society of the industrial age he grew up in. This was in like manner the era of the French and Ameri tush revolutions.He argued that humans were motivated by sport and perturb disposition has nonifyd mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pleasure and pain. This later on became known as Act Utilitarianism. Bentham believed that every nonpareil had an equal right to happiness irrespective of their situation or attitude in life and argued that everyone counted equally in the assessment of the benefits of an action. He believed that overall, this would benefit the individual who did so and this would break to that individuals greatest happiness as well.His theory is democratic as pleasure can non be for one soul alone. Benthams Hedonic Calculus this is what Bentham thought was an empirical process for making moral decisions, it weighs up the pai n and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It asks you to consider seven points 1. Purity (an act that causes only pleasure is better than one that causes the same amount of pleasure mixed with a shortsighted pain. When either pleasure or pain is at its extremes it is more pure however when mixed its rightness is less. ) 2.Remoteness (the more distant the benefits, in either space or time, the less weight we should generate them in making our decision. For example how long will it take for the pleasure of the action to take effect. ) 3. ardor (the less intense the pleasure of an action the less valuable that action is. However, if the action leads to intense pleasure consequently its value goes way up. ) 4. Certainty (the certainty criteria refers to the probability of the pleasure resulting from the act. So fundamentally how belike a certain action will cause a cause a certain action.If you accommodate to choose between an action which m ight cause pleasure and one that will definately cause the disired pealsure then you go with that action. ) 5. Extent (The more people enjoy the pleasure, the better. This was not among the original criteria described by Bentham, but was added by John Stuart tarry. ) 6. Duration (the duration of the pleasure caused by an act must alike be taken into account when assessing the goodness of the act. Short bursts of pleasure or short lasting pleasure is viewed as less valuable than lasting pleasure.So acts which last for long periods of time are preferred to those which are short lasting. ) 7. Consequence (The consequence of an act is the likelihood that the pleasures or pains that it causes will be followed by similar pleasures or pains. If the happiness that an act causes is likely to be followed by more happiness, then that act is better than a similar act that will cause only one instance of happiness. It is basically how m both times the pain or pleasure will occur.)For example if five guards were enjoying torturing one captive the hedonic calculus would suggest that this is ok because more pleasure is occurring than pain. If the probable pain of an action outweighs its pleasure then Bentham says that it is morally wrong. He believed this was the way of calculating happiness as a result of the course of an action and by this he was making the basis of deciding whether an action should be considered right or wrong. However going back to the guards example, is balimentation up a prisoner morally right because more people are enjoying it than feeling pain from it?During the 19th century plodding changed Benthams theory, Bentham implied any pleasure is of equal value pushpin is equal to poetry whereas Mill saying pleasures as higher and depress. He recognised that it was easier to settle for the more immediate and sensual pleasures like eating or drinking quite a than the nobler and perhaps more refined ones such as poetry or opera. Mill criticised Benth am for focusing morality on pleasure alone, which seemed rather base to him. Therefore he obdurate to introduce a theory of utilitarianism for everyone, this replaced pleasure with happiness.He believed in fiber not quantity of happiness. For Mill, happiness was defined as something which is cultured and spiritual than just physical. He distinguished this as higher and lower pleasures. He wrote it is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied Mill recognised that there were different ways of assessing the value of happiness. Mill unlike Bentham suggested a positive place for rules within an overall utilitarianist approach. Another difference between Bentham and Mill lies in the difference between Act and Rule theories of utilitarianism.Bentham thought each individual action should be treated separately without any rules to lam the individual whereas Mill proposed that you should make rules based on the consequences which tend to follow certain actions. For exam ple putting to death someone tends to cause pain, so we should have a rule against killing people. Therefore Mill and Bentham arrived to two very different approaches of morality. Mills outlook was very different to that of Benthams. Overall, however their weaknesses outweigh their strengths.They are not very convincing as ethical systems, and it is my opinion that some other approach to ethics is involve in order to do the morally right thing. An advantage of Benthams Act Utilitarianism is that it considers the consequences and happiness which result from actions this seems a sensible approach to ethics. The theory is also flexible and easy to apply it does not describe many confusing or difficult rules and provides a simple method for decision making. The theory also enables difficult decision making through its relativism.For example it would allow us to sacrifice individuals if it is of great benefit to society. The problem with Benthams theory however is that it is truly relat ivistic, so any conceivable action could be allowed for example, killing prisoners because five guards get pleasure from it. It also justifies the suffering of the innocent under a majority. It hike allows cruel or sadistic pleasure, since Bentham regarded all pleasure as equal, this was first thought of by a philosopher called Bernard Williams. Mills theory offers many advantages which get around the problems of Bentham and Act Utilitarianism.By distinguishing between the quality of pleasures, Mill rules out the possibility of sadism like in the case of the prison guards enjoying torturing a prisoner. Also, Mill is stating that certain actions are explicitly prohibited because they tend to promote pain. So, he would not allow killing, no matter how much it was enjoyed. However, Mills theory lacks the flexibility of Benthams, which means that sensible rule interruption is no longer possible. For example you could not tell small lies, even to protect others.There is another(prenomi nal) weakness in Mills idea of different qualities of pleasure this is, how can we judge what makes pleasure higher or lower? As surely this is a subjective matter, as opinions and preferences vary from person to person. It might also be argued that the concept of a competent judge is vague, since it is not clear whether we can really identify one. In conclusion, the theories put forward by Bentham and Mill fail to provide a convincing or useful approach to ethics. On the one hand, Benthams views are strikingly relativistic, allowing any pleasure.On the other hand, Mills Rule system lacks the flexibility to make sensible choices in difficult situations. It may be that some other and more modern version of the theory can overcome these problems, such as preference utilitarianism put forward by Peter Singer. Preference utilitarianism bases itself on the idea used in act utilitarianism, that the principle of utility is the most important basis of moral decision making. This principle i s about maximising pleasure and preventing pain. Preference utilitarianism retains this but simply modifies it to be subjective, that peoples preferences should be maximised not pleasure over pain.This is a simple way to be personal, allowing everyone their own say rather than presuming pleasure is always desirable. For example eating 30 bars of chocolate when obese may not cause pleasure as it is worsening their obesity however it is the persons preference to do this. If we could strike a balance between favouring firm moral principles and paying attention to significant consequences or the all-round upbeat of society. Such a compromise offers a more promising approach to ethics than the classical forms of Utilitarianism put forward by Mill and Bentham.