amazon.co.ukUtilitarianism
Bentham's hedonic calculus, Mill's higher pleasures and harm principle, preference and negative utilitarianism - strengths, weaknesses and A* essay technique for AQA 7062 and OCR H573.
🎯 Learning Objectives
- State Bentham's principle of utility and apply the seven criteria of the hedonic calculus to a case (AO1)
- Explain Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures, the harm principle and rule utilitarianism (AO1)
- Explain later developments: preference utilitarianism (Singer, Hare) and negative utilitarianism (Popper) (AO1)
- Evaluate the main strengths (impartiality, common sense, empirical) and weaknesses (tyranny of the majority, measurement, integrity) (AO2)
- Compare utilitarianism with religious ethics (natural law, situation ethics) and apply to euthanasia and business cases (AO2)
- Write an evaluative essay with a sustained argument and justified verdict (AO2/AO3)
📋 Key Definitions and Core Concepts
principle of utility: Bentham: the rightness of an action depends on its tendency to promote the greatest happiness (pleasure over pain) for the greatest number.
hedonism: The view that pleasure (and absence of pain) is the only intrinsic good; Bentham's foundational claim - 'Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure'.
hedonic calculus: Bentham's seven criteria for measuring pleasure: intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, purity, extent.
act utilitarianism: The view that each individual act should be assessed by the utility of its consequences - always perform the act with the greatest utility in that situation.
rule utilitarianism: The view that rules yielding the greatest utility should be established and followed; acts conforming to such rules are right even if a particular act breaches the rule for gain.
higher and lower pleasures: Mill: pleasures of the intellect, imagination and moral sense are qualitatively superior to bodily pleasures; 'better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied'.
harm principle: Mill (On Liberty): liberty may only be restricted to prevent harm to others - the state and society may not coerce for the individual's own good.
preference utilitarianism: Singer: rightness depends on satisfying the greatest number of preferences, not pleasure; preferences are weighed impartially across all affected, including animals.
negative utilitarianism: Popper's variant: priority should be given to minimising suffering rather than maximising happiness.
two-level utilitarianism: Hare: intuitive rules for everyday decisions and critical utilitarian reasoning for hard cases or rule conflict.
Bentham: principle of utility and the hedonic calculus
Bentham (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789): 'Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.' Hedonism: pleasure is the only intrinsic good. Principle of utility: an action is right insofar as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Bentham's psychology: humans seek pleasure and avoid pain, so utility grounds both description and prescription. Hedonic calculus - seven criteria for measuring pleasure: intensity (how strong), duration (how long), certainty (how likely), remoteness (how soon), fecundity (will it produce more pleasures), purity (unmixed with pain), extent (how many affected). Bentham: 'every man to count for one, nobody for more than one' - strict impartiality.
Act utilitarianism: each act assessed individually by its consequences in that situation - no act is intrinsically wrong; the calculus decides. Application: lying is wrong only if it reduces utility in that instance; if lying saves five lives, the calculus requires it. Strengths: democratic and impartial; empirical (measures consequences, not intuitions); flexible - fits ordinary reasoning; simple single principle. Weaknesses: calculating is impractical in time-pressured decisions; pleasures may be incommensurable; individual rights can be overridden by majority benefit.
Bentham's egalitarian extension: 'the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?' - Bentham extends moral consideration to animals on the basis of sentience, anticipating Singer by two centuries; his penal reform (the Panopticon) applied utility to punishment: punishment is evil, justified only by preventing greater evil.
Mill: higher pleasures, harm principle and rule utilitarianism
Mill (Utilitarianism, 1861; On Liberty, 1859): accepts the principle of utility but distinguishes quality from quantity: pleasures of the intellect, imagination and moral sense are qualitatively superior to bodily pleasures - 'it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied'. Mill's test: those who have experienced both prefer the higher pleasure; competent judges are the arbiters of quality. This answers the 'swine philosophy' charge against Bentham but complicates the calculus - qualities are not measurable on Bentham's scale.
Harm principle (On Liberty): liberty may only be restricted to prevent harm to others; society may not coerce for a person's own good. This provides a rights-protection Mill derives from utility: long-run utility is maximised by protecting individual liberty, since free inquiry and self-development produce the higher pleasures and social progress. Critique: critics say the harm principle is not itself utilitarian - it protects rights regardless of utility in a given case, so Mill smuggles in deontology.
Rule utilitarianism: rather than calculating per act, establish rules whose general observance maximises utility (no stealing, no lying); acts conforming to such rules are right even if a particular breach would gain utility. Strengths: protects rights and integrity; practical (rules are learnable); avoids the tyranny of the majority. Weaknesses: rule worship - if following the rule reduces utility in a case, the utilitarian principle itself demands breach; so rule utilitarianism either collapses into act utilitarianism or violates its own foundation.
Mill's 'proof' of the principle of utility (Utilitarianism ch. 4): the only proof that something is desirable is that people actually desire it; happiness is desirable (each person's happiness is a good to that person); the general happiness is desirable to the aggregate of persons - a psychological premise plus an inferential step critics call the fallacy of composition (each person's happiness being good to them does not entail the general happiness is good to each); Mill's proof is contested but shows how he grounds the principle empirically rather than by intuition.
Later developments: preference and negative utilitarianism
Singer (Practical Ethics, 1979): preference utilitarianism - rightness depends on satisfying the greatest number of preferences, not producing pleasure; preferences are weighed impartially across all affected, including animals (speciesism - privileging human preferences without justification - is irrational). Singer's principle: give equal weight to like interests. Strengths: avoids the problem of hedonic measurement; respects autonomy and pluralism (people value different things); extends moral consideration to animals and future generations. Weaknesses: whose preferences count (informed, present, future?); 'offensive preferences' (racist or sadistic preferences) must be weighed too, or special reasons must exclude them - which reintroduces non-utilitarian judgment.
Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945): negative utilitarianism - priority to minimising suffering over maximising happiness; suffering is more urgent and more measurable than happiness. Standard critique: taken literally it implies painless extinction of all life would be ideal (the 'pinprick argument' variant) - so it needs the maximising side back.
Hare (Moral Thinking, 1981): two-level utilitarianism - everyday decisions follow intuitive rules (do not lie, keep promises); hard cases and rule conflicts are resolved by critical utilitarian reasoning. This reconciles the practicality of rules with the authority of utility and answers the 'rule worship' charge by making rules defeasible.
Ideal utilitarianism (Moore, Principia Ethica, 1903; Rashdall, 1907): goods other than pleasure - knowledge, friendship, beauty, virtue - are intrinsically good; rightness maximises the sum of ideal goods, not pleasure. This escapes hedonism but multiplies intrinsic goods, so the calculus loses its single measure - a standard AO2 point.
Strengths, weaknesses and religious comparison
Strengths: (1) impartial and democratic - every person counts for one, which fits modern equality; (2) empirical - outcomes can be observed, unlike appeals to intuition or divine command; (3) flexible - no act is intrinsically wrong, which fits dilemmas (euthanasia, whistle-blowing); (4) common sense - matches ordinary cost-benefit reasoning; (5) Singer's extension to animals and future generations fits contemporary concerns.
Weaknesses: (1) tyranny of the majority - innocent minorities (rights, dignitary harms) may be sacrificed to aggregate benefit (the transplant case: kill one healthy patient to save five); (2) measurement - hedonic calculus is impractical and pleasures are incommensurable; (3) integrity and special relationships - impartiality makes partiality to family and friends irrational, which most people reject (Williams' integrity objection: Jim and the Indians - shooting one to save twenty makes Jim complicit in a way utilitarianism cannot capture); (4) consequences are uncertain - calculation rests on speculation; (5) it licenses acts most people deem monstrous (organised cruelty) if the numbers work.
Religious comparison: natural law holds some acts intrinsically wrong regardless of outcome (contraception, euthanasia) - utilitarianism denies this; situation ethics (Fletcher) is a hybrid: one rule (agape) applied flexibly to each situation - it shares utilitarian flexibility but grounds the maxim in love of neighbour, not pleasure. AQA 7062 section 3.2.1.3 expects Bentham, Mill and comparison with religious ethics; OCR H573/02 expects Bentham, Mill, preference and applications (euthanasia, business, sexual ethics).
Judgement for A*: act utilitarianism is the purest form but exposes rights; rule and two-level variants protect rights but risk collapsing back into act utilitarianism; the decisive questions are measurement and the sacrifice of the innocent - essays should weigh whether utilitarianism's impartiality is a strength or the source of its most serious failures.
Singer's practical extension: the drowning child argument (Famine, Affluence and Morality, 1972) - if preventing suffering is in our power at small cost, we are morally required to act; distance is morally irrelevant; this radicalises utilitarian impartiality into a demanding global ethic - the standard application to famine and charitable duty. Religious comparison in full: Bentham's hedonism directly opposes natural law's telos (pleasure vs purpose); Mill's higher pleasures converge with Christian moral education; situation ethics (Fletcher) shares the per-situation method but grounds the maxim in agape; Aquinas would reject the calculus wholesale - some acts are intrinsically wrong regardless of outcome. AQA 7062 section 3.2.1.3 explicitly expects this comparison.
Exam technique: applications and pitfalls
Exam structure: AQA 7062 Paper 1 Section B: each question = 25 marks - 10-mark AO1 'Explain...' then 15-mark AO2 'Critically discuss...'; two questions answered. OCR H573/02: extended 'Critically discuss' essays plus AO1 components. Plan for AO2: (1) state the theory's claim; (2) strongest supporting point with scholar; (3) strongest critique with scholar; (4) weigh; (5) justified verdict.
Applications to have ready: euthanasia (Bentham: calculus per case; Mill: harm principle permits voluntary choice; Singer: preference of the dying patient; natural law: intrinsically wrong - contrast), business (utilitarian cost-benefit on pollution and wages vs Kantian dignity of workers), sexual ethics (utilitarian harm-based consent vs natural law telos). Name one case study per application.
- Pitfalls: confusing act and rule utilitarianism (per-act calculation vs rules); presenting Mill's harm principle as a separate non-utilitarian theory (it is Mill's own derivation); asserting 'greatest happiness' without the calculus criteria; missing Mill's quality/quantity distinction - the standard AO1 differentiator; forgetting Singer and preference utilitarianism in OCR answers; ignoring Williams' integrity objection; listing strengths and weaknesses without weighing.
- Examiner tips: memorise the seven calculus criteria in order (intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, fecundity, purity, extent); quote 'better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied' and 'every man to count for one'; apply the calculus to one worked example (e.g. euthanasia case); state whether you defend act, rule or preference utilitarianism in your conclusion and say why.
Further applications: whistle-blowing (utilitarian calculus vs Kantian duty); sexual ethics (harm-based consent vs NL telos); charity and famine (Singer's drowning child); punishment (Bentham: prevention of greater evil; Kant: retribution - punishment must fit the crime as an end in itself, opposing pure utility). A* essays pair utilitarianism with a contrasting theory per application.
Spec note: OCR H573/02 also expects the link between utilitarianism and meta-ethics - the naturalistic fallacy (Moore): defining 'good' as pleasure commits it, so the theory's foundation is philosophically contested even before applications.
💡 Worked Example
Exam-style: 'Act utilitarianism is the most convincing form of utilitarianism.' Critically discuss this claim. [AQA 7062 15-mark AO2 essay / OCR H573 extended essay]
Mark-scheme logic: AO1 required: Bentham's principle of utility and hedonic calculus (seven criteria); act utilitarianism per-act assessment; Mill's higher/lower pleasures, harm principle and rule utilitarianism; Singer's preference utilitarianism and Hare's two-level variant. AO2 required: (1) strength of act utilitarianism - purity and flexibility: no act is intrinsically wrong, the calculus fits dilemmas; (2) critique - measurement is impractical and rights may be sacrificed to the majority (transplant case); (3) rule utilitarianism protects rights and integrity but faces rule worship and collapse into act utilitarianism; (4) Mill's quality distinction answers 'swine philosophy' but breaks measurability; (5) Singer avoids hedonic measurement but must exclude offensive preferences somehow; (6) weigh and conclude - e.g. two-level or preference variants are more convincing than pure act utilitarianism because they protect integrity while keeping the utility principle, and justify the verdict.
❓ Practice Questions & Mark Schemes
Explain Bentham's hedonic calculus. [10 marks AO1]
Answer: AO1 answer: Bentham (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789) - hedonism: 'Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure'; the principle of utility: rightness depends on promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number. The hedonic calculus measures pleasure by seven criteria: intensity (how strong), duration (how long), certainty (how likely), remoteness (how soon), fecundity (will it produce more pleasures), purity (unmixed with pain), extent (how many affected). Every man counts for one, nobody for more than one - strict impartiality. Marks awarded for: the principle of utility, all seven criteria named, and the impartiality point.
'Rule utilitarianism is more convincing than act utilitarianism.' Critically discuss. [15 marks AO2]
Answer: AO1 anchor: act utilitarianism (per-act calculation - Bentham); rule utilitarianism (rules whose general observance maximises utility - Mill's development). AO2 required: (1) act utilitarianism strengths - flexible, no act intrinsically wrong, fits dilemmas; (2) weaknesses - impractical calculation, uncertain consequences, rights sacrificed to the majority (transplant case); (3) rule utilitarianism strengths - protects rights and integrity, rules are learnable; (4) weakness - rule worship: if following the rule reduces utility in a case, the utility principle itself demands breach, so rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism or violates its own foundation; (5) Hare's two-level variant - intuitive rules for everyday cases, critical reasoning for hard cases - reconciles the two; (6) weigh and conclude with a justified verdict, e.g. rule utilitarianism is more convincing in practice, but the rule-worship objection shows it must collapse into act utilitarianism or be abandoned as pure utilitarianism.
Explain Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures and the harm principle. [10 marks AO1]
Answer: AO1 answer: Mill (Utilitarianism, 1861) accepts the principle of utility but distinguishes quality from quantity: pleasures of the intellect, imagination and moral sense are qualitatively superior to bodily pleasures - 'better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied'; competent judges (who have experienced both) arbitrate quality. The harm principle (On Liberty, 1859): liberty may only be restricted to prevent harm to others - society may not coerce for the individual's own good; Mill derives this from utility: long-run utility is maximised by protecting liberty, since free inquiry and self-development produce the higher pleasures. Marks awarded for: the quality/quantity distinction, the Socrates quote, competent judges, and the harm principle accurately stated.
'Utilitarianism is a good theory but not a good guide to action.' Critically discuss. [15 marks AO2]
Answer: AO2 required: (1) strengths - impartial ('every man to count for one'), empirical, flexible, matches ordinary cost-benefit reasoning; (2) action problems - the hedonic calculus is impractical in time-pressured decisions; pleasures are incommensurable; consequences are uncertain; (3) Williams' integrity objection - impartiality makes partiality to family irrational (Jim and the Indians: shooting one to save twenty makes Jim complicit in a way the theory cannot capture); (4) tyranny of the majority - innocent minorities sacrificed to aggregate benefit; (5) replies - rule and two-level utilitarianism (Hare) provide action-guidance; Mill's quality distinction and harm principle protect liberty; (6) weigh - the theory captures moral intuition about welfare but action-guidance fails on measurement and integrity; conclude with a justified verdict, e.g. as a standard of rightness utilitarianism is strong, but as a decision procedure it needs Hare's two-level amendment.
Explain Singer's preference utilitarianism. [10 marks AO1]
Answer: AO1 answer: Singer (Practical Ethics, 1979) - rightness depends on satisfying the greatest number of preferences, not producing pleasure; preferences are weighed impartially across all affected, including animals - speciesism (privileging human preferences without justification) is irrational; give equal weight to like interests. Strengths: avoids hedonic measurement; respects autonomy and pluralism; extends moral consideration to animals and future generations. Weaknesses: whose preferences count (informed, present, future?); offensive preferences (racist, sadistic) must be weighed or excluded by special reasons - which reintroduces non-utilitarian judgement. Marks awarded for: preference not pleasure as the currency, impartial weighing, the speciesism point, and the offensive-preferences problem.
'The tyranny of the majority objection defeats utilitarianism.' Critically assess. [15 marks AO2]
Answer: AO1 anchor: the objection - innocent minorities (rights, dignitary harms) may be sacrificed to aggregate benefit (the transplant case: kill one healthy patient to save five). AO2 required: (1) strength - act utilitarianism genuinely licenses this: if the calculus favours it, no act is intrinsically wrong; organised cruelty is permitted if the numbers work; (2) rule utilitarian reply - rules protecting rights maximise long-run utility (trust, security, higher pleasures); (3) Mill's harm principle restricts coercion for others' benefit; (4) collapse objection - rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism when a breach would maximise utility (rule worship); (5) preference reply (Singer) - equal weight to like interests protects minorities but offensive preferences complicate; (6) weigh - the objection defeats pure act utilitarianism but not rule or two-level variants; conclude with a justified verdict, e.g. it defeats the purest form; whether amended forms survive depends on the rule-worship and collapse objections.