This document provides an overview of the moral philosophy of utilitarianism as developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It discusses key concepts in Bentham's act utilitarianism including the principle of maximizing happiness or pleasure for the greatest number. It also covers Mill's modifications focusing on distinguishing higher and lower qualities of pleasure. The document outlines criticisms of utilitarianism and alternative formulations like rule utilitarianism. It analyzes debates around applying the utilitarian calculus and issues of personal integrity raised by critics like Bernard Williams.

1. UTILITARIANISM

2. Utilitarianism
2
Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1831)
Act Utilitarianism
The morally right act for an agent A at a time
t, is that act available to A at t, that will
maximize the total amount of good in the
world (that will have the best consequences)
“The greatest good for the greatest
number”

3. Hedonistic Utilitarianism
3
What is good?
Pleasure and the absence of pain are good
Pleasure is any sensation you would rather have
than no sensation at all; and pain is any sensation
you’d rather not have than no sensation at all.
.

4. What Bentham thinks are the
advantages of Utilitarianism
4
 Neutralistic – treats everyone in the same way
 Realistic – it’s based on real psychology. It works with
people as it finds them and organizes society so that they
being that way actually has good consequences for
everyone.
 Non-metaphysical – it doesn't make goodness/badness
right/wrongness some sort of weird qualities. What in the
world is “a natural right?”
 Non-elitist – it counts all sentient creatures. And all types of
pleasures equally
 Determinate in principle – in principle, you can use the
hedonic calculus to get an actual answer to the
question of “what should I do in this case?”.

5. The Hedonic Calculus
5
For each action-alternative:
 Determine Intensity x duration
 Determine Probability
 Calculate Total = (intensity x duration) x Probability
Perform the action-alternative with the highest
total

6. The Hedonic Calculus: what should I do with my
$50
6
If I buy CALL OF DUTY: Black Ops II
• I will receive pleasure of 7 intensity for 30 hours.
The probably of this is high – 80%.
• The impact on me: 7 x 30 x .8 = 168 hedons
• My wife will be probably be somewhat annoyed
that I’m wasting my time and using up the TV. (-3
intensity for 5 hours at probability of 50%)
• The impact on her: -3 x 5 x .5 = - 7.5
hedons
TOTAL IMPACT: 160.5 hedons

7. The Hedonic Calculus: what should I do with my
$50
7
If I donate the money to a children’s
charity:
• I will receive pleasure of 3 intensity for 50 hours.
The probably of this is high – 80%.
• The impact on me: 3 x 50 x .8 = 120 hedons
• 50 Starving children will be cared for, each
receiving a pleasure of 9 intensity for 100 hours.
The probability for this is very high – 90%.
• The impact on her: 50 x 9 x .9 = 405 hedons
TOTAL IMPACT: 525 hedons

8. The Hedonic Calculus: what should I do with my
$50
8
1. If I buy myself Black Ops II, the world
will be improved by 160.5 hedons
2. If I donate the money to a children’s
charity the world will be improved by
525 hedons
3. I should do whatever will bring about
the greatest pleasure in the world
4. I should donate the money to the
charity

9. An important distinction
9
What is the right action for you to do? The action that a
good person would do?
 The subjectively right act – the act
you believe will maximize utility.
 The objectively right act – the act
that will actually maximize utility
 The epistemically right act – the
act that you are rationally warranted
to perform.

10. How do we regard different types of
pleasures?
10
 What counts as pleasure?
 What about sadistic and masochistic pleasures?
 Bentham: the source of pleasure doesn’t matter
 Are there higher and lower pleasures?
 Bentham: It’s a subjective criterion – “Pushpin is as
good as poetry”
 J.S. Mill: There is an objective quality to different
pleasures that should also be factor into our
calculations
Quality comes from what people would choose if
they had access to all possible pleasures

11. Are all goods commensurable?
11
Can all pleasures be roughly compared? Can they be
reduced to some sort of homogenous value?

12. Intellectual skill development:
Objection by counter-example
12
 An objection shows that there’s
something wrong with the theory or
with one the assumptions that
supports that theory.
 A counter-example is a specific
case to which the theory gives the
wrong answer according to our
ordinary intuitions

13. Counter-examples and
13
Utilitarianism
Assumptions made by Bentham’s Act
Utilitarianism:
① The right action is the one that maximizes the
total balanced of pleasure in the world
② The source of pleasure doesn't matter
③ Each person is to count for one, and none for
more than one
④ Tradeoffs of cost to some for gains to others
are acceptable
⑤ Values are homogenous

14. Criticisms of Utilitarianism
14
 It’s too difficult to apply
 People care about more than just pleasure
 We can not reduce all human goods into quantifiable
units which can be aggregated and compared
 There is no non-arbitrary limit to how far into the future we
should consider consequences
 Intention is important for determining the moral
status of actions, but no room for this in utilitarianism
 Justifies acts that seem to be plainly wrong like
murder and rape

15. Other forms of Utilitarianism
15
 Rule Utilitarianism - Always act
according to the rule that would
produce the most utility in the world
(vs. “act” utilitarianism)
 Preference Utilitarianism: Always
act so as to maximize satisfaction of
people’s preferences (vs. “Hedonistic”
Utilitarianism)

16. Mill’s personal relationship to
Bentham
 Son of Bentham’s best friend
 Raised to be the perfect
Utilitarian
 Prodigy – Oxford by 12
 Became an amazing Utilitarian
thinking machine completely
committed to the cause
 Had a complete mental
breakdown by the time he was
21 followed by disabling
clinical depression
 This caused him to rethink the
basic assumptions of
Utilitarianism

17. Mill’s central correction to
Utilitarianism
o Pleasures differ in quality as well as
in quantity “The Decided Preference
Criterion”:
o Humans prefer the higher
pleasures – those activities that “Of two pleasures … if one of the
engage their higher faculties two is, by those who are
competently acquainted with
o Higher pleasures are always going to both, placed so far above the other
trump lower pleasures – have an than they prefer it… and would not
infinite value by comparison. resign it for any quality of the other
pleasure … we are justified in
o Hedonic calculus can’t help us ascribing to it a superiority in
decide what is right anymore – we quality…”
need something else - Utilitarianism, Ch. II

18. We want happiness not

contentment one would be
There are things almost no
willing to trade for no amount of something
else
 Therefore, The most satisfactory life for anyone
will contain a mix of higher and lower
pleasures
 "it is better to be a human being
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”
 “it is better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
 This is true as a matter of empirical fact – its
what people want out of life. We want to be
proud of our lives. We want to live with human

19. A good enough life?
o A life with few and transitory pains
o A life with many and various
pleasures
o A life that is more active than
passive
o A life lived with a realistic
expectation of one’s prospects

20. What sort of life is a good (enough)
life?
 There are as many different
kinds of good lives as there are
individual persons:
 Different mixes of excitement and
tranquility
 Different combinations of higher
and lower pleasures
 Unique individuals require
unique recipes for happiness

21. Differences between Bentham and
Mill
Mill’s Utilitarian principle: Actions are right in proportion to
their tendency to increase the greatest happiness for the
greatest number.
Bentham’s Utilitarianism Mill’s “Utilitarianism” (?)
 Hedonistic  Non-hedonistic
 Pleasures vary in quality
 Pleasures are homogeneous
 Non-maximizing. Aims for a
threshhold of happiness
 Maximizing
 Sensitive to distribution
 Indifferent to distribution

22. Williams’s “Integrity objection” against
Utilitarianism
22
Jim is a botanist doing research in a
South American country led by a
brutal dictator. One day he finds
himself in the central square of a
small town facing 20 Indians who
have been randomly captured and
tied up as an example of what will
happen to rebels. The army captain
tells Jim that if he agrees to kill one
of the Indians, the others will be
released in honor of Jim’s status as a
guest. If, however, Jim refuses, then
all the Indians will be shot.
What should Jim do?

23. Williams’s “Integrity objection” against
Utilitarianism
23
 There’s a crucial moral distinction between
what happens and what I do
 Without this distinction we can not
understanding what it means to have
integrity
 Moral integrity requires the individual to
view himself as a moral agent whose
actions flow “from projects or attitudes
which in some cases he takes seriously at
the deepest level, as what his life is
about”
 Utilitarianism can’t understand this notion of
moral integrity, because it leaves no room
for describing the ethical importance of the
relationship between our
projects, identity, and actions.