Jeremy Bentham, the proponent of Act Utilitarianism argued for the principle of utility, because he believed that everyone had the right to happiness, irrespective of their situation in life. He argued that everyone counted equally in the assessment of the benefits of an action. He argued that the benefits of these assessments should be measured in terms of its duration, which meant that a short term benefit would not have the same effect on someone as those of a long term benefit. Its intensity, how near, immediate and certain it is, meaning that a benefit that is possible is of much less value than a certain benefit. How free from pain the benefit is, and whether or not it will lead on to pleasure or pain. Bentham devised a complicated means of determining which action contained more pleasure versus pain. For Bentham pleasures and pain were numbers which were assigned to certain criteria, the same as the benefits criteria (as above). The person then faced with the particular moral issue was then meant to assign these criteria to the situation and determine which action had the greatest balance of pleasure over evil. Bentham clearly believed that, this made morality a science, and since Bentham’s method was primarily focused on the amount of pleasure and pain that was measured it is known as Quantitative Utilitarianism. Bentham seems to imply that both pleasure and pain are equal in value, since he believes that they thrown into an equation, much like mathematics and come out with the correct moral answer. A disagreement among many Utilitarians is whether the action each is so unique that it can be judged independently from all the other actions or whether the rules of moral behaviour can be applied. This theory that claims that each action is unique is Act Utilitarianism. The circumstances that surround each action are different from any other action, therefore for every action that is made a different set of consequences must be calculated. Every time that someone wants to decide what, morally, to do, a new calculation must be made. Therefore, Act Utilitarianism requires people to regularly calculate the consequences of their behaviour. This coincided with the fact that Bentham believed that pleasure could be measured and calculated like a mathematical equation, therefore leading him to the idea that every situation was different because every time that you worked something out mathematically the situation had changed, leading him to believe that every moral action had to be different.
John Stuart Mill was the first Utilitarian to show that Bentham’s method of measuring pleasure and pain was problematic. The main objections that Mill saw were that Bentham never distinguished between the different kinds of pleasure and the different qualities of pleasure. He did not accept Bentham’s view that the greatest amounts of pleasure were all that mattered. Mill Pointed out there are many different amounts of pleasure or qualities pf pleasure that could be placed in a hierarchy. Mill believed that it was more sensible to enjoy small amounts of these ‘higher’ pleasures, because they would satisfy you more than perhaps the ‘lower’ pleasures. Mill believed that intellectual pleasures were much more satisfying than that of the physical ones. This is because intellectual pleasures stimulated and exercised the mind as well as have an influence on the person’s life. For example it would be much more pleasurable satisfying to read a book on political theory than enjoy a big meal. Even though both those actions are pleasurable the reading of the book will stimulate thought and alter your perceptions of political organizations. Leaving you with more depth and knowledge than before you read the book. The pleasure of the meal is much limited and therefore much shorter lived. Mill’s theory is called Qualitative Utilitarianism. Mill who believed in Rule Utilitarianism said that over time, the general rules or principles of moral behaviour can be developed. So that there will be types of actions that over long periods of time will maximise utility. For example, telling the truth for long periods of time will maximise the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Rule Utilitarians believe that we can predict which actions will cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number, therefore making them our general moral rules. This means that if a person is performing an action then they do not have to calculate the consequences of this action, they just have to follow a set of principle rules. Thus, meaning that the actions of Rule Utilitarians will be much less time consuming and easier. Although they save time, they do however have to establish which actions will be the one that will maximise the greatest utility.
There are both Act and Rule Utilitarians, even though these two versions of utilitarianism show different ways in which you should calculate moral behaviour, neither version have provided enough proof to reject the alternative reproach. Both Act and Rule Utilitarianism make perfect sense in how you should act in moral situations but neither shows any flaws in either of the approaches.
