What becomes evident to the reader, is one’s natural inability to calculate pleasure. In order to overcome this problem Bentham introduced the hedonic calculus, that simply calculates the pleasure and pain achieved by moral actions, in order to decide which will bring about the greatest pleasure for the greatest number. The calculus is based on seven factors:
- The intensity of pleasure.
- The duration of pleasure.
- The certainty or uncertainty of pleasure.
- The remoteness of the pleasure.
- The chance of pleasure being followed by pleasurable sensations.
- The purity of the pleasure and the chance of it not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
- The number of persons, to which the pleasure extends.
Bentham believed that if one was to measure the consequences of an actions using the above guidelines, then the most morally right consequence would be achieved, making the action the correct one to pursue.
Another great British theologian who persued the theory of utilitarianism was John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). Mill was considered to perhaps the greatest philosopher of the nineteenth century concentrating his works on feminism (On the Subjugation of Women) and utilitarianism, ‘Utilitarianism’ (1861). Mill maintained Bentham line in that that the well-being of the individual was of greatest importance and that happiness was most effectively gained when individuals are free to pursue their own ends. Mill also believed though, that all actions should be subject to a set of rules that protect the common good of all. Mill sets this point forward in response to the possibility that one persons pleasure could be made extinct if the majority of people gained pleasure for a specific act. To address this problem, Mill introduced the opinion that actions should only be considered to be morally good, if they didn’t infringe with society’s hidden rules i.e. respecting others and their property. Mill also attempted to address the problem of the quantitive values of pleasure, stating that pleasures of the mind were higher that those of the body. For example, Mill believed that poetry and literature which are intellectually more challenging, are more pleasurable than those of the body such as drugs and sex, thus allowing pleasure to be calculated with greater effectiveness.
Utilitarianism exists in two forms: Act and Rule. Act utilitarians maintain that wherever possible, the principle of utility should be applied to each individual situation. Thus, when faced with a moral dilemma, the appropriate action is the action that will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. This form of utilitarianism would consider lying for the good of another, to be acceptable if all other actions brought pain. Yet it could be that in a separate situation, lying will bring about more pain than good, thus act utilitarians would believe that telling the truth would be the morally right action. Act utiliterianists also believe that when determining whether or not an act is right, one should consider the value of the consequences, rather than whether or not the actions break any laws or codes of conduct. This opinion is supported by Bentham and has the positive effect of being consistent, as the sole rule to be followed when considering the relevant action is that of pleasure. Another benefit of act utilitarianism is it’s flexibility, in that it is able to take in account any individual situation, although the actions it justifies can change.
Rule utilitarianism on the other hand, focuses on a general set of rules that everyone should follow, in order to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. Whereas act utilitarians take in to consideration no rules, rules utilitarians believe that when pursuing the best course of action, one should follow a set of general rules, which when followed by the rest of the community, will bring about the best overall result. This form of utilitarianism if followed by John Stuart Mill (1861) and John Austin, ‘The Province of Jurisprudence’ (1832), who both believe that one should follow a set of rules that will bring about the greatest good for the community, even if it is not pleasurable for the individual.
Rule utilitarianism is able to overcome the difficulties that ensue when following act utilitarianism. For example, act utilitarianism follows the opinion that a man could be persecuted by sadists even if he has committed no wrong, according to rule utilitarianism this is wrong, as there is a rule to be followed by the whole community that one shouldn’t persecute another.
Rule utilitarianism also has it’s own weaknesses. If a murder were to come into your house looking for a man that you were hiding, according to rule utilitarianism you should tell the murder of his whereabouts due to the fact that one has to be honest. In contrast, act utiliterianists would consider what would be the best outcome and thus lie to the murderer.
In essence, the main difference between the two forms is that of following ruels. Act utilitarians believe that rules don’t matter as long as the greatest pleasure possible is achieved. Yet this could come at the expense of another person’s happiness, according to rule utilitarians this is unjust and we should all follow a set of common rules that will bring the greatest good for all of the community.
The ‘Greatest Happiness Principle’ (GHP) is the fundamental principle on which utilitarianism is based. If it were said, that there is a rule that could bring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, on the surface of this many people would agree that this would be a splendid idea. Yet, as one takes a more in depth look at the principle, certain conflicts occur.
The GHP is in itself, a very positive thought. In evaluating what is ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’, one has to evaluate between the positive and negative consequences of ones actions, thus deciding upon what is the correct action to perform. This is a very democratic idea requiring a large amount of research and empirical evidence, as both outcomes need to be evaluated and considered creating an ‘Ethical Discourse.’ What this does cause, is a very intense and tiring lifestyle as one has to evaluate the outcome of their actions, every time they act upon something. The strain of this lifestyle was shown upon John Stuart Mill, who suffered a nervous breakdown at a young age.
In creating happiness, the community is considered as a whole rather than individuals, making it an inclusive idea. This in its purest form can create a happier and thriving community happiness. For example, a town may want to create a road that bypasses the town centre making it safer for the people who live there. The only place to put this road though is through the land of two farmers, in following this principle the road should be built. This shows that this principle can forget is the rights and wishes of the minority i.e. the farmers, to whom an action could cause pain and suffering.
As the argument is a ‘Teleological’ one, it gives us an insight into the future. In the case of the building of a new road, the argument identifies the reduction in traffic and pollution through the residential town as the consequences of the actions. Yet having built the road, new unexpected consequences could arrive such as the effects on the wildlife of different organisms, thus showing the inability of humans to predict all of the possible consequences of our actions.
A popular aspect of the argument is its simplicity and the fact that it is easily understood. Another aspect of this argument which is pleasing to some is that everything is potentially right and wrong. In response to this, one could argue that arguments that are simple and easily and understood highlight lack of thought highlighting that the GHP could possibly support such crimes as murder and theft, which are considered by the large minority of the community to be wrong.
In response to the argument, many people doubt the argument due to its lack of consideration for ones conscience and intention. For example, one person may be faced with a dilemma that may mean they have to perform an action which they would not choose to do, such as murder, in order to provide happiness for the community. The consequences of such actions could haunt a persons conscience for a long time, making them suffer immeasurable pain. An ‘act’ can be defined as ‘intention – operation – outcome’, thus the intentions of a person could be bad, yet if their actions turned out to provide pleasurable consequences, then this again would be correct, going against the definition of an act.. For example, one could attempt to poison another, only to find a miracle cure for a fatal disease, in this case the murderer would be a hero.
A fundamental problem with the GHP is the question as to how one can measure the pleasure of one compared to the pain of another. If a community decided to kill a person, then how can you calculate the pleasure that the community will receive compared to the pain that the victim will receive. Another aspect introduced by Mill, is the question of their being higher pleasures. Mill believes that literature, poetry, music and art are higher pleasures than acts such as watching the TV or going to a pub, thus making the calculation of pleasure even more complicated.
In response to the question, one must argue that the GHP doesn’t effectively stand up to argument. The individual looks upon the argument and is able to highlight several weaknesses that in modern society wouldn’t be able to survive. The facts of any action being possibly correct and the inability to quantify pleasure provide the greatest barrier to ones support of the argument.