After Bentham had arrived at the conclusion that pleasure and pain were of the up most importance for defining what was moral he came up with the principle of utility. Bentham believed that the goodness and badness of an action is determined by its usefulness, which is the amount of pleasure that is caused by any action. This is known as the greatest happiness principle. Bentham believed that ‘An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number’, where the greatest good is the greatest pleasure and the least pain. To this end, Bentham’s theory is democratic because the greatest pleasure takes into account more than just one person. To measure the pleasure an action may produce, we must use Bentham’s proposed hedonic calculus.
The hedonic calculus measures how much pain and pleasure is created by moral actions and takes into account seven points. These are; its intensity, its duration, its certainty or uncertainty, its propinquity (or how near or far the pleasure is), its fecundity (or how likely is one pleasure to be followed by other pleasures, or pains by other pains), its purity (or how likely the pleasure is of being followed by pain) and its extent (or how many people will be affected by the pleasure). To sum up, the action that leads to the best consequence (i.e. The greatest happiness for the greatest number) is morally the right one to follow.
Another person who had his on perceptions on utilitarianism was John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill lived from 1806 – 1873 and was Jeremy Bentham’s God son and his works on ethics were on liberty (1859) and Utilitarianism (1861). Mill advocated that the happiness or well being of an individual was paramount but was concerned about the term pleasure being abused (as in the example of the sadistic guards Williams (1973) pp. 98-99). He thought that if good were just based quantitatively, what would stop one person’s pleasure being completely eclipsed by the majority’s pleasure from that act? (e.g. gang rape). To challenge this, Mill decided to focus on qualitative pleasure and preferred to refer to happiness rather than pleasure. He devised a system of lower and higher order pleasures in which he preferred higher ones to lower ones, a higher pleasure being intellect and knowledge and a lower one being physical pleasures e.g. sex. He said, “It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” This meant that Socrates and the human are better than the fool and pig because they intellectually are higher than them because they have had more higher order pleasures and the pig and fool are only of a different opinion because they do not have the capacity for a higher pleasure.
In evaluation of utilitarianism we have to look at both the strengths and weaknesses of both Bentham’s and Mill’s theories. In Bentham’s theory it is reasonable and logical to conclude to link morality and the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain, as this is more of a common sense system, which would clearly receive a lot of support, even in the modern day, as it is applicable to real life situations. In Mills theory, it clearly addresses the problem of the pleasure of the majority being abused by them to the detriment of the minority. The benefits of utilitarianism are sizeable, as one can see where in modern day life and in organisations it would work, for example hospitals where budgets must be best used to alleviate the suffering of patients (i.e. the majority)
However there are significant difficulties with Utilitarianism. The first is that not all consequences can be predicted accurately, which is what this theory is based upon. Mankind as a race do not have precisely accurate foresight and the consequences of actions may not always be apparent immediately, they may not become apparent until some long way into the future.
Another difficulty is measuring happiness/pleasure. The criterion on which Bentham’s theory is based upon is the hedonic calculus. It is impractical to start to measure the consequences of every action by this calculus. Furthermore how can all pleasure be so easily measured quantifiably? Can mankind compare the pleasure of eating a chocolate bar with watching one of their children grow up? Pleasures for some may be seen as pain for others (i.e. the sadistic guards) and this is where utilitarianism fails to discuss different views on happiness. Also is pain such a bad thing? As we as humans know it is their for a reason, one being to sense injury which would be better for us in the long term as we know we must take care of it.
Another weaknesses is its failure to be just. It offers nothing for minorities. There is nothing to stop five men gang raping one woman as their pleasure is worth more and the woman’s own pleasure is sacrificed for theirs but we know this act in itself is wrong morally.
In conclusion, despite the obvious weaknesses, Utilitarianism has evidently proved popular for a long time. This is due to its strong argument of practicality in real life situations and clear-cut systems it can provide for the modern organisation in decision-making in addition to its overall common sense and logical approach to decision making. However its strongest weaknesses are its failure to address the minority’s own pleasure and its failure to consider other views on happiness. This is due to it only providing a general system on pleasure/pain and only pursuing the greatest happiness for the majority. Nevertheless, Utilitarianism will reside as a convictive tool to all parties, organisations and individuals that wish to use it in definitive decision making.
