Utilitarianism

“The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of

morals and legislation.”

Act utilitarian would agree that the morally good action is the one that maximizes the total
happiness.

 Utilitarian ethical theories are consequentialist. They say that it’s

the consequences of an action that make it either right or wrong.

 The most obviously relevant consequences are pain and pleasure. Generally
speaking, utilitarian theories look to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.
 For example, a utilitarian might argue that it is justified for a poor
person to steal from a rich person because the money would cause
more happiness for the poor person than it would cause unhappiness
for the rich person.
 Similarly, a utilitarian might argue that murder is justified if the
victim is himself a murderer and so killing him would save 10
lives.

Justification:

 Is it right to kill one person to save five people? Kant would say no, a
utilitarian would say yes. Surely if the consequences are significant enough
we should consider breaking certain rules?
Act utilitarianism is sometimes called quantitative utilitarianism. It’s
called quantitative because it’s about quantifying happiness – adding up all the
happiness and subtracting all the pain – and then deciding how to act based on the
numbers.

Bentham provides the felicific calculus as a way to calculate utility in this way.

 Intensity: how strong the pleasure is

 Duration: how long the pleasure lasts
 Certainty: how likely the pleasure is to occur
 Propinquity: how soon the pleasure will occur
 Fecundity: how likely the pleasure will lead to more pleasure
 Purity: how likely the pleasure will lead to pain
 Extent: the number of people affected

So, for example, if two different courses of action lead to two different intensities of
pleasure, then the ethically right course of action is the one that leads to the more
intense pleasure.

Anyway, the felicific calculus should (in theory) provide a means to calculate the total
happiness: add up all the pleasures and minus all the pains.

Act utilitarian would agree that the morally good action is the one that maximizes the
total happiness.

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

 Qualitative Approach to Happiness

Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill rejects Bentham’s felicific calculus and
argues that not all pleasures and pains are equally valuable. Mill argues that people
who have experienced the higher pleasures of thought, feeling, and imagination
always prefer them to the lower pleasures of the body and the senses . Higher
pleasures, he says, are more valuable than simple pleasures.
So, Mill takes a qualitative approach to happiness rather than Bentham’s
purely quantitative approach.

Mill argues that humans prefer higher pleasures over lower pleasures because
they value dignity – and dignity is an important component of happiness. Thus,
Mill famously says:

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be

Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

There are situations where we might prefer something even if it makes us less happy,
and situations where we might prefer something not happen even though it would
make us more happy.

This example illustrates a problem with Bentham and Mill’s hedonism (the idea that
happiness and pleasure are the only things of value). We realise there are things in life
more important than simple pleasure – such as being in contact with reality – but act
utilitarianism ignores our preferences for these things.

RULE UTILITARIANISM

“though the consequences in the particular case might be beneficial—it would be

unworthy of an intelligent agent not to be consciously aware that the action is of a
class which, if practiced generally, would be generally injurious, and that this is
the ground of the obligation to abstain from it.”

John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of general rules rather

than specific actions (act utilitarianism). Rules are decided on the basis of whether
they increase happiness, and actions are deemed right or wrong depending on whether
they are in accordance with these rules.
This provides a response to the tyranny of the majority objection to act utilitarianism
above. Although in this specific instance punishing the innocent man leads to greater
happiness, as a general rule punishing innocent people leads to more unhappiness.
For example, if you lived in a society where you knew innocent people were regularly
framed, you would worry that it might happen to you. There would also be no
satisfaction in seeing criminals ‘brought to justice’ as there would be no way to know
whether they were guilty.

Similarly, rule utilitarians may defend rules such as ‘don’t steal’ or ‘don’t lie’ as, in
general, following these rules increases happiness.

PREFERENCE UTILITARIANISM

Preference utilitarianism is a non-hedonistic form of utilitarianism. It says that instead

of maximizing happiness (hedonistic utilitarianism), we should act to maximize
people’s preferences.

This provides a response to the experience machine objection to act utilitarianism

above. Act utilitarianism says we should shove everyone into the experience machine
– whether they want to go in or not – because doing so would maximize their
happiness. However, preference utilitarianism can reject this by saying we should
respect people’s preference to live in the real world (even if living in the real world
means less happiness).

A related example would be carrying out the wishes of the dead. It can’t increase the
happiness of a deceased person to carry out their will (because they’re dead).
However, if a deceased person expressed a preference for their money to be donated
to the local cat shelter, say, then it seems there is a moral obligation to honour this
preference. Act utilitarianism, though, would say we should ignore the preferences of
the deceased and just spend the money in whichever way maximizes happiness – but
this seems wrong. Preference utilitarianism can avoid this outcome and say we should
respect the preferences of the dead.

Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics

ዲዮንቶሎጂካል ኢቲክስ የሚባለው የሥነ-ምግባር አቅጣጫ ነው። በዚህ አቅጣጫ ውስጥ የሰው ተግባር በውጤቱ ላይ ሳይመሰረት
በግዴታ እና ህግ ላይ ይመሰረታል። እንዲሁም ተግባር በራሱ ውስጥ ትክክል ነው ወይም ትክክል አይደለም ብሎ ይመደባል።

Kant‘s theory is quite long-winded, but it can be summarised as:

 The only thing that is good without qualification is good will.

 Good will means acting for the sake of duty.
 You have a duty to follow the moral law.
 Moral laws are universal.
 You can tell is a maxim is universal if it passes the categorical imperative.
 The categorical imperative (universal law formula) has two tests:
o Contradiction in conception
o Contradiction in will
 Finally, do not treat people as means to an end (the humanity formula).

THE GOOD WILL

Good will is one that acts for the sake of duty. This, according to Kant, is the source
of moral worth.

 So, if you save someone’s life because you expect to be financially rewarded,
this action has no moral worth. You’re acting for selfish reasons, not because
of duty.
 However, if you save someone’s life because you recognize that you have a
duty to do so, then this action does have moral worth.

DUTY

Deontology (as in Kant’s deontological ethics) is the study of duty. Kant argues that
we each have a duty to follow the moral law. The moral law, according to Kant, is
summarised by the categorical imperative ( .

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

“Act only according to that maxim (rules) whereby you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”
There are two kinds of maxims (rules): categorical and hypothetical.

 Hypothetical rules are qualified by an ‘if’ statement,

o E.g. “you should do your homework if you want to do well in the exam.“
 Categorical rules are not qualified by an ‘if’ statement, they apply universally.
o E.g. “you shouldn’t steal” is a rule that applies to everyone, i.e. it
applies universally.

According to Kant, moral laws are categorical, not hypothetical. Kant gives two ways
to test whether a maxim/rule passes the categorical imperative: contradiction in
conception and contradiction in will. He also gives another formula for the categorical
imperative, called the humanity formula.

TEST 1: CONTRADICTION IN CONCEPTION

For a law to be universal, it must not result in a contradiction in conception.

A contradiction in conception is something that is self-contradictory.

Example: we might ask Kant whether it is morally acceptable to steal. I.e., we might
ask whether “you should steal” is a universally applicable maxim.

 If stealing was universally acceptable, then you could take whatever you
wanted from someone, and the owner of the object would have no argument
against it. In fact, the very concept of ownership wouldn’t make sense – as
everyone would have just as much right to an object as you do.

 So, in a world where stealing is universally acceptable, the concept of

private property disappears. If there is no such thing as private property, then
stealing is impossible.
 Therefore, Kant would say, the maxim “you should steal” leads to
a contradiction in conception. Therefore, stealing is not morally permissible.
 If a maxim leads to a contradiction in conception, you have a perfect duty not to
follow that maxim. It is always wrong.
 TEST 2: CONTRADICTION IN WILL

Assuming the maxim does not result in a contradiction in conception, we must then
ask whether the maxim results in a contradiction in will – i.e. whether we
can rationally will a maxim or not.

Example: can we rationally will “not to help others in need”?

There is no contradiction in conception in a world where nobody helps anyone

else. But we cannot rationally will it, says Kant. The reason for this is that sometimes
we have goals (Kant calls these ends) that cannot be achieved without the help of
others. To will the ends, we must also will the means.

So, we cannot rationally will such goals without also willing the help of others (the
means).

Of course, not all goals require the help of others. Hence, Kant argues this results in
an imperfect duty. In other words, it is sometimes wrong to follow the maxim “not to
help others in need”.

THE HUMANITY FORMULA

Kant gives another formulation of the categorical imperative:

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity […] never simply as a means,
but always at the same time as an end.”

– Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals

Treating someone as a means to your own end means to use them. So Kant is
basically saying don’t use people.
Example: tricking someone into marrying you.

If you pretend to love someone to marry them and take their money, you treat them as
a means to make money.

According to Kant, it’s the deception that is the problem here as it undermines the
rational agency of the other party. By withholding your true intentions, you prevent
the other party from rationally pursuing their own ends (e.g. to find a loving partner).

But if you’re honest with the other party, the other party can make an informed choice
on whether this fits with their ends. Their goal might be to get married to anyone,
regardless of whether it’s love or not. In this case you can both (rationally) use each
other for mutual benefit. You acknowledge each others ends, even if they are not the
same.

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

መልካም ጠባይ — meaning “good character” or “good habit.”

 ጥሩ ምክንያት — “good quality/reason.”

 በጎ ባህሪ— “good moral trait.”

Definition: Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that emphasizes the cultivation

of good character traits (virtues) as the foundation of moral life, rather than
focusing solely on rules (deontology) or consequences (consequentialism).

It asks not “What should I do?” but rather “What kind of person should I be?
Aristotle starts by answering a slightly different question to Kant and utilitarianism.
Instead of answering “what should I do?” (action-centred) he addresses a question
more like “what sort of person should I be?” (agent-centred). It’s basically the other
way round: Instead of defining a good person as someone who does good actions,
Aristotle would define good actions as those done by good people.

The following is a brief summary of his main points:

 Eudaimonia = the good life for human beings

 The good life for a human being must consist of something unique to human
beings
 Human beings are rational animals, and reason is their unique characteristic
activity (ergon)
 The good life (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to reason
 Virtues are character traits that enable us to act according to reason
 The virtue is the middle point between a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess
 Virtues are developed through habit and training

EUDAIMONIA

You can have good food, good friends, a good day. Aristotle’s ethical enquiry is
concerned with the good life for a human being. The word Aristotle uses for this
is eudaimonia, which is sometimes translated as ‘human flourishing’ or ‘living
and fairing well’.

Aristotle has in mind the good life for a human in a broad sense. Eudaimonia is
not just about following moral laws (e.g. Kant), or pleasure (e.g. utilitarianism),
or being successful – it’s about all these things together and more. It’s a good life
in the moral sense as well as in the sense that it’s the kind of desirable and
enjoyable and valuable life you would want for yourself.

Eudaimonia is a property of someone’s life taken as a whole. It’s not something

you can have one day and then lose the next. Good people sometimes do bad
things, but this doesn’t make them bad people. Likewise, people who have good
lives (eudaimons) can sometimes have bad days.
Aristotle says that eudaimonia is a final end. We don’t try to achieve eudaimonia
as a means to achieve some further goal but instead it is something that is valuable
for its own sake.
 THE FUNCTION ARGUMENT

Aristotle sees everything as having a function or ergon. Things are good if they
fulfil their function and bad if they don’t.

For example,

 A car’s ergon is to get people safely from A to B. If the car is constantly

breaking down, then it’s a bad car because it’s not performing its function
well. But a good car has the arête – the virtue – of being reliable.
 A knife’s ergon is to cut things. And a good knife has the arête of sharpness
because this enables it to cut things well.

 Ergon: function/characteristic activity of a thing

 Arête: property/virtue that enables a thing to achieve its ergon.

Aristotle applies this framework of function/ergon to human beings: The unique

function of humans, he says, is to use reason – it is this that differentiates humans
from trees, plants, books, knives, animals, and everything else in the world. However,
this does not mean we achieve eudaimonia by doing nothing but idly thinking and
reasoning. Instead, Aristotle’s claim is that humans always choose their actions for
some reason – good or bad.

Virtues are character traits, such as courage, that enable us to choose our actions
according to good reason helps a knife fulfil its ergon to cut things, virtues help
humans fulfil their ergon, which is to choose actions according to reason.

Cultivating virtuous character means you will naturally choose the correct actions.
And if you consistently act well over the course of a lifetime, you’ll have a good life
(i.e. you’ll achieve eudaimonia).
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE MEAN

Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean (also called the golden mean) provides more detail
about what virtuous character traits actually are. The doctrine of the mean says
that virtues are the intermediate or average (the mean) between two extremes.

For example, if you never stand up for yourself then you are cowardly (vice of
deficiency). But if you go too far the other way and start fights with anyone for the
slightest reason then you are reckless (vice of excess). The correct and virtuous way to
act is somewhere in between these two extremes: Courage.

Some other examples:

Vice of deficiency Virtue Vice of excess

Cowardice Courage Recklessness
Shy Modest Shameless
Stingy Liberal Wasteful
Self-denial Temperance Self-indulgence
Surly Friendly Obsequious
Boorish Funny Buffoonish

THE SKILL ANALOGY

Acquiring virtues is somewhat analogous to acquiring skills such as learning to ride a

bike or play the piano:

 Nobody is born knowing how to play the piano, but we are born with the capacity to
know how to play the piano. Likewise, nobody is born virtuous, but they have
the capacity to become virtuous
 You don’t learn to play the piano by simply reading books and just studying the theory,
you have to actually do it. Likewise, it’s not enough to just read and learn about virtue,
you have to actually act virtuously until it becomes part of your character.
 When you first start learning to play the piano, you follow the rules and try not to press
the wrong keys – but you don’t really understand what you’re doing. In the case of virtue,
we start by teaching children rules for behaviour (e.g. “don’t eat too many sweets” or “if
 you haven’t got anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”) and they just follow
these rules because they’re told to – not because they understand why.
 But as you progress with playing the piano, you become able to play automatically
without thinking and, eventually, you might become so comfortable playing the piano
that you’re able to improvise and understand what sounds good, what doesn’t, and why.
Likewise, by following rules for acting virtuously, it eventually becomes part of our
character (e.g. we develop the virtue of temperance by repeatedly refusing to indulge
until it eventually becomes habit). Further, we begin to understand what virtue is and this
enables us to improvise according to what the situation demands.

PHRONESIS

Another of Aristotle’s terms is phronesis, which translates as something like ‘practical

wisdom’.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics is not like Kant’s deontological ethics where what is
good/right can be boiled down to a list of general rules. For Aristotle, what’s
good/right will depend on the specific details of the situation. In one situation (out
with your friends, say) it might be virtuous to tell a joke whereas in another situation
(e.g. at a funeral) it would be inappropriate. Knowing what virtue requires according
to the specific details of the situation requires a practical wisdom. For Aristotle, this
means:

 Having a general understanding of what is good for human beings (eudaimonia).

 Being able to apply this general understanding to the specific details of the situation – the
time, the place, the people involved, etc.
 Being able to deliberate (i.e. think through) what is the virtuous goal according to these
specific details.
 And then acting virtuously according to this deliberation to achieve this virtuous
outcome.
As the name suggests, practical wisdom is not the sort of thing you can learn from
books – it’s practical. The skill analogy illustrates how virtuous actions
become habit over time, leading to virtuous character that enables us to act virtuously
in the wide variety of situations we find ourselves.

MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
Aristotle says we should only praise or condemn actions if they are done voluntarily.
In other words, you can’t criticise someone for acting unvirtuously if their actions
weren’t freely chosen.

 Voluntary: acting with full knowledge and intention

 Involuntary/non-voluntary:
o Compulsion (i.e. involuntary): being forced to do something you don’t want to do
– e.g. sailors throwing goods overboard to save the boat during a storm
o Ignorance (i.e. non-voluntary): doing something you don’t want to do
by accident – e.g. slipping on a banana skin and spilling a drink on someone
Aristotle says a person is only morally responsible for their voluntary actions.