Bentham's Act Utilitarianism (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Bentham's Act Utilitarianism
Introduction to Bentham's approach
Jeremy Bentham was a social scientist and practical thinker who sought to understand human behaviour through observation. He developed Act Utilitarianism as a systematic approach to ethics based on what people actually do rather than abstract principles. His theory is grounded in empirical observation of human motivation and aims to provide a measurable, scientific basis for moral decision-making.
Act Utilitarianism is the view that in any situation, one should choose the action that maximises utility. Decisions about right and wrong are made in each unique situation based on the moral choices available for particular actions in particular circumstances, rather than by applying general moral principles.
Unlike other ethical theories that rely on fixed rules or abstract principles, Bentham's approach is fundamentally practical. It focuses on observable human behaviour and measurable outcomes, making it one of the first attempts to create a "scientific" ethics.
Principle 1: People are motivated to seek pleasure and avoid pain
Bentham observed that human beings are fundamentally driven by two forces:
- The pursuit of pleasure
- The avoidance of pain
This applies both to ourselves and to those we care about. Bentham argued this is simply reality - whatever ideals we might propose, people will ultimately seek what makes them happy or benefits them.
He expressed this foundational idea in a famous passage:
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do.
This psychological observation became the starting point for his entire ethical system. Bentham believed any workable moral theory must acknowledge this basic fact about human nature.
Principle 2: The Principle of Utility
Because Bentham was practical, he believed things should be judged right or wrong according to whether they benefit the people involved. This led him to formulate the Principle of Utility.
The Principle of Utility states that an object has utility when it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness. These terms are interchangeable in Bentham's system. Equally, utility involves preventing mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness.
The principle can be applied to:
- The community in general (the happiness of the community)
- A particular individual (the happiness of that individual)
This principle provided Bentham with a clear standard for moral evaluation: does an action produce benefit or prevent harm?
Principle 3: Maximum happiness for the maximum number
Bentham's social conscience led him to conclude that everyone has an equal right to happiness or benefit, regardless of their situation or status in life. He opposed privilege and the idea that those in power deserved more than their fair share.
The greatest happiness principle: In any particular situation, the right thing to do is that which offers the maximum benefit or happiness to the maximum number of people involved.
This principle appeared to have two significant advantages:
Democratic approach
The principle reflected Bentham's social and political views. It was democratic because it treated everybody alike. This contrasted sharply with conventional social and legal rules of his time, which tended to benefit those in power.
Bentham's democratic approach was revolutionary for his time. In an era of rigid social hierarchies and aristocratic privilege, the idea that a peasant's happiness should count equally with a king's was radical and controversial.
Scientific approach
It offered a seemingly scientific approach to morality. Once benefit could be measured and quantified, it could be distributed fairly based on evidence. This evidence could then be presented to justify moral choices. The approach seemed objective and rational rather than arbitrary or based on tradition.
Principle 4: The Hedonic Calculus
To put his principle into practice, Bentham developed the Hedonic Calculus (also called the Felicific Calculus). This was his scheme for measuring pleasure and pain.
The calculus requires us to consider seven factors when calculating the pleasure or pain an action will produce:
1. Intensity
How strong is the pleasure or pain? A more intense pleasure carries more weight than a mild one.
2. Duration
How long does the pleasure or pain last? Short-term pleasure should not have the same significance as something longer-lasting or permanent. Many people will resist immediate happiness in favour of greater security or benefit in the longer term.
3. Certainty
How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure or pain will actually happen? A certain outcome counts for more than an uncertain one.
4. Propinquity
How soon will the pleasure or pain happen? Propinquity means closeness or remoteness in time. Immediate consequences may be weighted differently from distant ones.
5. Fecundity
How likely is it that the action will produce similar pleasures or pains in the future? The term comes from biological reproduction - fecund means fertile or productive. Will this action lead to more of the same?
6. Purity
To what extent is there an overall balance of pleasure over pain, or pain over pleasure? An action that produces pure pleasure with no pain has greater utility than one mixed with negative consequences.
7. Extent
How far will the pleasure or pain extend to other people affected by the action? The more people affected positively, the greater the utility.
Worked Example: Applying the Hedonic Calculus
Consider whether to tell a friend the truth about their poor performance in an exam:
Option A: Tell the truth
- Intensity: Moderate pain initially
- Duration: Short-term upset (few days)
- Certainty: Highly certain they'll feel upset
- Propinquity: Immediate pain
- Fecundity: Likely to lead to improvement and future pleasure
- Purity: Initial pain but later pleasure from improvement
- Extent: Affects friend, their family, potentially future opportunities
Option B: Lie or avoid the topic
- Intensity: No immediate pain
- Duration: False sense of security continues
- Certainty: Certain they won't be upset now
- Propinquity: No immediate consequences
- Fecundity: Likely to lead to continued poor performance
- Purity: Pure pleasure now but greater pain later
- Extent: Ultimately affects friend negatively, disappoints others
Conclusion: Despite causing immediate pain, telling the truth has greater overall utility due to fecundity (leading to improvement) and long-term consequences.
Purpose of the calculus
The Hedonic Calculus aims to establish whether an act has a balance of pleasure over pain. If it does, then the act is good or right. If pain outweighs pleasure, the act is wrong.
This may seem clinical, but it reflected Bentham's desire to establish a science of moral and political action. He wanted a rational, evidence-based approach to moral, legal and political choices. This tendency persists today when economists and politicians weigh benefits and harms to resolve difficult decisions.
Exam tip: Be able to explain each element of the Hedonic Calculus with examples. Remember that the calculus attempts to make pleasure measurable and comparable.
Application to animals
Bentham extended his calculus to human infants and animals. Since pleasure and pain are measurable, they can be measured in animals as well as humans. He argued that many animals are more intelligent than the least intelligent humans, and certainly more rational and conversable than a month-old infant.
Animals should therefore be treated as members of the moral community. Their pleasures and pains can be measured in terms of intensity, duration and extent just like human ones.
This was a remarkably progressive view for the 18th century and anticipated modern animal welfare ethics by nearly two centuries.
Important features of Bentham's system
No hierarchy of pleasures
Bentham made no attempt to claim that some pleasures are superior to others. He famously stated that, prejudice apart, the game of push-pin (a simple children's game) is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry.
This radical equality of pleasures means that all pleasures count equally in the calculus. What matters is the quantity of pleasure, not any supposed quality or sophistication.
Equality of persons
When calculating the greatest happiness, each person is to count for one and no one for more than one. Utilitarianism is therefore committed to the principle of equality among humans.
This means:
- No person's happiness counts for more than another's
- A king and a peasant have equal moral standing
- Status, power or privilege give no additional weight
General happiness, not just individual happiness
Individuals are committed to seeking the general happiness, not just their own. Bentham believed people would do this because seeking the general happiness tends to safeguard one's own happiness. There is enlightened self-interest in promoting the welfare of all.
Evaluating Bentham's Act Utilitarianism
There are many objections to Utilitarianism. Here are four key criticisms with how a utilitarian might respond.
Objection 1: Too much emphasis on consequences
Act Utilitarianism is consequentialist - it judges actions purely by their consequences. This requires us to predict the future, which we often get wrong.
A classic example: is it right to save the life of a child who later becomes a mass murderer? With hindsight, you might regret your action, even though it seemed right at the time.
Utilitarian reply: This criticism is not entirely fair. While Act Utilitarianism does assess specific situations, most situations fall into general classes of acts like murder, theft or rape. Experience shows these generally lead to unhappiness, so utilitarian calculation shows we should not do them.
In the example given, we cannot know at the time that a child will become a criminal. Based on available evidence, saving a child's life will probably lead to a balance of happiness over pain for everyone concerned. We can only act on the information available to us at the time.
Objection 2: It ignores motives, rules and duties
Critics argue the morality of an action lies in why you do it. People need the stability of moral rules, and have a duty to obey them.
Utilitarian reply: Rules and duties are useful only if they serve the primary principle of Utility. If they generate more happiness and pleasure than unhappiness and pain, they are good. If they do not, the rule is immoral.
The utilitarian's motive is the same as the intended consequence: to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This provides both motivation and guidance.
Objection 3: It ignores the rights of minorities
There is no guarantee the majority is morally right. Act Utilitarianism can be unjust to minorities. In extreme cases, it seems the calculus could justify actions where many people's pleasure outweighs one person's pain.
Utilitarian reply: If minority rights are considered above majority rights, that would be unjust to the majority - a far greater injustice.
Accusations that the calculus justifies serious harms misunderstand how it works. Items 5, 6 and 7 (fecundity, purity and extent) require calculation of pleasure and pain for all concerned. If a harmful action became acceptable, the unhappiness would extend far beyond the immediate victim to their family, friends, and society as a whole. The calculus would therefore not justify such acts.
However, there remain difficult cases. Consider a permanently unhappy homeless person without friends or family, who distresses everyone they encounter. Would it maximise utility to end their life, or would long-term consequences argue against this?
Objection 4: The is-ought gap
Utilitarianism commits the naturalistic fallacy. We cannot logically go from an is statement (happiness is what all humans desire) to an ought statement (you ought to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number). This moves from facts to values without justification.
Utilitarian response: If you ask people what they want, they universally reply that they want happiness. This is reason enough to support the claim that one ought to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. No other explanation is possible, and no other explanation is needed.
Strengths of Act Utilitarianism
Despite criticisms, Act Utilitarianism has notable strengths:
- Practical and applicable: It provides clear guidance for moral decision-making
- Democratic: It treats all people as having equal moral worth
- Flexible: It can respond to unique situations rather than rigidly applying rules
- Compatible with science: It offers an evidence-based approach to ethics
- Progressive: It challenges unjust privilege and promotes social reform
Exam tip: When evaluating Bentham's theory, consider both its practical appeal and its philosophical weaknesses. Be able to explain both criticisms and defences of the theory.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Act Utilitarianism judges each action individually based on whether it maximises utility in that specific situation, rather than applying general rules.
-
The Hedonic Calculus measures pleasure using seven factors: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. Learn these and be able to explain each one.
-
Greatest happiness principle: The right action is that which produces the maximum happiness for the maximum number. Each person counts equally, and no pleasure is inherently superior to another.
-
Consequentialist theory: Actions are judged solely by their outcomes, not by motives or adherence to rules. This is both a strength (practical, flexible) and a weakness (difficult to predict consequences).
-
Key criticisms to know: Too focused on consequences, ignores motives and duties, potentially unjust to minorities, and commits the is-ought fallacy. Be able to explain utilitarian responses to each criticism.