Bentham believed that when a government is based on utilitarianism, a system of law and reason is created that values happiness as its foremost principle Bentham To provide a mechanism for utilitarianism to be applied to governmental policy, Benthem created the utility calculus.
The utility calculus is a set of specific questions designed to evaluate a situation and propose the response or action a government should take to maximize happiness and minimize unnecessary pain.
Nick Smith, my research mentor and adviser, helped me narrow my research goal: to determine if the philosophy of utilitarianism, and specifically the utility calculus, could have a positive effect on drug sentencing in the United States criminal justice system. I took particular interest in the ideological purpose behind US judicial laws. The US criminal justice system does not operate under a single clear ideology. Instead, multiple ideologies create inconsistency between the actions and stances the US criminal justice system takes.
This means that punishments, mainly prison terms, are allotted because the individual is deemed to deserve punishment, not necessarily because society or the individual will benefit from the punishment. I took issue with the concept of retribution, specifically when used in cases of nonviolent crimes, such as drug offenses, and found retribution morally questionable because of its reliance on punishment regardless of extenuating circumstances.
Jeremy Bentham designed the utility calculus as a mechanism to apply utilitarian values to government policies; however, I discovered that the utility calculus is incredibly complex and relative. The utility calculus is a series of questions see Appendix that are circumstantial and subjective. For example, the calculus asks us to calculate the amount of pain someone will experience as a result of punishment.
This becomes complicated in cases such as incarceration where, because of issues related to reintegrating into society with a criminal record, the pain that results from punishment lasts longer than the duration of the prison sentence. Moreover, the concept of pain is subjective; each person experiences pain differently. It is impossible for anyone to truly determine how much pain another person will experience as a result of punishment. Because of its complexity and subjectivity, the utility calculus is impractical as a tool for every individual judicial case.
As Bentham himself acknowledged, an accompanying set of sentencing guidelines, similar to modern mandatory minimums, must be used when applying utilitarianism to government policies Burton I realized that although standard sentencing guidelines based on utilitarian values could not be applied uniformly to every individual case, they could effectively outline punishments for each category of crime and maximize utility in a practical manner.
The next step in my research was to formulate hypothetical utilitarian sentencing guidelines for the category of crime I wanted to focus on: drug crimes. I created hypothetical utilitarian guidelines based on my knowledge of how drug crimes are currently categorized e. Next, by answering its questions, I determined whether the utility calculus would permit certain punishments. I answered these questions, such as those asking about the duration and extent of pain caused by each respective punishment, to the best of my ability, considering the subjectivity and difficulty associated with using the utility calculus.
To compensate for this complexity, I kept an overarching utilitarian goal in mind: maximizing happiness. I then evaluated whether each proposed utilitarian punishment, recommended by the standard sentencing guidelines, would have a positive or negative effect on society.
Remove some to bookmark this image. You are now subscribed to our newsletters. Subscribe to Mint Newsletters. Internet Not Available.
Wait for it… Log in to our website to save your bookmarks. Yes, Continue. Wait for it… Oops! Your session has expired, please login again. One must not forget that since his first reading of Bentham in the winter of , the time to which Mill dates his conversion to utilitarianism, forty years had passed. Taken this way, Utilitarianism was anything but a philosophical accessory, and instead the programmatic text of a thinker who for decades had understood himself as a utilitarian and who was profoundly familiar with popular objections to the principle of utility in moral theory.
Almost ten years earlier Mill had defended utilitarianism against the intuitionistic philosopher William Whewell Whewell on Moral Philosophy. The priority of the text was to popularize the fundamental thoughts of utilitarianism within influential circles.
This goal explains the composition of the work. What makes utilitarianism peculiar, according to Mill, is its hedonistic theory of the good CW 10, Utilitarians are, by definition, hedonists. For this reason, Mill sees no need to differentiate between the utilitarian and the hedonistic aspect of his moral theory.
Today we routinely differentiate between hedonism as a theory of the good and utilitarianism as a consequentialist theory of the right.
Utilitarians are, for him, consequentialists who believe that pleasure is the only intrinsic value. Mill counts as one of the great classics of utilitarian thought; but this moral theory deviates from what many contemporary philosophers consider core features of utilitarianism.
This explains why the question whether Mill is a utilitarian is more serious than it may appear on first inspection see Coope One may respond that this problem results from an anachronistic understanding of utilitarianism, and that it disappears if one abstains from imputing modern philosophical concepts on a philosopher of the nineteenth century.
However, this response would oversimplify matters. As mentioned before, Mill maintains that hedonism is the differentia specifica of utilitarianism; if he were not a hedonist, he would be no utilitarian by his own definition.
His view of theory of life was monistic: There is one thing, and one thing only, that is intrinsically desirable, namely pleasure. In contrast to a form of hedonism that conceives pleasure as a homogeneous matter, Mill was convinced that some types of pleasure are more valuable than others in virtue of their inherent qualities.
Many philosophers hold that qualitative hedonism is no consistent position. Hedonism asserts that pleasure is the only intrinsic value. Under this assumption, the critics argue, there can be no evaluative basis for the distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Probably the first ones to raise this common objection were the British idealists F.
Which inherent qualities make one kind of pleasure better than another, according to Mill? These enjoyments make use of highly developed capacities, like judgment and empathy. This seems to be a surprising thing to say for a hedonist. However, Mill thought that we have a solid empirical basis for this view. According to him, the best obtainable evidence for value claims consists in what all or almost all people judge as valuable across a vast variety of cases and cultures.
This partly explains why he put such great emphasis on education. Until the s, the significance of the chapter had been largely overlooked.
It then became one of the bridgeheads of a revisionist interpretation of Mill, which is associated with the work of David Lyons, John Skorupski and others. Mill worked very hard to hammer the fifth chapter into shape and his success has great meaning for him. At the beginning of Utilitarianism, Mill postulates that moral judgments presume rules CW 10, In contrast to Kant who grounds his ethical theory on self-imposed rules, so-called maxims, Mill thinks that morality builds on social rules.
But what makes social rules moral rules? He maintains that we name a type of action morally wrong if we think that it should be sanctioned either through formal punishment, public disapproval external sanctions or through a bad conscience internal sanctions. Wrong or inexpedient actions are those that we cannot recommend to a person, like harming oneself.
But in contrast to immoral actions, inexpedient actions are not worthy of being sanctioned. Mill differentiates various spheres of action. The principle of utility governs not only morality, but also prudence and taste CW 8, It is not a moral principle but a meta-principle of practical reason Skorupski , But there are also fields of action, in which sanctions for wrong behavior would be inappropriate.
One of them is the sphere of self-regarding acts with which Mill deals in On Liberty. In this private sphere we can act at our convenience and indulge in inexpedient and utterly useless behavior as long as we do not harm others. It is fundamental to keep in mind that Mill looks into morality as a social practice and not as autonomous self-determination by reason, like Kant. For Kantians, moral deliberation determines those actions which we have the most reason to perform.
According to Mill, our moral obligations result from the justified part of the moral code of our society; and the task of moral philosophy consists in bringing the moral code of a society in better accordance with the principle of utility. In Utilitarianism, Mill designs the following model of moral deliberation. In the first step the actor should examine which of the rules secondary principles in the moral code of his or her society are pertinent in the given situation.
If in a given situation moral rules secondary principles conflict, then and only then can the second step invoke the formula of utility CW 10, as a first principle. Pointedly one could say: the principle of utility is for Mill not a component of morality, but instead its basis. It serves the validation of rightness for our moral system and allows — as a meta-rule — the decision of conflicting norms.
The tacit influence of the principle of utility made sure that a considerable part of the moral code of our society is justified promotes general well-being.
But other parts are clearly unjustified. One case that worried Mill deeply was the role of women in Victorian Britain. Moral rules are also critical for Mill because he takes human action in essence as to be guided by dispositions. A virtuous person has the disposition to follow moral rules. He repeats this point in his System of Logic and Utilitarianism :. CW 10, and 8, It is one thing to say that it could have optimal consequences and thus be objectively better to break a moral rule in a concrete singular case.
Another is the question as to whether it would facilitate happiness to educate humans such that they would have the disposition to maximize situational utility.
Mill answers the latter in the negative. Again, the upshot is that education matters. Humans are guided by acquired dispositions. This makes moral degeneration, but also moral progress possible. There is considerable disagreement as to whether Mill should be read as a rule utilitarian or an indirect act utilitarian. Many philosophers look upon rule utilitarianism as an untenable position and favor an act utilitarian reading of Mill Crisp Under the pressure of many contradicting passages, however, a straightforward act utilitarian interpretation is difficult to sustain.
In Utilitarianism he seems to give two different formulations of the utilitarian standard. The first points in an act utilitarian, the second in a rule utilitarian direction. Since act and rule utilitarianism are incompatible claims about what makes actions morally right, the formulations open up the fundamental question concerning what style of utilitarianism Mill wants to advocate and whether his moral theory forms a consistent whole.
Thus Mill is not to blame for failing to make explicit which of the two approaches he advocates. In the first and more famous formulation of the utilitarian standard First Formula Mill states:. The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.
By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said …. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded…. Just a few pages later, following his presentation of qualitative hedonism, Mill gives his second formulation Second Formula :. According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … the ultimate end … is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; ….
This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality ; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct , by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation.
CW, , emphasis mine. The Second Formula relates the principle of utility to rules and precepts and not to actions. It seems to say that an act is correct when it corresponds to rules whose preservation increases the mass of happiness in the world. And this appears to be a rule-utilitarian conception.
In the light of these passages, it is not surprising that the question whether Mill is an act- or a rule-utilitarian has been intensely debated. In order to understand his position it is important to differentiate between two ways of defining act and rule utilitarianism. An action is objectively right if it is the thing which the agent has most reason to do.
Act utilitarianism would say that an action is objectively right, if it actually promotes happiness. For rule utilitarianism, in contrast, an action would be objectively right, if it actually corresponds to rules that promote happiness. Act utilitarianism requires us to aim for the maximization of happiness; rule utilitarianism, in contrast, requires us to observe rules that facilitate happiness. Understood as a theory about moral obligation, act utilitarianism postulates: Act in a way that promotes happiness the most.
Rule utilitarianism claims, on the other hand: Follow a rule whose general observance promotes happiness the most. Mill is in regard to i an act utilitarian and in regard to ii a rule utilitarian. This way the seeming contradiction between the First and the Second Formula can be resolved. The First Formula states what is right and what an agent has most reason to do. In contrast, the Second Formula tells us what our moral obligations are. We are morally obliged to follow those social rules and precepts the observance of which promotes happiness in the greatest extent possible.
Whewell claimed that utilitarianism permits murder and other crimes in particular circumstances and is therefore incompatible with our considered moral judgments. Take, for example, the case of murder. There are many persons to kill whom would be to remove men who are a cause of no good to any human being, of cruel physical and moral suffering to several, and whose whole influence tends to increase the mass of unhappiness and vice.
Were such a man to be assassinated, the balance of traceable consequences would be greatly in favour of the act. CW 10, The theory asserts that there are two types of utilitarian ethics practiced in the business world, "rule" utilitarianism and "act" utilitarianism.
An example of rule utilitarianism in business is tiered pricing for a product or service for different types of customers. In the airline industry, for example, many planes offer first-, business-, and economy-class seats. Customers who fly in first or business class pay a much higher rate than those in economy seats, but they also get more amenities—simultaneously, people who cannot afford upper-class seats benefit from the economy rates.
This practice produces the highest good for the greatest number of people. And the airline benefits, too. The more expensive upper-class seats help to ease the financial burden that the airline created by making room for economy-class seats.
An example of act utilitarianism could be when pharmaceutical companies release drugs that have been governmentally approved, but with known minor side effects because the drug is able to help more people than are bothered by the side effects. Most companies have a formal or informal code of ethics , which is shaped by their corporate culture, values, and regional laws. Today, having a formalized code of business ethics is more important than ever.
For a business to grow, it not only needs to increase its bottom line , but it also must create a reputation for being socially responsible.
Companies also must endeavor to keep their promises and put ethics at least on par with profits. Consumers are looking for companies that they can trust, and employees work better when there is a solid model of ethics in place. On an individual level, if you make morally correct decisions at work, then everyone's happiness will increase. However, if you choose to do something morally wrong—even if legal—then your happiness and that of your colleagues, will decrease. In the workplace, though, utilitarian ethics are difficult to achieve.
These ethics also can be challenging to maintain in our business culture, where a capitalistic economy often teaches people to focus on themselves at the expense of others. Similarly, monopolistic competition teaches one business to flourish at the expense of others.
So, although utilitarianism is surely a reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations. Utilitarianism puts forward that it is a virtue to improve one's life better by increasing the good things in the world and minimizing the bad things. This means striving for pleasure and happiness while avoiding discomfort or unhappiness. A utilitarian is a person who holds the beliefs of utilitarianism.
Today, these people might be described as cold and calculating, practical, and perhaps selfish—since they may seek their own pleasure at the expense of the social good at times.
Rule utilitarians focus on the effects of actions that stem from certain rules or moral guidelines e. If an action conforms to a moral rule then the act is moral. A rule is deemed moral if its existence increases the greater good than any other rule, or the absence of such a rule.
If a consumer buys something only for its practical use-value, in a calculative and rational evaluation, then it is of utilitarian value. This precludes any sort of emotional or sentimental valuing, psychological biases, or other considerations.
0コメント