UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

Socratic Ideas Limited © All Rights Reserved

Author: John Waters

A Concise Historical OverviewA Concise Historical Overview

John Stuart Mill (1806-73 CE )

G.E. Moore (1873-1958)

David Hume (1711-76 CE)

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832 CE)

R.M. Hare (1919-2002 CE)

Peter Singer (1946 - )

UtilitarianismUtilitarianismHistorical BackgroundHistorical Background

The Enlightenment Victorian Britain

Rejection of metaphysics

Voltaire Rousseau Utilitarians

Social Reformers

“Liberty, Fraternity, Equality”

French Revolution

What is utilitarianism?What is utilitarianism?Derives from the latin word `utilis’ meaning useful.

A normative, consequential morality.

Good is whatever produces beneficial consequences.

Utilitarianism has no intrinsic goods

(Good irrespective of the consequences)

Utilitarianism is instrumental

(The results justify the means)

Principle of utility

The Principle of UtilityThe Principle of Utility

The Principle of Utility

The good is that which will bring about the greatest sum of pleasure, or the least sum of pain, for the greatest number

Pleasure

Pain

Jeremy BenthamJeremy Bentham

“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.” An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

Principle of Utility

Foundation for the Principle of Utilityis Bentham’s Psychological hedonism:

Pleasure and pain determine how people act.

Jeremy Bentham: Reductive EmpiricistJeremy Bentham: Reductive Empiricist

Bentham was a reductive empiricist

Principle of utility will replace metaphysical beliefs

According to Bentham talk of abstract `inalienable rights’ was “nonsense on

stilts.”

Only the principle of utility offers an understanding of rights based on concrete, observable verification

The principle of utility offers an understanding of The principle of utility offers an understanding of rights based on concrete, observable verificationrights based on concrete, observable verification

Scientific and Ethical Revolution

Darwin challenged the fundamentalist,

literal, understandingof the Genesis

creation story with his scientific theory of evolution, natural

selection.

Bentham reasonedthat ethics was ascience; where `good’ could be

scientifically proven according to the

principle of utility, felicific calculus.

NEWTON

BENTHAM

DARWIN

Newton’s laws of science explained how the world is

governed by universal laws of

nature which causally determine

action.

PLEASUREPLEASUREAll types of pleasure and pain can be measured on

the same scale.

What is good and bad for each person (i.e. what brings them pleasure or pain) is a matter for each person to decide

by following the Felicific Calculus

Bentham once said that "quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin

[a simple child's game] is as good as poetry".

Pleasures can be compared

quantitatively because there is no

qualitative difference between them

Bentham’s Felicific CalculusBentham’s Felicific Calculus

1. DURATION How long will it last?

2. INTENSITY

3. PROPINQUITY

4. EXTENT

5. CERTAINTY

6. PURITY

7. FECUNDITY

How intense is it?

How near or remote?

How widely it covers

How probable is it?

How free from pain is it?

Lead to further pleasure?

Pleasure can be `scientifically’ calculated according to thefollowing 7 criteria of the Felicific Calculus

Bentham’s Bentham’s MMnemonic nemonic JJingleinglefor his Felicific Calculusfor his Felicific Calculus

Intense, long, certain, speedy, fruitful, pure –

Such marks in pleasures and in pain endure.

Such pleasures seek if private be thy end:

If it be public, wide let them extend.

Such pains avoid, whichever be thy view:

If pains must come, let them extend few.

A little ditty to remember the Felicific Calculus

Bentham’s Felicific CalculusBentham’s Felicific Calculus

“Everybody is to

count for one, and nobody for more than one.”

The Felicific CalculusDemocratic and Egalitarian

In keeping with Enlightenment thinking the Felicific Calculus was a rational and scientific

way to measure pleasure. Bentham claimed that goodness could be empirically proven.

“No one person’s pleasure is greater

than another’s”

Bentham’s Felicific CalculusBentham’s Felicific Calculus• When answering an examination question on utilitarianism

try and avoid simply listing the felicific calculus – as this only demonstrates knowledge (something which lower grade students can achieve).

• Rather, select a particular feature of the Felicific calculus, perhaps propinquity, and show how it might be difficult to apply in practice e.g. Is the pleasure near or remote in terms of space (geographically close) or time – may have an impact in years to come.

• Apply to a national or international example to illustrate further understanding and evaluation: America withdrawing from the Kyoto agreement; Bush claiming “the American way of life is non-negotiable.” Can the felicific calculus overcome such political short-termism?

Jeremy BenthamJeremy BenthamCounter-cultural Pioneer of Social ReformCounter-cultural Pioneer of Social Reform

Animal Rights

Penal Reform

Click on either of the above boxes for furtherinformation

Benefits Benefits of Utilitarianismof Utilitarianism

Appeals to Human NatureAppeals to Human Nature

Human beings share a common interest in:(1) Benevolence and sympathy

(David Hume)(2) Pleasure and Happiness

(Bentham and Mill)(3) Pleasure, Friendship, Aesthetic

Appreciation (G.E. Moore)(4) People’s Welfare

(R.M. Hare)(5) People’s Preferences

(Peter Singer) Peter Singer

David Hume

Jeremy Bentham

J.S. Mill

R.M. Hare

G.E. Moore

Utilitarianism: Fair, Objective and DemocraticUtilitarianism: Fair, Objective and Democratic

Bentham’s felicific calculus claims that: “Everybody is to count for one, and nobody for more than one. No one person’s pleasure

is greater than another’s.”

In a radical way utilitarianism challenges elitism and an aristocratic system that offers privilege to

the select few at the expense of the majority. e.g. French Revolution: `Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’

In the spirit of Marxism democracy is giving the proletariat rewards for their labour and

power to determine their future.

Appropriate Ethic for a Appropriate Ethic for a Secular and Scientific AgeSecular and Scientific Age

In a Post Enlightenment world, with the challenge to metaphysical and theistic foundations, utilitarianism

has a high regard for individual autonomy.

Although the felicific calculus was not the resounding

success that Bentham may have wished, the importance

of the quality of people’s lives, here and now, is

something which governments take seriously.

Peter Singer’s

Preference

Utilitarianism recognises

the importance of

respecting people’s desires

and inclinations when

assessing moral dilemmas.

Hume Voltaire

Quality of Human Life Quality of Human Life or Sanctity of Human Life?or Sanctity of Human Life?

PersonhoodSentienceRational

Self-consciousCommunicate

Establish Relationships

Preference Utilitarianism

replaces sanctity of human life

with the criteria for personhood

Due to advancesin scientific technology

it is possible to maintain life evenwhen it is of low

quality e.g. life supportMachines, Motor Neurone Disease

In a world of limited resources is itmore sensible to respect a patient’s wish

to die, voluntary euthanasia? (And so reduceneedless suffering and equally redistribute funds otherwise

spent keeping a terminally ill patient alive with a low quality of life.)

Peter Singer Pope John Paul II

Utilitarianism Suitable for GovernmentUtilitarianism Suitable for Government

Jeremy Bentham J.S. Mill

Bentham and Mill’s political reforms had significant impacts on public policy

e.g. Penal reform, GreaterEquality for women,

Animal Rights

Government policy has an interest in

promoting the quality of life for its

electorate e.g Education, Health

care, Law and order.Tony Blair

Utilitarianism has Some Common Ground Utilitarianism has Some Common Ground With Christian EthicsWith Christian Ethics

Bentham’s Principle of Utility has been compared to Jesus’ Golden Rule, “Love your neighbour as yourself” or “Do

unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The rationale behind Christian teaching of redemption may be understood in a utilitarian manner: the vicarious

suffering by Jesus on the cross to redeem humanity is self-sacrificial for the greater good of the greater number.

Utilitarianism upholds the message of a benevolent God showing interest for the well-being of human beings; but

rejects belief in a metaphysical God!

Problems of Bentham’s Problems of Bentham’s UtilitarianismUtilitarianism

Problem of Utilitarianism:Problem of Utilitarianism:Commits the Naturalistic FallacyCommits the Naturalistic Fallacy

(G.E. Moore, Principia Ethica)

• “Cannot deduce an OUGHT from an IS” (G.E. Moore)

• Cannot move from FACT to VALUES

• Cannot move from EPISTEMOLOGY (knowledge) to ETHICS

Problem of Utilitarianism:Problem of Utilitarianism:Commits the Naturalistic FallacyCommits the Naturalistic Fallacy

From the mere statement of psychological fact that people actually desire happiness for its own sake

one cannot deduce the evaluative conclusion that pleasure is desirable, i.e. that it ought to be desired.

People may desire something that they ought not to desire, something which is not really desirable.

e.g People may desire to take hard drugs as it produces pleasure. But is taking hard drugs good?

The Felicific CalculusThe Felicific CalculusIs Too ImpracticalIs Too Impractical

When making decisions in the heat of the moment, lacking reflection, it is not practical to apply the felicific calculus to moral dilemmas.

Adding up `pleasure units’ is a dubious exercise and is difficult to measure accurately.

The whole idea of assessing different varieties and intensities of pleasures is too subjective.

The Felicific Calculus The Felicific Calculus Too Impractical?Too Impractical?

J.S. Mill’s response J.S. Mill’s responseJ.S. Mill argued that instead of the felicific calculus people should come up with general principles which over the passage of time have promoted the greatest happiness.

By following such principles and rules individual judgements are supported by past events and so are less pressurised and less subjective in their moral judgements.

This development is a major reason why some have labelled Mill a `rule`utilitarian – as he advocated following such rules as opposed to continually using the felicific calculus or even his own Greatest Happiness Principle.

Principle Principle OOf f UUtility tility MMayay U Undermine ndermine FFreedomreedom

Recent International Example

In 1989 the Chinese government suppressed the student uprising in

Tiananmen Square, claiming the State, not the educated students,

knew what was in people’s best interest.

Giving students freedom to determine their future was not deemed acceptable.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World a utopian society is projected

where people are genetically engineered with differing levels of

IQ: Alphas to Epsilons (A-E)

Citizens receive state indoctrination and soma drugs to promote a feeling of happiness.

However, the price of this inauthentic happiness is the encroachment upon

personal freedom.

““I’m claiming the right to be unhappyI’m claiming the right to be unhappy””(John, The Savage, Brave New World)

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, John, the Savage, rejects a life of artificial

drug (soma) induced happiness.

When questioned by the Controller John asserts his right to be unhappy. John understands that a life of depth and meaning is one which embraces and

learns from hardship and sorrow.

A life which pursues a drug induced happiness is one which misses the

richness that comes from experiencing pain and sacrifice.

It is helpful toillustrate

answers with examples from

literature.

Equally important is lateral thinking,

here with John Hick’s theodicy. Hick asserts that

`Virtues are better hard won than ready made’.

Aldous Huxley

Living in a Fool’s ParadiseLiving in a Fool’s ParadiseTolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Illych is a story of how many people live a life of deception – fooling themselves into

believing that their lives are happy by finding meaning in superficial pleasures.

Yet on his death-bed Ivan Illych, a once wealthy lawyer who is struck down by a terminal illness, realises people only

really liked him for the material benefits he was able to offer them. He realises that he has lived a life where superficial pleasures fooled him into thinking he was happy, when in

fact his life lacked depth & meaning.

A life filled with the instant gratification of the latest designer label is not a life of fufilment.

Utilitarian’s Universal Altruism Utilitarian’s Universal Altruism Lacks JustificationLacks Justification

Each person desires his / her own happiness.

Therefore each person ought to aim for his or her own happiness.

Therefore everyone ought to aim at the happiness of everyone

This jump from

Egotistical

Hedonism to

include the

welfare of others

lacks support.

?

Egoism to AltruismSentiment of Sympathy

Innate within human beings is an elementary feeling for the happiness of humanity and a dislike of seeing them in misery.

Economic growth should be pursued as a means of

bettering conditions for all. Smith claimed even

economic inequality caused greater wealth for all.

But Problem!People are

Too egotistical

Society is a collection ofindividuals who work

together for the common good.

Philosopher

David Hume

Adam Smith

Soon after being elected President

George Bush withdrewAmerica from the Kyoto

agreement, claiming “The American way oflife is non-negotiable.”

Marx argues that in aCapitalist society the

competition for limitedresources means the

bourgeois will seek to exploit the

proletariat.

People People AAre re SSeparate eparate AAnd nd UUniquenique

Professor Simon Blackburn has argued that “Utilitarianism does not take seriously the

separateness of persons – the idea being that it subordinates the rights of the individual to solidarity with the general welfare.”

(Being Good, p.92)

e.g. In World War II the right of the pacifist Methodist minister, Lord Donald Soper, to speak out against the war was denied as it was thought his words would undermine the war effort and was detrimental to the general welfare of the

country.

Will of the MajorityWill of the MajorityDoes Not Always Make for Good LawDoes Not Always Make for Good Law

Strange as it may seem the will of the majority does not always make for good law.

Analysis / Evaluation / Implications / Analysis / Evaluation / Implication

For example, the majority of the UK public are in favour of legalising voluntary euthanasia. (2001: 82% Opinion Poll)

There is a danger that people follow their desires and inclinations as opposed to thinking through the

implications of their decisions. e.g. How might the ethos of society change, affecting weak and vulnerable people,

such as the elderly?

Will of the MajorityWill of the MajorityDoes Not Always Make for Good LawDoes Not Always Make for Good Law

Analysis / Evaluation / Implications / Analysis / Evaluation / Implication

Interestingly Mill was all too aware of this criticism ofBentham’s utilitarianism.

In On Liberty Mill drew an important distinction between public and private acts.

Any law which has a serious detrimental effect on the qualitative well being of others is wrong.

He famously remarked, “Your freedom to punch me ends where my nose begins.”

Not simply the amount of pleasure producedNot simply the amount of pleasure producedBut how that pleasure is distributedBut how that pleasure is distributed

W.D. Ross

Unlike Bentham, W.D. Ross was concernedthat utilitarianism could ignore justice.

Justice is not concerned simply with the amount of pleasure produced.

But, rather how and on what basis that pleasure is distributed.

Do people or groups deserve to receive pleasure?

Bentham

Utilitarianism: Counter-intuitiveUtilitarianism: Counter-intuitive

W.D. Ross

As an intuitionist W.D. Ross rejectedutilitarianism on the grounds that it

ignores intrinsic goods that are counter,or contrary, to our intuitive, innate,

sense of right and wrong.

Even if it could be shown that happinesswas greatest by lying to people there

is something simply wrong about lying and deception which would

make people wish to reject such an ethic.

Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism: Lack of Lack of Intrinsic GoodsIntrinsic Goods Utilitarianism is a consequential morality and so lacks intrinsic goods, such as trust, honesty and

dignity. This creates an ethos of uncertainty where people are never really sure if they are valued.

e.g

YUPPIES (Young Urban Professional People) In the early 1980s many middle-aged businessmen, who had shown great loyalty accruing high profits for their companies were sacked over-night; to be replaced by YUPPIES. YUPPIES were considered

to be of greater immediate use to the company, being younger and so cheaper in the short run.

Utilitarianism requires a Utilitarianism requires a non-utilitariannon-utilitarian frameworkframework in order to work in order to work

Professor Alasdair MacIntyre argues that utilitarianism is effective as an ethical

theory only when it operates within a non-utilitarian framework, where intrinsic, deontological values enable people to

flourish.

e.g. Happiness may be promoted in a society that upholds intrinsic values of

justice, liberty and honesty. Alasdair MacIntyre

Case StudiesCase Studies

Application of UtilitarianismApplication of Utilitarianism

To Moral IssuesTo Moral Issues

Should I.V.F Be Used Should I.V.F Be Used

To Help Infertile Couples?To Help Infertile Couples? • The Roman Catholic church condemns

the use of I.V.F as being contrary to the sanctity of human life

principle and teaching of natural law.

Lord Robert Winston and Baroness Warnock support the use of I.V.F. to

relieve the suffering of infertile couples.

What would a classical utilitarian think? Give reasons for your view.

Lord Winston

John Paul II BaronessWarnock

Paul VI

The Survival Lottery(by Professor John Harris)

• Patients Y and Z will die unless they receive organ transplants – in which case they will live for a further 20 years.

• There is a lack of donor organs.• Faced with the prospect of imminent death

patients Y and Z propose a `National Survival Lottery’ – where each week a person’s number will be pulled out at random, killed, and their organs donated to help those in need of a transplant – thereby saving a greater number of lives.

• Explain a utilitarian response to the suggestion of a National Survival Lottery.

Professor John Harris

126

22

14

3 27

The Survival LotterySome further points to consider…

• Is there a difference between killing and letting die? (Patients Y and Z do not think so!)

• Is one’s individuality undermined?• Would the ‘National Survival Lottery’

create a climate of fear, or would people become accustomed to the unlikely probability?

• What about those who have brought their illness upon themselves, e.g through heavy smoking, should they benefit equally?

• How would a sub-class of people be protected from not being victimised?

• Can society take away the intrinsic right to life? Where does its authority lie?

126

22

14

3 27

Professor John Harris

• Public Opinion Polls in the UK show that the majority of people would like to see voluntary euthanasia legalised. e.g. 82% 2001.

• The UK is an increasingly secular society where the Quality of Life is considered to be more important than the sanctity of human life.

• 20% of patients in Intensive Care Units are being treated with no likelihood of survival.

• Would a utilitarian agree with the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia?

Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia?Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia?

Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia?Legalise Voluntary Euthanasia?Some further points to consider…

• Would voluntary euthanasia undermine the role of the doctor? (cf. the Hippocratic oath, the medical duty to preserve innocent human life.)

• Is the current law of `the principle of double effect’ satisfactory in a secular society?

• Consequences of restrictive laws? Will people pursue a policy of illegal euthanasia?

• Would legalising voluntary euthanasia pressurise vulnerable members of society? (The Church of England’s concern, On Dying Well 1993)

• Is voluntary euthanasia a private, or a public, act? (How does it differ from suicide?)

Pius XII

J.S. Mill

Hippocrates

Williams

Kevorkian

Socrates Says Links

David Hume

(1711-76 CE)

David Hume was an empiricist, who rejected the authority of the church and those pertaining to metaphysical foundations, “Take in hand any volume of divinity or school of metaphysics…and let us ask: Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Rather, Hume thought that morality was foundedupon emotions, and in particular feelings of

sympathy with fellow human beings. This is whatHume means by the term passion, when he says,

“Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions.”

Utilitarianism develops Hume’s empirical approach, rejecting God as the author of morality, and expands the notion of sympathy to include the `Greatest pleasure / happiness for the greatest number.’

Jeremy Bentham(1748-1832 CE)

A radical empiricist

Principle of Utility

Felicific Calculus

Psychological Hedonism

Morality: could be scientifically proven

Pioneer of social reform

A Hedonistic Utilitarian

John Stuart Mill(1806-73 CE )

A Weak Rule utilitarian

Greatest Happiness Principle

Quality, not Quantity

Advocated classical liberalism

Happiness, not pleasure

Pioneer of social reform

A Eudaimonistic Utilitarian

G.E. Moore(1873-1958)

An Intuitionist or an Ideal Utilitarian?An Intuitionist or an Ideal Utilitarian?G.E. Moore is famous for his analysis of ethical language in Principia

Ethica, 1903, where he famously asserted that: Good is a non-definable property. This led to Moore being labelled an intuitionist, as

“We know what`yellow’ is, and can recognise it whenever it is seen, but we cannot actually define it. In the same way we know what `good’

means but cannot define it.” (Ethica, 1903)

However, closer analysis reveals that, “it seems selfevident that our duty is to do what will produce the best effects upon the whole, no matter how bad the effectsupon ourselves may be and no matter how good we ourselves may lose by it.” (Ethica, p.143)

As an Ideal utilitarian Moore suggests that there arethree intrinsic goods: Pleasure, Friendship, Aestheticappreciation – and so right actions are those which increase / promotes these in the world for the most people.

R.M. Hare: Welfare UtilitarianR.M. Hare: Welfare Utilitarian

R.M. Hare

It is significant that the experiences from being a prisoner of war in Japan during World War II influenced R.M. Hare’s moral philosophy.

• Peoples desires and needs for satisfaction are important.

• It is possible to intuit what will promote people’s well being.

• A whole life perspective should be adopted when making moral judgements.

• Principles of integrity and justice are important as they promote welfare.

• Critical reflection is important to assess the changing needs of human welfare.

Peter Singer’s Moral Philosophy: Peter Singer’s Moral Philosophy: Four Simple Claims?Four Simple Claims?

The above may sound simple and appealing. But, think how Singer’s philosophy would change your life?!

• 1. Pain is bad.

• 2. Most non-human animals feel pain.

• 3. When taking life we should look not at race, sex or species but at other ethically relevant characteristics of the individual being killed.

• 4. We are responsible not only for what we do but also for what we could have prevented.

Analysis / Evaluation / Implications / Analysis / Evaluation / Implication

Peter Singer’sEthical Earthquake

PersonhoodSecular Age

Challenging theSanctity of Human

Life Ethic

BenevolenceSympathy

Maldistributionof Wealth

SpeciesismSentience

AnimalLiberation

The The 5 Old 5 Old andand 5 New Commandments 5 New CommandmentsAnalysis / Evaluation / Implications / Analysis / Evaluation / Implication

• 1. Treat all human life as if it is of equal worth.

• 2. Never intentionally take innocent life.

• 3. Never take your own life and try to prevent others from taking theirs

• 4. Be fruitful and multiply

• 5. Treat all human life as always more precious than any non-human life.

• 1. Recognise that all worth of life varies.

• 2. Take responsibility for the consequences of our decisions.

• 3. Respect a person’s desire to live or die.

• 4. Bring children into the world only if they are wanted.

• 5. Do not discriminate on the basis of species.

PersonhoodPersonhoodEthically Relevant CharacteristicsEthically Relevant Characteristics

• Rational• Self-conscious • (Biographical as opposed

to merely biological)• Sentient• Act intentionally• Communicate• Establish relationships

Peter Singer

The criteria for personhood should replace the sanctity of human life

Ha

Wa

Mi

Be

Hu

Contribution

•“Reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions.”•Empiricist

•Sympathy (feeling) fostersidea of others, Expanding Circle. Rejection of theism.

• “The question is: not canit reason, can it talk, but can it suffer.” (Bentham)

•Sentience applies to animals so they have interests and are ethically significant.

•Qualitative differences between pleasures / pain.

Peter Singer’sApplication

•Ethical self-interest requires universalization,promotes welfare for all.

•Individuals find meaning in their lives when they focus on others / larger goals

•Maldistribution of wealth!Superficial pleasures do not outweigh 3rd world suffering

•Vindication of the Rights of Women 1792 –

oppressed group of society

•Singer is counter-cultural:Animal Liberation – globalpioneer of animal rights

Philosopher(Periodic Table)

The EnlightenmentThe Enlightenment

The Enlightenment is known as The Age of

Reason and was a time when great optimism

was expressed in humanity’s intellectual

powers.

Rejected theological dogma, with its emphasis on faith and ecclesiastical authority. Placed reason, empiricism and human

autonomy over and above metaphysical belief and

God..

Utilitarians rejected God as the author of morality, as empirically God’s existence could not be proven, and

replaced the authority of the Bible as the source of morality with the principle of utility - as no one could

doubt the reality of pleasure and pain.

TheEnlightenment

18th century Voltaire Leibniz Newton Hume

The The French RevolutionFrench Revolution

In 1789 the battle-cry of the French revolution was

Rousseau’s “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”

reflected the challenge by the masses against the elite

aristocracy.

The political structure of France, where the wealthy

noble-people lorded it over the majority of the

poor peasants, came to an abrupt end; many of the

landed gentry losing their lives at the guillotine.

The FrenchRevolution

1789 CE

Sentiments of sympathy for the well being and happiness of others became a central aim of ethics throughout Europe.

Jean Jacques Rousseau and David Hume advocated sympathy and benevolence.

Victorian BritainVictorian Britain

Charles Dickens, in his novel Hard Times, highlights enforced debtors prisons, exploitation of child labour and the

subjugation of women.

England in the 1800s was a class-riddled society.

The pioneers of utilitarianism, Bentham, Wollstoncraft and Mill, campaigned for social change – promoting structures which would

enable the majority of people to live fulfilled and happy lives. e.g. Penal and Electoral Reform.

Bentham

Wollstonecraft

J.S. Mill

Penal ReformPenal Reform

Bentham campaigned for thereform of the Penal System, based on

e.g. abolition of debtors prisons.

Analysis / Evaluation / Implications / Analysis / Evaluation / Implication

Psychological Hedonism

(People respond to pleasure/pain)

Punishment should be

sufficient to deter others

from offending

but punishment should not

cause unnecessary suffering.

The New Poor Law 1834The New Poor Law 1834

“Bentham was the father of British innovation both in doctrines and in institutions.” (JS Mill)

In examinations it is helpful to offer a brief example of how Bentham’s utilitarianism changed British law.

•Bentham’s felicific calculus was the philosophy behind the Whig government’s Social Reform of the New Poor Law.• Edward Chadwick “Man seeks pleasure and flees pain.”

• The New Poor Law (1834) stated that life inside the workhouse must be less eligible (pleasant) than life as an independent labourer. Further, no able bodied man should

be able to get relief outside the workhouse.

Bentham: Animal WelfareBentham: Animal Welfare“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation

may acquire those rights which never could have been with-holden them but by the hand of tyranny.”

“The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be

abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day be recognised that the number of the legs,

the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a

sensitive being to the same fate.”

“The question is not `Can they reason?’ `Can they talk?’ But `Can they suffer?’”