Welcome back
Welcome to this session, where we’re going to be talking about Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism, and his idea of the ‘hedonic calculus’.
Bentham, thanks to the rather peculiar terms of his will, bequeathed his preserved body to University College London, where it still sits, tried to set out a programme for good conduct that might be perfectly rational. Bentham was trained as a lawyer, but was disillusioned with the irrational, chaotic and arbitrary state of legislation. Law seemed the antithesis of a rigorous science, so he attempted to put it on a firm and unambiguous footing.
The way that Bentham sought to solve these moral and legal issues was first by making the claim that our lives are governed by what he called ‘two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure’. It is in terms of pleasure and pain that we can decide what we ought to do, and are actions are guided by these masters. We act, in other words, to maximise pleasure and to minimise pain. This being the case, then if we wish to ask how we should act, then we simply have to work out which actions best lead to the maximising of pleasure and the reduction of pain. It is worth saying here that, because Bentham is not so much concerned with personal decisions as he is with broader questions of law-making and social values, this is not simply a matter of seeing how much pleasure or pain an action produces for us, but instead what the results of this action are more broadly. Perhaps I get some pleasure from hitting you over the head with a rock, but if we factor in the discomfort that you feel, then it becomes possible to see that I should probably not hit you in this way. And if I get pleasure from hitting you over the head with a marmoset, then we have to consider the marmoset in the calculations as well.
So how do we calculate? For Bentham, there are several factors we need to consider in calculating what the consequences of an action may be in terms of pleasure and pain. So we need to think about the intensity of pleasure or pain, the question of how much. We also need to think about the duration, the question of how long. After all, we might prefer a brief second of serious pain to a year of nagging suffering. Then there is the question of certainty or of how likely it is that this action will lead to pleasure or pain. There is also propinquity, how near at hand the pain or pleasure is going to be — for example, we might think something is worth doing for a small increase in pleasure tomorrow, but if this small increase in pleasure is in ten years’ time, it might be less worthwhile. Then there is the question of fecundity, or how likely this pleasure or pain is to give rise to more of the same. And finally, there is the question of purity, or whether the pain or the pleasure is likely to turn into or to entail the opposite, as the pleasure of drinking a bottle of wine can entail the discomfort of a hangover the following day.
The problem here is, of course, clear: how do we do the maths? What units do we use to measure pleasure? And how do we get enough data to really make this work? After all, we need to consider all possible implications of any action, all of those involved, and if we are going to calculate, we have to do this with a degree of rigour. This approach to deciding what the right thing to do might be, whilst it might work as a rule of thumb, when it comes to putting it on firmer foundations, it becomes much more difficult to see how we should make these decisions.
Close Reading
Let’s do a close reading of Bentham’s text, as usual. Remember that this is going to be our approach to reading. In your groups:
-
Identify what you think are the most important sections of the reading.
-
Summarise in your own words what the author is saying in these sections.
-
Explain why these sections are important to the author’s argument.
-
Give a practical example that can help us understand the argument.
To do this, you have to have the text open in your groups, so you can read it carefully, and talk about what it is actually saying (not what you guess it might be saying!).
Calculating Ethics
This seems like a promising way of resolving ethical issues. But how are we to do the calculations? Let’s try. Imagine that you have an important deadline for this course tomorrow. But a friend has invited you to a party tonight. You have two options:
-
Option A: Go to the party and have fun.
-
Option B: Stay home and write your paper.
Instructions:
-
Create a table with two columns: “Option A (Party)” and, “Option B (Stay Home)”. In each column, give the following:
-
Pleasure Rating (on a scale of +1 to +5)
-
Pain Rating (on a scale of -1 to -5)
-
Notes (brief explanation for each rating)
-
When calculating the pleasure/pain rating, take into account: intensity, duration, certainty or uncertainty, propinquity, fecundity and purity.
Calculate the net pleasure for each option by summing the pleasure and pain ratings. Which is the right course of action?
Discussion
-
What result did you get?
-
Does this feel like the (ethically) “right” result? If so, why? If not, why not?
-
Was it hard to quantify pleasure/pain?
-
Is this a useful and practical way of making everyday decisions?
-
What other problems do you think there are with this idea that we can calculate the greatest happiness.
One criticism of this kind of approach to Utilitarianism is that it can also lead us to conclusions that are incredibly unjust. One famous short story that tackles some of these problems is Ursula K. Le Guin’s short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.
Homework
We’re going to explore a more sophisticated approach to Utilitarianism by reading this extract from John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/classicreadings/chapter/john-stuart-mill-on-utilitarianism/
As usual, comment on Canvas.