Author: Gemma

Key questions
1. Is pleasure can be seen as the sole intrinsic good?	2. Does Act and/or Rule Utilitarianism work in contemporary society?	3. Does Rule Utilitarianism provide a better basis for making moral decisions than Act?
4. Does Utilitarianism promote immoral behaviour?	5. Does Utilitarianism promote justice?	6. Does Utilitarianism provide a practical basis for making moral decisions? For religious believers, non-believers, both?

Ethics Theme 3—Teleological Ethics 2 (Utilitarianism) Knowledge Organiser

Scholars
7. Jeremy Bentham	8. J S Mill	9. Aristotle	10. Arthur Miller	11. Claudius Galen
12. William Harvey	13. Gill Langley	14. Albert Sabin	15. Colin Blakemore	16. Julia Driver

Key Words
17. Consequentialist: the view that moral judgements should be based on the outcome of an action	18. Relativistic: there are no universal moral norms or rules and each situation has to be looked at independently because each situation is different
19. Principle of Utility: Also called the greatest happiness principle. This states that an action is right if it produces ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number.’	20. Hedonism: an ethical theory that defines what is right in terms of pleasure
21. Jeremy Bentham: philosopher, economist and social reformer (1748-1832), developed the theory known as Act Utilitarianism. He developed the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle to help people achieve situationist happiness. It states that an action is right if it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He also devised the hedonic calculus as a means of measuring pleasure.	22. Hedonic Calculus: criteria applied by Act Utilitarians to measure pleasure to determine morally correct action: certainty - how sure is it that pleasure will happen? Duration - how long will it last? Extent - how many people does it affect? Intensity - how strong is it? Purity – how free from pain is it? Remoteness - how close in time is it for those involved? Richness - how much more pleasure will it lead to?
23. J S Mill: (1806—1873) British philosopher, political economist, civil servant and MP. Developed his mentor’s (Bentham) theory but it was different in 2 ways– 1)quality of pleasure is more important than quantity, 2) He appears to have been a Rule Utilitarian (though ‘Act’ and ‘Rule’ were terms used after his death).	24. Harm Principle: Principle created by John Stuart Mill. He argued that the only reason power can be rightfully exercised over a member of a civilised community, against their will, is to prevent harm to others.
25. Higher pleasures: term used by Mill to distinguish between different forms of happiness. Higher pleasures are pleasures of the mind and superior e.g. intellectual pursuits. He believed that the quality of happiness was more important than the quantity.	26. Lower pleasures: pleasures of the body and are therefore inferior to the higher pleasures. Examples include satisfying the bodily need for food, water, sleep, etc. He believed that the quality of happiness an act produced was more important than the quantity.
27. Act utilitarianism: associated with Bentham and treats each situation as unique- applies the hedonic calculus to each act to see if it fulfils the principle of utility	28. Rule utilitarianism: a view associated with J S Mill and states that by using the principle of utility one can draw up general rules which would help to keep this principle
29. Strong Rule utilitarianism: a belief that rules established through applying the principle of utility should never be broken as they guarantee greatest happiness for society	30. Weak Rule utilitarianism: This allows for the fact that in some situations breaking a rule which was formulated to fulfil the principle of utility may be right- because in this particular situation breaking the rule is more likely to fulfil the principle of utility than keeping the rule
31. Atomic bomb: weapon which uses nuclear energy to produce destructive power	32. Deterrent: something that discourages intends to discourage someone from doing something
33. CND: a pressure group calling themselves the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament	34. Vivisection: performing operations on live animals for experimentation or scientific research
35. Dissection: the action of dissecting a body or plant to study its internal parts	36. Animal Aid: charity which argues against using animals for medical research
37. Understanding Animal Research: a not for profit organisation that explains why animals are used in medical and scientific research

AO2

General Strengths of Utilitarianism	General Weaknesses of Utilitarianism
Supports Human Nature: / 38. As far back as Ancient Greece (400BC) it has been recognised that happiness is the most important goal of humanity. Aristotle stated that everyone’s major aim in life (the highest good) was the pursuit of happiness. He argued happiness was the main aim in life for “both ordinary and cultured people” / 39. Scientists such as Stefan Klein agree that happiness is a human goal: “people are genetically programmed for positive feelings.” i.e. our brains are wired up to want happiness.	Happiness is not important to humanity: / 47. Robert Nozick argued that happiness should not be the criteria to judge morality because happiness is not the most important emotion in our lives. He argued that if we had the chance to be hooked up to a VR machine that would guarantee happiness for the rest of our lives we would turn it down. This is because things like relationships with family & friends are much more important to us.
Secular Society: / 40. Sociologists argue we live in a secular society, therefore Utilitarianism would work in contemporary (modern) society e.g. Bentham did not believe in a God and deliberately made a secular ethic. He wanted to create an ethic that reflected the needs of people in society here and now; rather than one that looked at the eternal (heaven or hell) like Natural Law.	Happiness is a dangerous emotion: / 48. It can be dangerous to judge complex and important moral decisions on something as emotionally unstable as happiness. / 49. Many horrific crimes have been carried out for the justification of creating happiness e.g. Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.
Strengths of Act Utilitarianism	Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism
Post Modern Society: / 41. Sociologists claim we live in a Post-Modern Society (society has rejected traditional fixed values like the absolutist rules of the Bible). / 42. Act Utilitarianism would potentially work well in a Post-Modern Society because it does not have a fixed set of rules.	Act Utilitarianism lacks rules: / 50. It can be argued that modern society is in moral decline. Therefore, what society needs, to improve morality, is a decisive and clear deontological moral ethic, like Natural Law, that everyone can follow.
Compassionate Ethic: / 43. Act Utilitarianism is compassionate because judging consequences, rather than actions, allows you to consider the individual circumstances of each situation rather than making generalised rule based moral judgements. E.g. deontological ethics like Natural Law would say the action of ‘lying’ is always wrong regardless of the situation. But if a Nazi soldier asked you if you were hiding Jews then lying may be morally right. Act Utilitarianism would allow lying (in this situation) as it would bring about the most happiness.	Act Utilitarianism requires prediction of consequences: / 51. Act Utilitarianism’s teleological approach means we have to predict the potential happiness outcomes of our actions, but humans are not good at predicting consequences. We could do a bad action with the hope that it creates happiness consequences and vice versa.
Cultures are different: / 44. Gareth Moore claims people are different, they are affected by their culture etc. This makes absolutist systems such as Natural Law inappropriate whereas Act Utilitarianism allows for these differences because happiness is different in each culture. E.g. in Switzerland allowing Euthanasia would make most people happy whereas in China this may be interpreted as disrespect to elders and therefore would make people unhappy if it were legal in China.	Some Actions Are Just Wrong: / 52. Some argue that certain actions are just wrong and should not become good just because they are done to create happiness e.g. the pleasure of the attackers in a gang rape would outweigh the victim and so Act Utilitarianism would allow it. This is clearly wrong.
Strengths of Rule Utilitarianism	Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism is clearer: / 45. Rule Utilitarianism offers a clear set of rules to follow unlike Act Utilitarianism )which is simply impractical as it asks you to evaluate every individual circumstance.)	Not good for a Post-Modern Society: / 53. Post-Modern Society (one that rejects fixed values) is not going to like Rule Utilitarianism as it means we would have to switch back to having rigid rules, which to some is old fashioned.
Rule Utilitarianism does not require predictions: / 46. With Rule Utilitarianism’s rule based approach there is now no need to predict the potential happiness outcomes of our actions. There is no danger of our bad actions also creating unhappiness because we misjudged the consequences.	Not a compassionate ethic: / 54. Judging actions (and thus creating rules) rather than consequences does not allow you to consider the individual circumstances of each moral situation. Rule Utilitarianism has rules that ignore the individual situations of moral agents.

Key questions
1. Is pleasure can be seen as the sole intrinsic good?	2. Does Act and/or Rule Utilitarianism work in contemporary society?	3. Does Rule Utilitarianism provide a better basis for making moral decisions than Act?
4. Does Utilitarianism promote immoral behaviour?	5. Does Utilitarianism promote justice?	6. Does Utilitarianism provide a practical basis for making moral decisions? For religious believers, non-believers, both?

Ethics Theme 3—Teleological Ethics 2 (Utilitarianism) Knowledge Organiser

Scholars
7. Jeremy Bentham	8. J S Mill	9. Aristotle	10. Arthur Miller	11. Claudius Galen
12. William Harvey	13. Gill Langley	14. Albert Sabin	15. Colin Blakemore	16. Julia Driver

Key Words
17. Consequentialist:	18. Relativistic:
19. Principle of Utility:	20. Hedonism:
21. Jeremy Bentham:	22. Hedonic Calculus:
23. J S Mill:	24. Harm Principle:
25. Higher pleasures:	26. Lower pleasures:
27. Act utilitarianism:	28. Rule utilitarianism:
29. Strong Rule utilitarianism:	30. Weak Rule utilitarianism:
31. Atomic bomb:	32. Deterrent:
33. CND:	34. Vivisection:
35. Dissection:	36. Animal Aid:
37. Understanding Animal Research:

AO2

General Strengths of Utilitarianism	General Weaknesses of Utilitarianism
Supports Human Nature: / 38. As far back as Ancient Greece (400BC) it has been recognised that happiness is the most important goal of humanity. Aristotle stated that everyone’s major aim in life (the highest good) was the pursuit of happiness. He argued happiness was the main aim in life for “both ordinary and cultured people” / 39. Scientists such as Stefan Klein agree that happiness is a human goal: “people are genetically programmed for positive feelings.” i.e. our brains are wired up to want happiness.	Happiness is not important to humanity: / 47. Robert Nozick argued that happiness should not be the criteria to judge morality because happiness is not the most important emotion in our lives. He argued that if we had the chance to be hooked up to a VR machine that would guarantee happiness for the rest of our lives we would turn it down. This is because things like relationships with family & friends are much more important to us.
Secular Society: / 40. Sociologists argue we live in a secular society, therefore Utilitarianism would work in contemporary (modern) society e.g. Bentham did not believe in a God and deliberately made a secular ethic. He wanted to create an ethic that reflected the needs of people in society here and now; rather than one that looked at the eternal (heaven or hell) like Natural Law.	Happiness is a dangerous emotion: / 48. It can be dangerous to judge complex and important moral decisions on something as emotionally unstable as happiness. / 49. Many horrific crimes have been carried out for the justification of creating happiness e.g. Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.
Strengths of Act Utilitarianism	Weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism
Post Modern Society: / 41. Sociologists claim we live in a Post-Modern Society (society has rejected traditional fixed values like the absolutist rules of the Bible). / 42. Act Utilitarianism would potentially work well in a Post-Modern Society because it does not have a fixed set of rules.	Act Utilitarianism lacks rules: / 50. It can be argued that modern society is in moral decline. Therefore, what society needs, to improve morality, is a decisive and clear deontological moral ethic, like Natural Law, that everyone can follow.
Compassionate Ethic: / 43. Act Utilitarianism is compassionate because judging consequences, rather than actions, allows you to consider the individual circumstances of each situation rather than making generalised rule based moral judgements. E.g. deontological ethics like Natural Law would say the action of ‘lying’ is always wrong regardless of the situation. But if a Nazi soldier asked you if you were hiding Jews then lying may be morally right. Act Utilitarianism would allow lying (in this situation) as it would bring about the most happiness.	Act Utilitarianism requires prediction of consequences: / 51. Act Utilitarianism’s teleological approach means we have to predict the potential happiness outcomes of our actions, but humans are not good at predicting consequences. We could do a bad action with the hope that it creates happiness consequences and vice versa.
Cultures are different: / 44. Gareth Moore claims people are different, they are affected by their culture etc. This makes absolutist systems such as Natural Law inappropriate whereas Act Utilitarianism allows for these differences because happiness is different in each culture. E.g. in Switzerland allowing Euthanasia would make most people happy whereas in China this may be interpreted as disrespect to elders and therefore would make people unhappy if it were legal in China.	Some Actions Are Just Wrong: / 52. Some argue that certain actions are just wrong and should not become good just because they are done to create happiness e.g. the pleasure of the attackers in a gang rape would outweigh the victim and so Act Utilitarianism would allow it. This is clearly wrong.
Strengths of Rule Utilitarianism	Weaknesses of Rule Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism is clearer: / 45. Rule Utilitarianism offers a clear set of rules to follow unlike Act Utilitarianism )which is simply impractical as it asks you to evaluate every individual circumstance.)	Not good for a Post-Modern Society: / 53. Post-Modern Society (one that rejects fixed values) is not going to like Rule Utilitarianism as it means we would have to switch back to having rigid rules, which to some is old fashioned.
Rule Utilitarianism does not require predictions: / 46. With Rule Utilitarianism’s rule based approach there is now no need to predict the potential happiness outcomes of our actions. There is no danger of our bad actions also creating unhappiness because we misjudged the consequences.	Not a compassionate ethic: / 54. Judging actions (and thus creating rules) rather than consequences does not allow you to consider the individual circumstances of each moral situation. Rule Utilitarianism has rules that ignore the individual situations of moral agents.