The utilitarianism of Bentham. Part 2 of the series of ethical theories

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has gained popularity in the early 1800's and still affects many of our decisions today. On the face of it, is pretty simple. Utilitarianism is the slogan of "Every action produces more pleasure and less pain for the greatest number of people is the morally right action." So right or wrong of an action is linked to the consequences of that action. And 'for this reason that utilitarianism is a member of the family of ethical theories known as consequentialism. Just put the resulting ethical theories are theories that make use of the ramifications of an action to determine its morality. But not all theories are conseguenzialiste selfless as utilitarianism.

The first great champion of utilitarianism was as English philosopher by the name of Jeremy Bentham. James Mill, Bentham's close friend and fellow English helped him in his work and is often given credit for co-utilitarianism. Yet he was the son of Mill, John Stuart Mill who made utilitarianism in a good working theory. To distinguish the theory from Bentham to JS Mill's Utilitarianism is called law.

Bentham used what came to be known as the hedonistic calculus to determine whether an action is right or wrong. Here's how it works in an example and I stress very much simplified.

Action X is in question.
If X has made 100 people will experience an increased level of happiness. (For now we will not worry how much of an increase that would be.)
1 person the experience of pain as a result of an action X.
Positive 100
Negative -1
= 99
Action X is determined to be morally right action with a positive rating of 99.

This is an example of the calculation hedonistic in action. Here is another.

Action Y is now in question.

Action Y will bring happiness to 6 people.

Action Y will bring sorrow to 5 people.

6-5 = a Y action is morally right.

That might seem a bit 'more questionable. How can cause pain in 5 people 6 people and feel good about it? We have just begun.

Obviously not all the things that brings him pleasure or pain in equal amounts. Bentham developed a set of criteria to determine the level of pain or pleasure that was to be taken into account. Without going into details of all the criteria I will try to give a good example of calculating hedonic values ​​with pain and pleasure.

You are in a store and interested in a particular element. We say that is a bottle of scotch. It is hosting a swanky dinner tonight, but have no money. Being a die-hard utilitarian Act ponder whether it is right or wrong to steal. Not having to pay is positive, but not a huge. It gives a +2. You can also get some satisfaction from stealing and living dangerously, +3. It is now up to +5. You might share with your 6 guests, which is 7 people enjoying a drink. 2 for each to 14. That totals 19 points positive. Now for the negatives, you may feel guilty after -3. (If you were a true utilitarian Bentham would not feel guilty until you go by the results of the hedonistic calculus, because it determines right from wrong. So this could be denied.) You might get caught but this is the reason a remote possibility - 1. There will be lost revenue for the store, but remember you are concerned about levels of pain, not profits. It is the reason that the store will not notice the loss. This is a zero, neither positive nor negative. Negative total 4. 19-4 = 15. You go for it.

Most people would agree that stealing is wrong, but this appeared to steal the road to greater happiness and then you would not steal from the wrong. As is that for a change! Continue with the story.

The shopkeeper is very meticulous and immediately notice the bottle missing. He is out $ 50 dollars and is furious. Shoot the clerk who was on duty. He called the police who are bothered the inconvenience. They can be recognized by security cameras. Were arrested at your party and spend 3 days in jail before being sentenced to 100 hours of community service. I could go on but I will stop here.

Now, instead of being a moral hero, as you expected you are guilty of a felony. You have caused much more pain than pleasure. "But," you plead "I did not want that to happen!" Utilitarianism is not about what you want to happen, remember that it is a consequentialist theory. It only matters what happens at the end. So there is something that seems counterproductive to an ethical theory that is unable to determine the morality of an action before the action is committed.

Another problem is that in the final calculation hedonic is subjective. You can give a particular pleasure, a 10, but someone else can give only 7. Many people also disagree with a theory that allows the immense suffering for the sake of a few of many.

There is the question of practicality too. How many people really want to take the time to consider all the possible ramifications, assign them all numbers, and add all the numbers together to come up with what is ultimately just a guess on whether an action would be moral or immoral?

Still there are many cases where people apply the act utilitarianism often without realizing it. These are particularly common in situations of crisis such as war. General (and public) can find themselves contemplating how many lives the mission is worthwhile and the Congress may be concerned about how many dollars worth.

Because of its many flaws everyday utilitarianism act now has few supporters. However you may remember from John Stuart Mill. Acknowledged and has revolutionized the utilitarianism that, in dealing with most of the objections in the process. And 'rule-utilitarianism John Stuart Mill that I speak in my next article .......