Should the morality of an action be judged by the happiness it produces or by the duty behind it?
Utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill) and Kantian deontological ethics, including the hedonic calculus, higher and lower pleasures, the categorical imperative and the good will.
An AQA A-Level Religious Studies answer to Bentham, Mill and Kant, covering act and rule utilitarianism, the hedonic calculus, higher and lower pleasures, Kant's good will, duty and the categorical imperative, with strengths and criticisms.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
AQA wants you to explain utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill) and Kant's deontological ethics, set out the hedonic calculus, higher and lower pleasures, the good will, duty and the categorical imperative, and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Bentham's utilitarianism
This is teleological (outcome-focused) and hedonistic (pleasure is the only intrinsic good). Bentham treats all pleasures as equal in kind, differing only in quantity, so "the quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry". Because the right act is the one that produces the greatest net balance of pleasure over pain for all affected, this is a form of act utilitarianism: each individual act is assessed afresh by its consequences. Its strengths are its impartiality (each person's happiness counts as one) and its secular, common-sense focus on welfare; its weaknesses are the difficulty of measuring and predicting pleasure, and the risk of justifying cruelty to a minority if it maximises the total.
Mill's refinement
Mill defends the quality distinction with the "competent judges" test: those who have experienced both kinds of pleasure prefer the higher, so it is "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". He leans towards rule utilitarianism, applying the principle of utility to general rules (such as keeping promises) that tend to maximise happiness, rather than calculating each act afresh. This protects against the act-utilitarian worry that the theory could justify a single unjust act, but critics object that sticking to a rule even when breaking it would do more good ("rule worship") abandons the very point of utilitarianism.
Kant's deontology
Kant's ethics is deontological and a priori: duties hold regardless of consequences, and a categorical (unconditional) imperative differs from a hypothetical (conditional) one. Morality presupposes freedom, immortality and God as postulates of practical reason, since the moral law commands the summum bonum (the union of virtue and happiness) which only an afterlife and God can secure. The strengths of Kant's system are its clarity, its universality and its respect for persons as ends; its weaknesses are conflicts between absolute duties (Kant's notorious refusal to lie even to a would-be murderer) and its refusal to weigh consequences, which can yield results that seem harsh or counter-intuitive.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of AQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
AQA 20185 marksExplain Kant's categorical imperative and its three formulations.Show worked answer →
A 5-mark Paper 2 (Ethics) AO1 question. Markers want the categorical imperative defined and the three formulations correctly stated.
Define it: a categorical imperative commands unconditionally (an absolute duty), unlike a hypothetical imperative ("if you want X, do Y"). Then give the three formulations. (1) The formula of universal law: act only on a maxim you could will to become a universal law without contradiction. (2) The formula of humanity (the end in itself): treat persons always as ends, never merely as a means. (3) The kingdom of ends: act as a law-making member of an ideal community in which everyone is treated as an end. Strong answers note these are tests of duty derived a priori from reason, not from consequences.
AQA 202020 marks'Utilitarianism is a more useful guide to moral decision-making than Kantian ethics.' Assess this view.Show worked answer →
A 20-mark Paper 2 essay, mainly AO2. Reward a balanced comparison reaching a justified judgement.
Set out both theories accurately: Bentham's and Mill's utilitarianism (the principle of utility, the hedonic calculus, higher and lower pleasures) and Kant's deontology (good will, duty, the categorical imperative). Evaluate "useful". For utilitarianism: it is flexible, secular, democratic (everyone counts) and outcome-focused, but the calculus is impractical, predictions are uncertain, and it can justify injustice to a minority. For Kant: it gives clear, universal duties and protects individuals as ends, but conflicting absolute duties (the inquiring murderer) and its disregard of consequences can produce harsh results. Judge, for example, that utilitarianism is more practical in everyday cases while Kant better protects rights, so usefulness depends on the type of decision. Top-band work uses a worked dilemma to test both.
Related dot points
- The three main normative ethical theories: natural moral law (Aquinas), situation ethics (Fletcher) and virtue ethics (Aristotle), including their key principles and applications.
An AQA A-Level Religious Studies answer to the three normative ethical theories, covering Aquinas's natural moral law, Fletcher's situation ethics and Aristotle's virtue ethics, with their key principles, strengths and weaknesses.
- The application of ethical theories to issues of human life and death and non-human life and death, including theft, lying, deception, war and the use of computer-generated or virtual life.
An AQA A-Level Religious Studies answer to applied ethics, showing how natural law, situation ethics, virtue ethics, utilitarianism and Kantian ethics judge theft, lying and deception, war and the use of computer-generated and virtual life.
- Meta-ethics: the meaning of ethical language, including naturalism, intuitionism (Moore's naturalistic fallacy), and non-cognitivist theories of emotivism (Ayer) and prescriptivism (Hare).
An AQA A-Level Religious Studies answer to meta-ethics, covering ethical naturalism, Moore's intuitionism and the naturalistic fallacy, Ayer's emotivism and Hare's prescriptivism, with strengths and weaknesses of each.
- The nature and role of conscience, including the religious views of Aquinas and Newman and the psychological views of Freud, and whether conscience is innate or learned.
An AQA A-Level Religious Studies answer to conscience, covering Aquinas's synderesis and conscientia, Newman's voice of God, Freud's psychological account of the super-ego, and whether conscience is innate or learned.
- Free will and moral responsibility, including hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism (soft determinism), and the religious idea of predestination.
An AQA A-Level Religious Studies answer to free will and moral responsibility, covering hard determinism, libertarianism, compatibilism (soft determinism) and religious predestination, and their implications for moral responsibility.
Sources & how we know this
- AQA A-level Religious Studies (7062) specification — AQA (2016)