Paper 2 Utilitarianism and deontology: Bentham's act and Mill's rule utilitarianism with later developments, and Kant's deontological ethics (the categorical imperative, duty and the good will), with applications and criticisms.

What this dot point is asking

Edexcel Paper 2 sets the two great rivals in normative ethics: utilitarianism, which is teleological (right action maximises good consequences), and Kantian deontology, which is deontological (right action follows universal duty regardless of consequences). You must know each theory's development and key features, apply them, and evaluate them, usually by setting consequences against duty on the same case.

The answer

Bentham's act utilitarianism

Mill's rule and qualitative utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill answers the charge that act utilitarianism is a "doctrine worthy only of swine" by distinguishing higher (intellectual, moral) from lower (bodily) pleasures: "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." He moves towards rule utilitarianism, following rules that, if generally observed, maximise happiness (so promises are kept), which protects against one-off injustices. Strong rule utilitarianism never breaks the rule; weak rule utilitarianism allows exceptions.

Later developments

• Preference utilitarianism (associated with Peter Singer) maximises the satisfaction of preferences rather than pleasure, respecting what people actually want.
• Negative utilitarianism prioritises the reduction of suffering over the promotion of happiness.
• Ideal utilitarianism (G E Moore) treats goods such as knowledge and beauty, not only pleasure, as intrinsically valuable.

Strengths of utilitarianism: rational, democratic (each counts as one), and focused on real welfare. Criticisms: consequences are hard to predict; it can sacrifice a minority for the majority (the "tyranny of the majority"); it may justify unjust acts (punishing an innocent to prevent a riot); and "happiness" is hard to measure and compare.

Kant's deontology

• The formula of universal law: "act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to become a universal law." A maxim that cannot be universalised without contradiction (such as lying promises) is forbidden.
• The formula of humanity (ends): "treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end." This secures human dignity.
• The formula of the kingdom of ends: act as a law-making member of a community in which all are treated as ends.

Kant adds that "ought implies can" and postulates God, freedom and immortality as necessary for the summum bonum (the union of virtue and happiness).

Strengths: secures dignity, equality and clear duties independent of self-interest; treats persons as ends. Criticisms: duties can conflict with no way to rank them; the universal-law test seems to forbid lying even to a murderer at the door (Constant's objection); it ignores consequences and emotion; and acting "from duty" alone can seem cold and counter-intuitive.

Examples in context

A model essay applies both theories to the same dilemma, because the contrast between maximising welfare and respecting duty is where their merits become evaluable.

Try this

Q1. Evaluate the view that Kantian ethics is too rigid to be a useful guide to moral behaviour. [20 marks]

• What the marker wants. An AO2 essay explaining the good will, duty and the three formulations, weighing the rigidity and conflicting-duties objections against the strengths of dignity and clear obligation, comparing with utilitarian flexibility, and concluding with reasons.

Q2. Explain Bentham's hedonic calculus. [8 marks]

• Cue. A method for measuring the pleasure and pain of an act by intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent, in order to identify the action producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number.