Utilitarianism: Bentham's act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus, Mill's qualitative and rule utilitarianism, and the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

What this dot point is asking

This WJEC theme asks you to explain and evaluate utilitarianism, the leading teleological, consequentialist theory, in the versions of Bentham and Mill. You need Bentham's act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus, Mill's distinction of higher and lower pleasures and his rule utilitarianism, and the theory's strengths and weaknesses. AO1 wants accurate exposition; AO2 wants a reasoned judgement on whether judging by consequences works.

The answer

Bentham's act utilitarianism and the hedonic calculus

To measure happiness, Bentham devised the hedonic (felicific) calculus, weighing pleasure by seven factors: intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity (nearness), fecundity (likelihood of leading to more pleasure), purity (freedom from pain), and extent (the number affected). The morally right act is the one that scores highest.

Mill's refinements: quality and rules

Mill's move from act to rule utilitarianism and from quantity to quality is meant to answer the charge that Bentham's theory is crude and can justify base pleasures or unjust acts.

Strengths and weaknesses

• Strengths. It is rational and secular; it is democratic ("everyone to count for one, nobody for more than one"); it is flexible, with no rigid rules; and it focuses on the real welfare of sentient beings, matching the intuition that consequences matter.
• Weaknesses. It can justify injustice: act utilitarianism could permit punishing an innocent person, or sacrificing a minority, if that maximises overall happiness. It neglects rights, justice and special obligations (to family, promises). Predicting consequences is difficult, and measuring and comparing pleasures (Bentham's calculus) is problematic. Rule utilitarianism protects rights better but either collapses into act utilitarianism (if rules can always be broken for utility) or becomes as rigid as the rule-based theories it sought to improve on.

Examples in context

Model paragraph (does rule utilitarianism rescue the theory?). The most serious charge against utilitarianism is that it can sanction injustice: if the right act simply maximises aggregate happiness, then framing and punishing an innocent person to placate an angry mob, or sacrificing a small minority for a contented majority, comes out as obligatory, which violates deep convictions about rights and desert. Mill's rule utilitarianism is the standard reply: because a general rule against punishing the innocent reliably produces more happiness over time than a policy of case-by-case sacrifice, the rule utilitarian can forbid the unjust act on principle. The difficulty is a dilemma. If the rule may be broken whenever breaking it would, on this occasion, maximise utility, then rule utilitarianism collapses back into act utilitarianism and the injustice returns. If the rule may never be broken, then rule utilitarianism becomes a rule-based, quasi-deontological theory and forfeits the flexibility that made utilitarianism attractive in the first place. A strong evaluation therefore argues that rule utilitarianism mitigates but does not cleanly solve the injustice objection, since it must choose between consequentialist flexibility and the protection of rights.

Try this

Q1. State the principle of utility. [2 marks]

• Cue. The right action produces the greatest happiness (pleasure and absence of pain) for the greatest number.

Q2. What is the difference between higher and lower pleasures for Mill? [2 marks]

• Cue. Higher pleasures are intellectual and superior; lower pleasures are bodily; those who know both prefer the higher.

Q3. Evaluate the view that utilitarianism is the most useful approach to ethics. [20 marks]

• What the marker wants. A balanced argument weighing rationality, democracy and flexibility against the justification of injustice, neglect of rights, and calculation problems, with a reasoned judgement.