The theory of utilitarianism was argued by Jeremy Bentham. He was a British philosopher and politician in the 19th century, and also founded UCL and UCS. He worked on a legal form and wrote "The Principles of Moral and Legislation" where he put forward his ethical theory that can be split up into three parts. The first part is about his views on what drove and motivated human beings as well as defining the meaning of goodness and badness. The second part consisted of the principle of utility, his moral rule. Finally he devised a formula for measuring how the good and bad consequences of an action can help one choose which action to take; he called it the hedonic calculus. From this a utilitarian would decide whether to follow through with one action or another.
The Hedonic Calculus
The hedonic calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure created by the available moral actions to find the best moral and ethical decision. It considers the following seven factors:
If a utilitarian was given the ticking bomb problem they would consider the hedonic calculus to help them decide whether to torture the man or not. Their calculations may look as follows:
The Hedonic Calculus
The hedonic calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure created by the available moral actions to find the best moral and ethical decision. It considers the following seven factors:
- Intensity: How powerful is the action?
- Duration: How long does the pleasure or pain last?
- Certainty/Uncertainty: How likely is it to result in pleasure or pain?
- Propinquity/Remoteness: How near is it?
- Fecundity: What is the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the same kind: that is pleasure if it be pleasure or pain if it be pain?
- Purity: What is the chance it has of being followed by sensations of the opposite kind: that is pain if it be pleasure or pleasure if it be pain.
- Extent: How many people does it affect?
If a utilitarian was given the ticking bomb problem they would consider the hedonic calculus to help them decide whether to torture the man or not. Their calculations may look as follows:
Jeremy Bentham would torture the terrorist and save the tens of millions of lives because it overall gives the most pleasure. The number of lives saved will be greater than those hurt. One sinful man will be hurt and a city full of people will be saved. A utilitarian would say that performing the torture would maximise pleasure for all the parties affected and do the greatest good to the greatest number therefore they would torture the convict.
One could argue the arguments for and against utilitarianism. It certainly takes everyone's wellbeing into account and avoids selfishness but it is difficult to predict all consequences. It is beneficial, natural and the majority ends up happier. The hedonic calculus gives us a clear formula for working out the most moral action. It is democratic and consists of objective judgements. However, pleasure is subjunctive; something pleasurable to one is painful to another. This antithesis applies especially to the ticking bomb problem since if we torture the man then he will experience pain but the whole city will be content and have pleasure. The same goes for if the terrorist isn't tortured then he will be content but the whole city will experience pain. One may contradict a utilitarian's argument by saying that something pleasurable may not be moral. We shouldn't do bad things just for greater pleasure or happiness. Utilitarianism disregards intentions and the self; it is too self sacrificing.
One could argue the arguments for and against utilitarianism. It certainly takes everyone's wellbeing into account and avoids selfishness but it is difficult to predict all consequences. It is beneficial, natural and the majority ends up happier. The hedonic calculus gives us a clear formula for working out the most moral action. It is democratic and consists of objective judgements. However, pleasure is subjunctive; something pleasurable to one is painful to another. This antithesis applies especially to the ticking bomb problem since if we torture the man then he will experience pain but the whole city will be content and have pleasure. The same goes for if the terrorist isn't tortured then he will be content but the whole city will experience pain. One may contradict a utilitarian's argument by saying that something pleasurable may not be moral. We shouldn't do bad things just for greater pleasure or happiness. Utilitarianism disregards intentions and the self; it is too self sacrificing.