Is Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus a useful but not a definite process for moral decision making
In the following paragraphs I am going to discuss how Jeremy Betham’s Hedonic Calculus is not a definitive process for moral decision making. Though it may be useful, I believe pleasure and pain are not what manipulate our decision making, and instead I believe it is moral and consequences that control why we make the choices in our day to day lives. The two theories I will be using in my argument are Consequentialism and Utilitarianism, as both of these support the theory that morals affect our decision making.
To begin with consequentialism is the theory that there is a rightness and wrongness of actions which is determined by a moral code, for example it is a set of rules which would have the best outcome for the one making the decision. There are two theories of consequentialism
…show more content…
You have no emotional attachment to this idea but many say they would to save the life of five individuals over the life of one. The reason for this is that consequentially you would save five lives over one, and more lives saved is considered to be a better option morally. Though when asked if one would push that very person into the path of the trolley to save five most would not as morally to yourself that is seen as murder as you physically harmed them. This isn’t based on pain on pleasure, though the deaths would cause emotional pain, instead it’s based on morally what you as an individual believe to be the right thing. These moral judgements happen rapidly and are seen as an almost automatic response, and generally most do not have the ability to outweigh the pain verses pleasure thus making them an almost unconscious decision derived from what we believe to be morally incorrect or correct (Trolley problems in context; Christopher
The Jim and the Indians example illustrates a situation in which a man must choose whether to violate his moral code in order to save innocent lives. In this scenario, Jim is a visitor in an area in South American were twenty innocent Indians have been lined up and are about to be killed for showing resistance against their government. The man in charge of killing these Indians has offered Jim a deal: Jim can kill one of the Indians himself and the man will let all of the rest go. However, if Jim does not accept the deal, the execution of all twenty Indians will be carried out as planned. It is morally wrong to murder but is it permissible in this case if it means saving nineteen innocent lives? This scenario brings about the question if there are exceptions to moral code, or if certain actions are wrong in all circumstances.
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
Utilitarianism was initially a school of thought brought about by Jeremey Bentham throughout the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries. John Stuart Mill would later go on to shape it closer to the form we know today. On the surface the Utilitarian way of thinking seems simple: every action must be done for the sake of the greater good. However, as one digs deeper into this notion it is clear that this cannot be achieved by relying solely on a common sense approach to life. In the following paragraphs we will explore the history of Utilitarianism and those who formed it, how it is meant to guide life, and how it is relevant to life in the Twenty-first Century.
I would like the reader to understand this need to assess our action is not necessarily a conscious and deliberate action that we take, but more from a philosophical questioning when we discuss ethics and which ethical theory is the best. Also, I used in the above the word pleasure, but here pleasure is not referring strictly to our bodily sensation but more our satisfaction and well-being like what Mill has discussed “intellectual pleasures”. This does not mean pleasure here is not hedonistic in nature in the sense the word is used but rather an extension of the term. Lastly, to clarify for the reader the opposite of happiness is not sadness; it is in fact unhappiness or pain. Further, the words ethical and moral are being used interchangeably. The above argument presented can be extended as follows
Consequentialism is an ethical perspective that primarily focuses upon the consequences resulting from an action and aims to eliminate the negative consequences. Within this framework there are three sub-categories: Egoism, Altruism and Utilitarianism.
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
However, utilitarianism is not without its critics. One notable critique about the notion of hedonism, or the utilitarian concept that states that pleasure and freedom from pain are the only meaningful ends, is the thought experiment wherein there exists machine that can simulate any experience (Nozick 644). The “experience machine” would be able to cause the user to experience anything they choose, all while keeping them unaware that they are plugged into the machine. If “pleasure, and the freedom from pain are the only thing desirable as ends” (Mill 172) then it should not matter whethe...
Consequentialism is the view that, according to FoE, the morality of actions, policies, motives, or rules depends on their producing the best actual or expected results. In other words, do as much good as you can. Act utilitarianism, a sub-group of consequentialism, claims that well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable, and that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances. Basically, Act utilitarianism agrees completely with consequentialism, but ensure that those actual or expected results end up improving well-being. Consequentialism, as a whole, while extremely similar to other moral theories, such as hedonism and the desire theory, are, in fact, slightly different. Hedonism claims that a life is good to the extent that it is filled with pleasure and free from pain, and consequentialists, while not disagreeing with hedonism, would say that the pleasure and freedom from pain depends entirely on the actual or expected results. The desire theory claims that something is good for you if, and only if, it satisfies your desires and because it satisfies your desires, while consequentialists would say that those desires should improve overall well-being, and not to be selfish about it.
Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequencialism focuses on consequences as the most important factor in the decision making process (Donaldson 3). For consequentialists, the motives of an act are not as important as what comes out of it. Utilitarianism is one of the branches of consequentialism. Utilitarianism believes in the greatest good for the number (Donaldson 3).
Hedonism is a way of life that is rooted in a person’s experiences or states of consciousness that can be pleasant or unpleasant. The ethical egoist would state that a person should maximize his or her pleasant states of consciousness in order to lead the best life. Act Utilitarian on the other hand would state that these enjoyable states of consciousness should be maximized by one’s actions for everyone in order to attain the most utility. On the surface, this appears to be a good way to live, however, as Nozick states through his example of the experience machine that living life as a hedonist can be detrimental. It is a hollow existence that will ultimately be unsatisfactory because of the lack of making real decisions and relationships which are important to living a fulfilling life.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism essentially is the theory that good is what causes a person pleasure and evil is what causes a person pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes titled Act Utilitarianism because it focuses on individual actions A “right” action, according to Betham, is one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Where a “wrong” action is one that would cause more pain than pleasure. Before a person commits an action, they should look at the consequences that it can have on the individual and others. Hedonic Calculus is a method in determining how much pleasure or pain an action will elicit. Hedonic Calculus consists of seven criteria including intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. Each criteria can be given a score between -10 (worst pain) to +10 (highest pleasure). The action becomes ethical and moral if there is an overall net happiness for everyone that is affected. An acti...
Weijers, Dan. "Hedonism." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., 8 Aug. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2013. .
Over time, the actions of mankind have been the victim of two vague labels, right and wrong. The criteria for these labels are not clearly defined, but they still seem to be the standard by which the actions of man are judged. There are some people that abide by a deontological view when it comes to judging the nature of actions; the deontological view holds that it is a person's intention that makes an action right or wrong. On the other hand there is the teleological view which holds that it is the result of an action is what makes that act right or wrong. In this essay I will be dealing with utilitarianism, a philosophical principle that holds a teleological view when it comes the nature of actions. To solely discuss utilitarianism is much too broad of topic and must be broken down, so I will discuss specifically quantitative utilitarianism as presented by Jeremy Bentham. In this essay I will present the argument of Bentham supporting his respective form of utilitarianism and I will give my critique of this argument along the way.
Bentham devised The Greatest Happiness Principle that states “that actions are immoral if they are not the action that appears to maximise the happiness of all the people likely to be affected; only the action that appears to maximise the happiness of all the people likely to be affected is the morally right action.” Bentham used his happiness principle to help decide how legal matters would go and created the Hedonic Calculus which was a way to calculate the amount of pleasure that would be derived from an action. There were multiple factors that were taken into account when using the Hedonic calculus but generally which ever decision yielded the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people would be the decision
A moral theory should be one’s guide when deciding whether an action is either good or bad, wrong or right. There are many types of moral theories to choose from, but we will only focus on two: utilitarianism and ancient hedonism. These theories meet in their pursuit of something greater, for hedonism it’s personal pleasure while for utilitarianism it is happiness for the greater number of people. In this work, the differences and the similarities of utilitarianism and hedonism will be pointed out after explaining them separately.