Jeremy Bentham was an empiricist, who was a contemporary of Immanuel Kant. His view was
that we only have knowledge through sensations. His dates -- 1748 --1832. Here we see an image
of Jeremy Bentham. This is him in the Museum of London -- literally is him! He had his body
taxidermized, and in that process, his head shrunk. So, they had to recreate the head with
the wax face, and here we see it. Only pleasure can or should have value. When that principle
was put forward at that time, it was an outrage to people. They thought that it was a godless
philosophy. How could it possibly be that more and more pleasure could be moral? And in fact,
some went so far to say that this was a pig philosophy, and on a scale of one to ten,
this had to be a ten! John Stuart Mill reformed the notion of pleasure after his mentor, Bentham.
And he said that there were higher and lower pleasures. And what he meant by that was we must
give pleasures of the intellect, of the feeling, and imagination, and of the moral sentiments,
a much higher value as pleasures, than those of mere sensation. I think he suffered from beach
guilt. His principle was the greatest good for the greatest number. And what do you mean by
"good?" Well, he's saying that you have full knowledge of all the choices available to you
(perhaps questionable), but he does assume you have full knowledge of all choices, and that all
the choices can be measured empirically. They can be calculated. That also might be questionable,
but you should choose so that you satisfy others as well as yourself. And if you can't do that,
then your choice should be neutral with respect to others, but you should satisfy yourself. And
you surely should not choose something that is going to decrease the satisfaction of others.
This raises the question of distribution versus quantity of utility. And in order to explain what
we mean by this, there's this matrix. We have two actions: Act 1 and Act 2. And in first action, two
people are affected and each person receives 200 units of utility and that's a total of 400. Now,
in the second action, there are 50 people who are affected, but they only receive 7 units of
utility per person, for a total of 350. If you do not consider the distribution of utility,
why you would choose the first act! However, when you consider the distribution and how
much more equally goodness is distributed, you must, thereby, choose Act 2. The moral standard
is this in utilitarianism -- do those actions that produce the most utility, or at least as
much utility as any other action, provided the utility is equally distributed. Furthermore,
one must make the distinction between Act and Rule utilitarianism. In the first,
it is the action itself that is evaluated. And let me give you a good example here. Suppose
you're my student and studying logic, which is a rather difficult class for some people. You come
to every class, you come to every tutorial, you do every assignment that was ever given,
and when it comes test time, you still can't make past 20 percent. Well, this is your last class
before a degree in nursing, and if you don't get this course, you don't get your degree. And what's
more? You're a single parent! And you won't be able to put your children through college,
if you don't get your nursing degree. Well, I as your professor, realize all of this,
and think to myself, "What does it matter if that person doesn't know quantitative or propositional
logic, but goes on to be a nurse -- a very good nurse, goes on to educate your children,
and does a lot of good in the world? I pass you! Because I want the greatest good for the greatest
number of people. Let's look at that same decision from the rule utilitarian point of view. By
passing a person who is not meriting of a grade, I have to elevate it to the status of a social
rule -- it is morally permissible to pass a person without merit. That means grades in the society do
not reflect merit. So, you're in your 40s now, and you have a heart attack. You want to go to
the best physician possible to get better, to ensure that your surgery goes well. But remember,
grades do not reflect merit. And another of you, perhaps you've been charged with killing someone,
but you're innocent! And you need a good lawyer to prove that! So you search, and you find someone.
But remember, grades do not reflect merit. When we elevate the action to the level of a rule,
we find that the rule itself does not produce the greatest good for the greatest number. And so,
the society and all the norms would fall apart, if it were true that grades do not reflect merit.
Act utilitarianism, thus, judges the morality of an action by whether the action itself produces
the most utility, or at least as much utility as any other action. Rule utilitarianism,
on the other hand, judges the morality of an action by whether the moral rule,
presupposed by the action, if generally followed, would produce the most utility, or at least as
much utility as any other rule. The duties to self under this theory of philosophy is that a person's
choices must be governed by those actions or rules that lead to the greatest total utility. The duty
to others are that murder, theft, or fraud do not promote the general welfare. So, those kinds of
actions are completely excluded. Consideration of utility in a general calculus is based upon
a person having interests and preferences. So for example, in this particular philosophy,
abortion would be morally permissible because it is thought that the fetus, being unborn,
has no interests or preferences. A utilitarian would consider the welfare of future generations,
for they must come into the general calculus as well. And likewise, animals must be considered in
the calculus because they feel pain and pleasure. They are sentient creatures. The social ethics
implied by this philosophy are a democratic government, maximum degree of individual
freedom -- especially in the realm of ideas, and some utilitarians argue for an extensive welfare
system. Some argue that the utilitarian ideal, if it were radically implemented,
would be the Marxist ideal, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."