A moral act is one that produces the most amount of happiness

This question has paraphrased Jeremy Benthams Principle of Utility, upon which the ethical theory of utilitarianism is founded.

The principle of utility is when the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its utility or usefulness. Usefulness refers to the amount of pleasure or happiness caused by the action – hence it has a teleological ethical theory which determines a good act by the ends it brings about. ‘An action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number’ Bentham. Circumstances Bentham laid down with this were the greatest good is the greatest pleasure o happiness and the least pain or sadness, and the greatest number are the majority of people. The ends to Benthams theory identifies are those with the most pleasure and the least pain. However Benthams theory is democratic, because the pleasure can’t be for one person alone. When faced with a moral dilemma, Bentham argued that one should chose to act in a way that brings about the maximum possible happiness for the most people. Although, the possible consequences of different possible actions must be measured clearly to establish which option generates the most pleasure and the least pain. To measure these results, Bentham proposed the Hedonic Calculus.

The Hedonic Calculus weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best option. It considers seven factors:

1. Its intensity.
2. Its duration.
3. Its certainty or uncertainty.
4. It propinquity or remoteness.
5. Its fecundity.
6. Its purity.
7. Its extent.

In the Hedonic Calculus Bentham considers how strong the pain or pleasure is, whether its short-lived or long-life and how likely it is that there will be pain or pleasure. He considers how intimate the pain or pleasure is and how likely it is to lead to more of the same, the extent to which might be a combination or pleasure and pains and lastly, the number of people affected. The balance of pleasure and pain is compared with those of other options and the best result is determined. The action that leads to this best consequence is the morally right one to pursue. However the Hedonic Calculus has its impracticalities, for example the hedonic calculus is difficult to use in practice and could result in the oppression of the minority e.g the sadistic policeman. By this I mean it is impractical to analyse every act. Aswell as this a repeated ‘greatest good’ act could have a long term negative. Alisdair Maclintyre (short history of ethics) says that pleasure is not necessarily an ‘ought’. Justice should be included in a persons decision making and some pleasures such as excessive eating are bad for you where as some pains such as physical training or surgery are good for you.

Mill maintained that the well being of the individual was of the greatest importance and that happiness is most effectively gained when individuals are free to pursue their own ends, subject to rules that protect the common good of all. While mill accepted the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number he was concerned about certain difficulties involving such circumstances as the sadistic policeman. If the greatest good for the greatest number was purely quantitative, based on quantities of pleasure and pain caused, what would stop a persons pleasure from being completely extinguished if the majority gained pleasure form that act? In order to over come this issue Mill distinguished between higher and lower order pleasures, and the higher pleasure were qualitative better and more important than the lower pleasures. “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” Mill.

Although all of this seems to make sense I believe that his theory also has many flaws including the fact that who can objectively decided what a high/low order pleasure is? The definition is not clear enough and is to subjective do the fact It does not take into consideration human differences and individuality. For example what one person may class as a higher order pleasure, another may class as a lower. Also people often opt for ‘lower’ order pleasures with no regard for the greater good e.g drinking, junk food, extreme sports. Together with this why can we not experience both higher and lower order pleasures? Lowe order pleasure can sometimes produce greater benefits than higher ones.

Peter Singer (practical ethics) agreed with the principle of utility but posited a person’s preference needs to be considered in deciding what the ‘greatest good’ is for that person. He believed a moral world is one in which as many peoples preferences as possible are met. If your preferences impose on another’s preferences, then preference is given to the greatest number. Singer would follow a ‘rule’ approach to issues such as the sadistic policeman. He also believes that the preferences of all sentient beings need to be considered. Here he is talking about all creatures with the ability to make conscious decisions including humans and animals. My issues here are the fact that is doesn’t matter what the preferences are. Also some preferences could be considered wrong by many people, for example self harm.

All in all I think we have to ask ourselves, does a moral act come down to happiness or duty? For example if you had the choice of saving two strangers from a burning building or your closest family member, which one would you chose? Also the statement asks us to discuss ‘the most amount of happiness’, is it relevant to discus an amount of happiness? I think not due to personal preferences.