OCR Religious Studies A Level - Utilitarianism Essay Example

Understanding Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism follows the principle of utility - judging actions as right when they create the greatest happiness. As a teleological theory, it focuses on consequences rather than fixed rules. Jeremy Bentham developed act utilitarianism, believing all humans are governed by "the sovereign masters of pleasure and pain." His hedonic calculus helps quantify happiness by measuring intensity, duration, certainty, and other factors to reduce subjectivity.

A key strength of Bentham's approach is its democratic nature through the general benevolence principle - everyone's happiness counts equally. This makes utilitarianism useful for governments seeking to maximize happiness for their citizens. It's neither selfish nor completely selfless, as it prioritizes the greatest good for the most people.

However, Bernard Williams highlights a significant problem through his supererogation argument: utilitarianism seems to demand too much self-sacrifice. For example, comfortable British citizens should theoretically give away all possessions to help those in developing nations - but this isn't realistic or sustainable for most people.

Think about it: We all naturally weigh consequences when making decisions. Ever chosen between studying or going out with friends based on what would make you happier in the long run? That's utilitarian thinking in action!

Critics also point out that as a consequentialist theory, utilitarianism requires predicting future outcomes - an impossible task. This places heavy responsibility on decision-makers and allows too much freedom that could potentially lead to harmful choices, especially given how subjective happiness can be.

Mill's Rule Utilitarianism and Educational Value

J.S. Mill proposed rule utilitarianism as an improvement to Bentham's theory. Instead of calculating happiness for every decision, rule utilitarianism establishes general rules that typically maximize happiness. This comes in two forms: strong rule utilitarianism (always follow the rules) and weak rule utilitarianism (generally follow rules but break them when necessary).

Rule utilitarianism makes moral education more accessible. Children can more easily understand clear rules like "don't lie" rather than complex calculations using the hedonic calculus. This addresses a key weakness of act utilitarianism - that it requires high intellectual capacity to predict outcomes and quantify pleasure and pain.

Williams' example illustrates the challenge: if hiding Jews during Nazi Germany, should one lie when questioned? Strong rule utilitarians would have to tell the truth if they follow "never lie" - causing enormous harm. Weak rule utilitarians would likely lie, but this undermines the simplicity of having fixed rules.

Remember: Most of us make pre-commitments to certain actions before we're in difficult situations. You don't wait until you're being pressured to decide whether you'll cheat on an exam!

The subjectivity of utilitarianism poses another challenge. People experience pleasure differently - one person might find intense happiness in eating ice cream while another might not. This makes universal "right" decisions difficult to determine. However, even subjective decisions will usually maximize happiness for the individual making them.

Religious Perspectives and Critiques

Christianity offers mixed views on utilitarianism. Jesus seems to reject pure consequentialism when he says in Matthew 5:28, "everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart" - suggesting intentions matter more than consequences. Yet the Christian "golden rule" to "love your neighbour as yourself" reflects utilitarianism's general benevolence principle.

A serious critique is the tyranny of the majority problem. Utilitarianism could justify removing basic rights from minorities if it pleased the majority - for example, criminalizing homosexuality if most people supported it. John Rawls' justice argument explains this weakness: utilitarianism cares only about the quantity of happiness, not who receives it.

Bernard Williams' brutalism argument highlights another concern: no action is forbidden if it maximizes overall happiness. For example, murdering a homeless person to donate organs to save six children would be justified under strict utilitarianism, despite clearly violating our moral intuitions and legal systems. Rule utilitarianism helps address this by establishing rules against such acts.

Challenge yourself: Think about a difficult moral decision you've faced. How might a utilitarian approach have helped or hindered finding the right solution?

Despite these criticisms, utilitarianism's greatest strength may be that its intentions are always good. As Bentham argued, we're all naturally driven by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Utilitarianism is also universal - not tied to any specific religion or culture, making it accessible to everyone regardless of background.

In conclusion, while utilitarianism has significant weaknesses, particularly in its pure form, it remains helpful for moral decision-making. Rule utilitarianism addresses many concerns while maintaining focus on consequences rather than simply following rules without considering their real-world effects.